Logical vs. Behavioral Scumhunting

[Raging Rabbit]

This issue of my game philosophy is being debated in quite a few games of mine atm. The main purpose of this thread is to center all these issues in one thread, thereby preventing any actual games from degrading to irrelevant discussions. I also think it's a real interesting for people who aren't in games with me as well, and generally want as much feedback as possible from basically anyone. I greatly appreciate your response.

My basic thinking is as follows:

Scum have two goals in using their logic - pretend to think protown, and cause to town to mislynch. At some point, they'll have to compromise one in favor of the other.
They have only on behavioral goal, however, which is to act as pro town as they possibly can.

Logical scumhunting is therefore inherently more efficient, because it capitalizes on mistakes scum are eventually bound to make.

Logical scumhunting also has the considerable benefit of improving the town's quality of play - by suspecting any use of bad logic, you're basically forcing everyone to think twice before making a play. This also makes it far more difficult for scum to "accidentally" make bad plays.

I'm not completely discounting behavioral scumhunting, of course - it can certainly be useful in certain situations, but it's by far the less efficient method imo. It seems to derive almost completely from intuition, which is very different from player to player, and it's therefore extremely difficult to convince the town with a behavioral case. There's also always the chance you're just wrong about the guy, especially if you've never played with him before. Psychological guidelines simply don't apply to everyone. I think it's seldom easy for a town to correctly lynch scum on purely behavioral reasoning, probably almost only happens in the case of serious blunders.

Well, what do you think?

[Raging Rabbit]

Wow, blatant advertising is more useful than I thought...

I think that if you're prefacing a thread with "This issue of my game philosophy is being debated in quite a few games of mine atm," then it probably constitutes game-relevant discussion and should be pushed off until after those games are completed.

That's exactly what I originally said, but this thread is mith-approved.

Can you define "Logical Scumhunting" and "Behavioural Scumhunting" for me?

Sure thing. Note that actual plays fit in both categories.

Logic - the reasoning behind plays.
LSHing - hunting based on faulty logic/awkward logical patters.
Behavior - everything that isn't logic.
BSHing - hunting based on gut/intuition/whatever, which is based on behavior.

As scum, I think it is generally unwise to use faulty logic (aka logical fallacies) to lead the town astray

That'd mean giving up causing the town to mislynch in favor of looking innocent, to an extent.

Good scum groups should be able to combine these approaches.

Exactly

. The rest of your post is basically telling me things aren't so simple, which I realize perfectly well. That doesn't effect my basic theory, though.

Is the person more likely to use logical fallacies or gentle nudging as scum?

Said "gentle nudging" is often the same as logical fallacies, only cleverer. It's really hard to consistedly cause the town to mislynch using only good logic.

Does a certain player never vote for a certain other player?

Why would anyone ever do that?

Townies use plenty of bad logic, perhaps more than scum.

Town and scum have the same average intelligence. Scum sorta

have

to use bad logic, though. While my method will obvioulsly get lots of stupid townies lynched (which has the additional benefit improving the general level of play), I think it's the most efficient in the long run.

I'm not sure either logical or behavioral scumhunting works at all, for the average player. What does work is 1) cop investigations and 2) catching people in bad role claims.

If that's the case, why not just random lynch and wait for the cop to save your sorry asses?

Er, what's wrong with using both?

Nothing, which is why I said I'm not completely discounting BSHing by any means. I'm just trying to explain why I think it wise to relay more heavily on LSHing.

I was probably unclear in my first post here; I didn't mean to say they're not tactics you should use, just that they probably won't work (compared to analyzing the night game).

Of course they're not infallible, but you have to realy on

something

other than random lynching/power roles to get you through the days and there aren't any other options.

Ah, ok I get you now. If anything, I suspect the issue boils down to objective vs. subjective reasoning, and you most certainly need some of each to get anywhere.

This thread only discusses subjective reasoning, though.

The way RR does it is the wrong way and the way Twito does it is the right way. 'Nuf said.

Thank you for your blazing insight.

[Raging Rabbit]

Speculation and subjective opinions can't just get called out. The only way you can be 'caught' with those is by ending up wrong.

I disagree, they can certainly be judged to some (pretty high imo) extent.

It's possible that scum will shift one way or the other. But they most likely won't (and shouldn't) do so as a group. Each scum is going to go a certain way based on what's happened thus far and his preferences, or possibly based on a busing plan.

What I'm saying is that scum

in general

are more likely to go with bad logic than town. Busing can be recognized for what it is when based on shaky logic. Scum who decide to completely sacrifice mislynching in favor of looking innocent and manage to use good logic in a consistent manner are likely to make it to the end game alone, at which point they'll hopefully be pegged by some power role. And even if they don't, it's still far from a guaranteed win.

The catch, though, is that the scum acting town are very hard to call out without using subjective reasoning yourself.

The sole purpose of this thread

is

to discuss subjective reasoning.

Gentle nudging isn't a fallacy on the scum's part... it's a fallacy on the town's part if they begin to accept it.

Contradictory much?

If that person is their scumbuddy.

So that person is their scumbuddy on a regular basis?

It does sound stupid, but people actually do so on a rather regular basis.

Said people are really stupid and hurt every town they're in.

Mafia isn't simple enough to be balanced by equations or anything like that. Good scum are going to be subtle. Really good scum will not use fallacies themselves, but rather make townies use them.

I never said my method was infallible or workable by some equasion. The only way to tell other's "level" of logic is to judge it subjetively yourself. Clever scum can make that really, really hard. I do consider this the best method in the long run, though.

About the initial question; if you're town, and you can, it's usually better to put together a logical case against someone then not, although not always right away. It's better to lay out in great detail why you think the person's scum; that way, you might convince others, or others might be able to convince you you're wrong (which is always a possibility), and it also helps everyone else see what you're thinking which hopefully will help them see that you are pro-town

So you basically agree, but also think you should explain your own logic to the best of your ability, which I also agree with. Why not always right away, though?

On the other hand, that's not always an option, and you should listen to your hunches and gut feelings, especally on day 1.

I never said you shouldn't, just that logic is generally better.

That is, unless you're one of those people that always seems to have a "hunch" that I'm scum for no real reason, then you should ignore it.

I actually read the original Kingmaker and was pretty sure you were scum from like early day 2, you I'll remember that.

[Raging Rabbit]

Instead of saying looking at voting and speaking patterns "doesn't work", I guess I should have said "doesn't work well enough to do much more than compensate for the advantage over random lynching that scum gain through their bandwagon manipulations". That does make a difference.

Are you

seriously

advocating comletely random lynching?

It's not the game design, it's just that in my experience people are much dumber about claiming than they are about voting/speaking. For example, they'll state the wrong number of night targets or claim something that contradicts the flavor.

Claiming is a last resort to avoid a lynch. People shouldn't be forced to resort to that unless there's a strong logical/behavioral case against them.

BTW, Rabbit, I've never knowingly used bad logic as scum. I don't know if townie logic is worse than scum logic, but if it is, it's because scum are more careful.

You're missing my point. Scum don't knowingly use crap logic or anything, but their lynching targets are biased so they tend to compromise it.

I suspect some people behave scummy when they're town just so they seem less scummy when they're actually scum. I suspect this explains part of the lurking behavior on this site.

Said people are really selfish and hurt the game in general.

[Raging Rabbit]

MBL - Your post basically puts a lot of variations into the equasion. While I can try to incorporate each and every one into my theory, I'd rather not atm. You haven't commented on my actual point, though.

You can pull Perry Masons and lay traps for your enemies.

What's Perry Masons?

And of course, since no one's getting paid for winning or losing, the only thing that really matters is that you're having fun doing it. So use your own style.

While I splice my posts with lots of sarcasm and generally try to take a light approach to make the game funner, I think everyone should play to win.

[Raging Rabbit]

No, I'm not advocating that at all.

But if neither LSHing nor BSHing work, what exactly do you suggest to do other than relay on power roles?

Mostly right; how does that contradict anything I said?

You implied the

only

way to tell alignments is to judge claims, I'm saying claims are just a last resort and you shouldn't get to a point when you're able to judge them unless you had a pretty strong case in the first place.

Their lynching targets don't have to be biased; they bus each other sometimes.

Sometimes

is the key word here, and I like the idea of forcing scum to bus each other more often. Less bad guys that way.

Even if they don't, the bias only forces them to use slightly worse logic.

I'd use a stronger word than "slightly", but that's a stupid argument I don't want to get into. The important thing is that their bias effects their logic.

My gut feeling is town logic isn't better than scum logic on average, but I don't know.

But your

logic

just told you it is, and I just showed why it's better than your gut.

I guess this sort of analysis would work better if people posted more content. How am I supposed to judge scumminess from, for example, one random vote, three off-topic comments, and three on-topic oneliners?

That's exactly why I try to argue with people a lot - gets them to post more content and gives them many and more chances to screw up.

[Raging Rabbit]

I usually use my gut. Instinct is great. After a while, you get an amazing instinct for Mafia.

Suppose you do have this incredible gut, how do you convice the town to follow you on a gut attack?

There is no one way to catch scum. It is the goal (catching scum), not the way you do it that's important.

If that was true, random lynching would be the way to go. One way can be more efficient than another, and you haven't really commented on my main point yet.

[Raging Rabbit]

You should do whatever catches you the most scum. For some people that's logic, for some it's gut, for most it's a mixture.

What I'm trying to do here is compare methods on a somewhat objective base, though.

[Raging Rabbit]

Whichever method is better objectively is irrelevant, is what I'm saying.

You're definitely allowed to think that, but then I don't really see what you're doing in this thread.

[Raging Rabbit]

Logical analysis is 100% subject to WIFOM if you try to analyze it. As an example, let's say my two scumpartners in a Mountainous game play a sketchy d1 and d2. I'm quick to call them on it, they get lynched, and I look like a hero and super-pro-town player. For the rest of the game, I focus on making terse, logical statements that are irrefutable. How are you going to catch me?

If

you manage to pull off such a thing, and in the vast majority of games that won't happen, the town will hopefully have at least 2 other guys about as "confirmed" as you. It would

then

be time to reread the thread and look for the kind of "subtle, situational scumtells" you talk about in your second paragraph.

Again, I'm not discounting BSHing by any means. I'm just trying to set up priorities.

[Raging Rabbit]

Take Zindie and Pooky for example. I find them using gut much more than most. They are usually pretty succesful at catching scum (most of the time).

Take Seol and MBL also. They usually are more along the lines at taking people's logical fallacies to the max and scrutinizing peoples posts. It works pretty good also.

You're just lisiting some good players who do well at each method, that doesn't really say much. High playskill helps catch mafia on a more regular basis, obviously. I never said mine was the only viable course of action.

I came up with a pretty simple logic for why LSHing is somewhat inherently better than BSHing (just realized this could be read as bullshitting, and I want to be the first to claim to joke ), and I'd appreciate if in future responses people would try stating their opinions on what I'm actually saying rather than add more variables to the equation. I know I'm oversimplifying things, but simplification is the best way to judge logic systems.

[Raging Rabbit]

And I'm saying your priority should be finding scum.

What makes you think this isn't exactly what I'm doing?

QFT. Probably if someone was attacking someone else in a game about "HEY YOU'RE BSHing, You shouldn't be doing that!" I'd vote them for trying to cast suspicion on them for craplogic.

I would never, ever do that. I would view his case as somewhat inherently inferior to any LSHing cases, and since it's much harder to convince people with BSHing cases anyways it's very unlikely I'd be convinced unless some goon just fucked up bigtime, though.

[Raging Rabbit]

*smacks*

I happen to have heard this directly from a philosophy proffesor, so you'd do well to elaborate.

Firstly, you are using the same "goal" (thinking/acting pro-town) as both a logical play and a behavioral play. But "thinking pro-town" is a behavioral tendency which can thereby affect their logic, so I disagree that it is a "logical goal".

While you're messing with my definitions pretty well here, this has nothing to do with my actual argument.

Looking for underlying motives for why somebody says something or pushes on somebody is central to gut.

That

is

gut.

1.) Gut can be [unwittingly] founded in logic.
2.) Logic can be [unwittingly] founded on gut.
3.) Townspeople also make logical mistakes.
4.) Scum also can make logical arguments: simply because somebody is "logical" at all times, it does not make them town, which is what your stance seems to advocate.

All 4 are correct, of course, but I still find my way of thinking superior in the long run and none of these downirght contradict it.

Also, damn that Perry Mason.

Who exactly is he, incidentally?

[Raging Rabbit]

RR-Talk to me when you've finished 10-20 games.

Seriously, you're making fairly big assumptions/declarations without the experience to back them up.

While you may very well be right here, my experienced friend, I don't see how it stops you from totally pwning my actual logic just for argument's sake. Nobody else has yet to do that, actually, so I think there's this tiny chance I may be on to something here.

No offense intended to you Philosophy professors.

While I only happen to know one, he's a really cool guy and I trust him completely.

Well, if I really think someone is scum, I won't always explain why right away; sometimes I can get different reactions, or see who defends the person or who follows my lead, or just because sometimes an argument is more persuasive if given in parts.

But yeah, I basically agree. That being said, gut and logic should follow each other; if your gut is telling you someone is scum, you should go back and try to figure out why.

I see, you're talking trojan horses and such. Now that I think of it, I definitely agree.

Sometimes, but logic only gets you so far.

Of course.

Thoks of the world: before condescending my newbishness, you should probably note that Yos and myself seem somewhat in agreement atm.

Though I haven't done it on MafiaScum, I have posted "Daykill: <<PLAYER>>" without actually having a Daykill, only to have them complain and say something like "Go Mafia!"


That may have been one of my proudeset moments playing Mafia ever.

This makes me see a certain recent play in a somewhat different light, btw.

[Raging Rabbit]

It's not worth my time for me to analyze your logic in this post. I have various things I'd prefer to do.

While I admit to finding you somewhat patronizing before, its always nice to be so completely disproven.

Especially since I believe that you'll reconsider once you see the impact of your play in various games.

I'll again remind you that Yos and myself seem to be in somewhat of an agreement. Also, as "EmpTyger 2.0", you may want to take me a bit more seriously.

(Have you even finished a game here yet?)

While I haven't yet, not here, I'm suddenly having strong flashbacks of silly adults telling me I can't possibly watch R-Rated films at age 12. They were just as wrong.

I suspect that there are a significant number of people for whom this paragraph is true.

I disagree. I happen to think a strategy thread that made it to 3 pages this quickly definitely makes some interesting points, and while

some

others may share your admirable approach, I highly doubt the only reason I haven't been pwnd yet is that this is a newbie hating community (which I'm not saying it is, since I'm getting a lot of helpful responses from the such of PJ and Yos).

I do think this is useful thread, since there is a place to analyze intuitive versus logical playstyles. But you are using this thread as a soapbox to push your point of view

This happens to be

my

thread, and I believe myself to have a perfect right to "soapbox" my logic until someone finds the common decency to pwn me.

...rather than trying to logically understand why people use various methods, how one can further develop logical or intuitive skills, or how one can try to manipulate protown players who focus solely on logic or behavior

I just don't see how the fact I also want my own logic answered makes you think I'm can't possibly be trying to achieve other goals as well.

Edit

: the "my thread!!1" part is complete and utter BS and I'd like to congratulate Thok for annoying me enough to make me lose my judgement skills so completely.

[Raging Rabbit]

PJ, first of all, I honestly like your style. It feels like the "argument club" I never got to be in since Israel happens to suck.

Appeal to Silence.

Simply because nobody has "pwned your logic" doesn't make it right.

Appeal to Knowledge in Logic. I never ever said it makes me right, I just want someone to finally pwn my logic. In fact, I'd like to personally invite you to do just that.

Especially seeing as you are essentially requiring people to use LOGIC to combat your points. You can always just say "Aha! But you're using a logic against me, so you must (on some level) agree!"

This statement is just like religious extremists arguing with science on the basis of discrediting sensory input/the induction principle. While it can't theoritically be argued with, it's obviously completely besides the point and I suspect you knew that.

Appeal to Irrelevant Authority.

blah blah blah

Advanced Logic Course!!1

I see.

I unfortunately have only so far gotten to take the Basic Logic Course, so you may consider actually trying to explain yourself rather than argue whose got the bigger dick.

Appeal to Authority.

Of course, but Thok is to blame for that one by completely and utterly appealing to his own authority. I just answered one demagogic argument with an equally good one.

Furthermore, I think Yos2 is more advocating that both serve their own purposes, and that one is not inherently better than the other, which does go against your position, rather than supporting it.

Well, I'll leave it to Yos himself to actually answer this.

A. Behavioral tendencies may (and you cannot effectively argue otherwise) trump "logical goals", despite the fact (according to you) there are "fewer" of them.

For example, you might have 2 Red Ants up against 1 Anteater. More does not necessarily mean superiority. Appeal to Numbers.

Appeal to Ants. While I yet again agree with your saying there may be exceptions, the key word here is

may

. I'm trying to talk about averages in the very long run here.

Trying to think pro-town as scum is a behavioral clue to hone in on (which may affect logic) when scum-hunting.

I read that sentence 3 times and still don't really understand what you're trying to say. Please rephrase.

I won't be responding after this. It's likely bad for my health.

Appeal to Exotic Diseases. Since this is really important to me, I urge you to reconsider. (Honestly though, please respond. I'll really appreciate it.)

Edit:

while still somewhat amusing imho, this comment is

way

too offensive for no good reason. PJ, I sincerely apologize.

[Raging Rabbit]

I suggested that for your tendancy to have really long posts and your stubbornness. Also, I can take you as seriously as I choose to, indepedent of what I think of EmpTyger. You are similar, but definately not identical. Appeal to stretched analogy?

Appeal to... Nah, just general misinfomation. Since you never ever told me your reasons for cosidering me "EmpTyger 2.0" in the past, one has to wonder just how was I supposed to know that?

(Also, the Yos comment is an appeal to a person who it's been pointed out doesn't really agree with you.)

A'ight, I'll clarify. I agree with almost every comment made by Yos in this thread, and don't think any of them conflict with my basic logic at all. He's free to disagree, of course.

Wait until the games are actually over to see if I am wrong.

That's exactly like telling the 12 year old to wait until he's a "responsible adult".

Your appeal to logic suggets you are using the scientific method.

I seem to recall my very first post using the vague expression

philoshopy

, though. My PJ analogy has about as much to do with the actual topic as Fire Ants.

Which means you use experiments to check your theories, and reassess given the experimental data. Each mafia game can be thought of an experiment to check if your playstyle is working. If your theory is wrong, you'll see it when you keep trying to lynch protown people rather than scum.

Insead of just going along with you here and getting PJ all annoyed again, APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.

I'm trying to have a phyloshopical discussion here, and while previous experience is definitely an asset it also clearly isn't a must. I believe some really experienced, high caliber people here has yet to comment on my actual

logic

, for exmaple, depite wasting quie a lot of time they claim to not have on somewhat empty posts.

A significant number of people aren't posting in the thread. Significant does not equal all.

Your point being?

...especially when gut tells us you are wrong.

See my earlier response to PJ, only I suspect he was only trying to tackle me by the wiseass approach while you acutally mean that.

You started the thread. That doesn't mean you get to control it. If I choose to start talking with PJ about the appropriate species and weight of trout that would be most effective to slap you with, we can do it.

Moreover, I think by trying to dictate things, you discourage those who disagree with you from posting; sure they might fight with you for a little, but then they'll decide to ignore you.

My main purpose in starting this thread is to get people to pwn my logic. Hasn't really happen yet, and I want as many as possible to either agree with me or "give up". While I have no qualms with others using this thread for their own purposes, I believe I'm perfectly within my rights to insist I get what I humbly consider a proper response.

It's not because you want your logic answered, as much as that you are focused on one specific viewpoint and come off as not wanting to expand the thread past that one viewpoint.

The main purpose of this thread is for people to show me what's wrong with this one viewpoint, so you're technically right.

Edit:

I was again being generally too offensive, but unlike PJ, Thok totally had it coming.

[Raging Rabbit]

Update: Thok and I have agreed upon Rainbow Trout. The weight of said trout, however, is yet to be decided.

While I don't know what a Rainbow Trout is, you're actually making an effort to argue with me (though I suspect you didn't explain yourself to the fullest in your 4h relevant point, and the earlier parts were mostly an "Advanced Logic Class!!1" attempt at dissing me), while Thok is just acting all self important. I therefore appreciate your comments a whole lot more.

[Raging Rabbit]

the purpose of threads is discussion. if it's an ego-trip to push your own agenda and batter anyone who disagrees with increasingly long posts that just become tedious to reply to, then it's not discussion - ie this is a bad thread.

You're right, I'm sorry, was annoyed with Thok.

My own personal objective was to get people to pwn my logic though, and thus far I mostly have what I consider to be Yos more or less agreeing, PJ's 4th point which I don't really get, and loads of other geuninely interesting general advice.

[Raging Rabbit]

If people geuinely just aren't interested in replying to what was my original intent, you're of course welcome to have a general strtategy discussion in which I'll be gald to participate.


I honetly apologize for my aggressive earlier comments, I was angry at Thok for condensending me, which generally annoys me more than anything else in the world probably. I suspect the highly cynical tone of my response to PJ was an unconsious attempt to get him to reply more, and I'd again like to politely request him to further explain his earlier 4th point which is of great interest to me. Once again, I appreciate everyone's (save Thok's) cooperation and am sorry for getting carried away in my general resentment for patronizing tones.


EDIT: I obviouly realize scum will be using this as an OMG SECRET WEAPON against me in future games, I'll work on building more of a protective shell there. If you ever want me to go for your throats in OT discussions, though, write posts like these:

RR-Talk to me when you've finished 10-20 games.

Seriously, you're making fairly big assumptions/declarations without the experience to back them up.

It's not worth my time for me to analyze your logic in this post.

I lost control and I'm honestly sorry. I'll try to never let this happen again, though the best way to make sure of that is for no one to post stuff like that at me ever again. I really don't want this thread to suffer, you should coninue discussing even if you don't care for my original question.

[Raging Rabbit]

Right. Calm, now. Thanks for your time, mith.

What I intended to approve was the "logical vs. behavioral scumhunting" discussion, not it's application to specific games. I didn't make myself particularly clear. As far as I can tell, this thread hasn't crossed the line to discussing ongoing games, but if it does, mith-approval or no, the thread will be closed.

I'm trying to confirm that it doesn't in ways you already know about, but otherwise definitely not.

Right from the start, your argument is based on opinion and speculation, not on evidence and logic. Unless you have done some sort of sophisticated research project on the effectiveness of behavioral scumhunting, this doesn't qualify as a logical argument at all.

I haven't, but I really feel the coflicting interests I've been trying to focus on has some level of truth in it. IMVHO, I haven't been proven wrong yet, though PJ seemed to haved an intreresting point I don't yet fully understand.

This is essentially what Thok was getting at, I think. I agree with him that you will have... if not a different viewpoint at least a more complete one, when you have been playing longer.

I disagree. Thok was basically discounting everything I said not becuase of it's pwnibility, but because

I

said it and I'm obviously "not worth his time". And I believe I already said that my opinion may very well change in the future, in fact I honestly still half expect someone to prove me wrong in a way I'll accept (I'm definitely able to deal with being wrong, would've never opened this thread otherwise).

(Somewhat offtopic, but his choice of a

condescending

tone is really no different than your choice of a

sarcastic

one.)

From your own choice of words, the difference should be very clear. Sarcasm isn't meant to be insulting, and while I'm often misinterperted I never ever go for that intenionally. You could say that, in a way, I'm sarcastically imitating the thing I hate the most. I'm a very complex personality, I know...

For what it's worth, though, what logic there is to pwn has pretty much already been pwned by pj. Perhaps the wiki would be a good starting place if you aren't familiar with logical fallacies.

As I said in the past, PJ's 4th point was the only relevant one and I personally consider his 3 others a somewhat poor assualt (I wasn't guilty of the first one, he himself used the second one in his attacking me on it and Thok was guilty of appealing to his own high authority). That 4th point might've been total pwnage, I'll only be able to tell once I actually know the full extent of what he was trying to say.

I'm perfectly familiar with all the wiki fallacies and quite a few more. While I'm admittedly not an Advanced Logic Course graduate, I did confess to having friends in rather high places who I believe know a bit more about said fallacies then even the likes of PJ (though he'll surely be accussing me of demagogy again here).

You know, I'm starting to think I play this game differently. Both you, IS and mith saw that I'm claiming cop and were so sure of yourselves that you just didn't care. I used to think IS was reckless, but so far it seems I'm the weirdo here for playing safely. I don't get it.

Point taken.


Again, I don't want this thread to burn for me getting really annoyed at Thok and taking some of it out on PJ's first 3 points in my response to him. While I'd still like to be pwned, I also want this thread to continue living on it's own behalf and if other people aren't interested in discussing that, that's fine with me. The one thing Thok was right about, but I was blinded by rage and only understood Seol's later post - mith owns mafiascum. I'm not king of this thread or anything, do as you like with it.

Peace and harmony to all living things. 8)

Edit:

mith m'boy, if you ever get to read this, could you link me the said minivitational please?

[Raging Rabbit]

If you replace "stupid" with "annoying", you'll arrive at a similarly incorrect conclusion. Players who use poor or zero logic are nearly as likely to be town as scum

What I humbly tried to show in this thread in why I believe that

nearly

to be a very meaningful word, and perhaps the best way of catching scum in this game of very limited information.

and players who exhibit terrible manners are slightly more likely to be town.

Or at least just as likely, yes.

Extensive experience as an FBI profiler teaches one that condescending tone accompanied by excessive use of "I", "me" and "my" bears a 57.4% correlation to an archetype of either Serial Killer, Troll or Politician. Two of which can and should be safely voted for on sight.

I now see why Thok is a disgrace to SKs everywhere. He's way too obvious.

Actually, it's not. The twelve-year-old has to wait, what, ten years? Whereas you'd have to wait a few months (and experience really is relevant, sorry but it is).

Its just as annoying to the 12 year old, though, and just as likely to only annoy him further. Why anyone would respond like that to my general curiosity and good intentions is a great mystery to me.

Please stop saying "pwn", this is not a Halo2 tournie

<3

And: this is not an adversarial debate forum. There are advesarial (I'm right/you're wrong) arguments in here, of course, but when discussing the games, people tend to have a more exploratory and discovery-based attitude here. "A is better than B prove me wrong" is not the format that they usually take place.

See, for example, Stoofer's "Bah" thread. I expressed surprise as disapproval in one of his games, so he asked the community what their thoughts were, and we all learned something. That's the usual template; people don't generally get "pwned" in mafia discussion threads (that's what general discussion's for!) but each thread is somehow educational and they very often raise completely new thoughts/ideas.
It's very groovy.

I totally get that now, but this thread was somewhat intended to be just that. While I have no qualms with people explaining their general approach here, I'd like it if someone could find it in his heart to "pwn" my logic, even if said someone just really wants me to stfu.

Any tips on how to manage this? Do you do this in larger games, or can you really manage to forget who your scumbuddies are in smaller games when there's only one or two of them?

I just realized the Memento guy probably has the potential of being the best scum ever (SK, really).

Stoofer in [7] had it right, imho: the idea that this is an either/or question is silly. Preferring what our raging friend is calling Logical to Behavioral is well and good in a vacuum, but in practice you have to catch the guilty- and clear the innocent- with the evidence you have, not the evidence you’d rather have. (Appeal to, uh, Rumsfeld.)

Heh, you do kinda sound like me. Cool. I also sympathaize with your title to a degree you can't possibly imagine.

While Stoof had it perfectly right, I suppose this is a "silly" discussion since I honestly do want to discuss my very abstract logic in a vaccum. My intentions are purely philoshopical, which is why I've been telling anyone who gave me examples to where my approach doesn't apply that he's being irrelevant. I thought peole would understand I aimed for complete abstractism, and was obviously wrong. I'm glad you agree with my logic in a vaccum (honesly though, is there anyway to discuss the game without referencing any

actual

games that

isn't

a vaccum?), and I'm glad Yos seems to agree as well. I urge PJ to please pwn my logic in a complete vaccum, if he can still think of a way.

Which is not to say I’m not sorely tempted to debate you just to provide Thok the spectacle.

The fact that Thok was being a pretensious meanie and really managed to annoy me here has a grand total of nothing to do with whether or not I'm right. You seem to be agreeing with me that I'm right in a vaccum, though, and if there's anything else in my posts you disagree with I strongly advise you to give in to temptation. I get the feeling I'll enjoy talking to a much more experienced guy who seems to think a lot like myself.

[Raging Rabbit]

*

Important note

* to anyone who didn't feel like reading my last post too closely, what I was trying to start here is a purely philosophical debate. The extent to which my logic being correct should change my actual approach to the game a

completely seperate subject

to be discussed later, but first I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not I have a point in a

*complete vaccum*.

You may also explain your general opinion if you don't feel like arguing with silly wabbits, of course. *

/Important Note

*


Mert, first of all, I personally see your comment as the most helpful one I got to date. Thanks.

There is a poker theorecian called David Sklansky who wrote in one of his books that the poker player who will consistently win the most is the one that thinks on a 'higher' level than his opponent. I'll expand on this using Mafia terms rather than poker ones, but the corrolation should be relatively obvious.


Level One Thinking - What is my role? How will I play this role?


Level Two Thinking - What is my role and what role do I think he has?


Level Three Thinking - What is my role, what role do I think he has and what role do I think he thinks I have?


Level Four Thinking - What is my role, what role do I think he has, what role do I think he thinks I have and what role do I think he thinks I think he has?
Ad infinitum.

This really caught my eye, and I'd love to discuss this more. Could you explain more on his reasoning for making that his "only" way of judging the winner, both in Mafia and in Poker? Is there no element of "quality" in the different levels of thinking?

Logic, as you define it would fall roughly into Level Two thinking, possibly slightly Level Three. It would be about knowing your role and working out, from "tells" what you think your opponent has - a logical deduction based on their actions.

I believe my so far very basic logic system can be incorporated into the higher levels, but would like to see whether or not it gets pwnd before wasting any further effort on it.

The thing is (and I think this is why you maybe found Thok so condescending) is that an experienced player would be thinking (possibly unknowingly or subconsciously) on a higher level, not only using logic to find out what they think you are but also conveying themselves in a way they believe you will find to be a certain role whilst simultaneously wondering what role you think you are portraying to him.

That experience and depth of thinking would look, to the lay-person, as "going on gut feeling", but could well be a fabulous, subconscious ball of logic that your brain hasn't been trained enough (through experience) to unravel.

Now I'm certainly not saying you're stupid here or anything (far from it), but I'm just saying that experience counts for logic that is above a less experienced person's understanding of it, which makes it appear random or based on gut feeling to those with less experience.

That may very well be so, I confess to be somewhat inferior to most other repliers here because of my lack of experience. I again want to stress I was trying to talk about

complete vaccums

, though.

I find Thok condescending not only for taking this "I'm a higher thinker! Bow down to me!" thing to extreme heights, but also for phrasing himself in a way I can only define as best method of annoying RR ever. While I'm very sorry for losing my balance, I still believe myself perfectly in the right for finding his actions incredibly annoying.

I hope I've made sense here, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me but when I read Sklansky's passage I immediately saw parallels with Mafia and this seems about as good a time as any to share them.

While I totally <3 you for making such a helpful comment, I'd really like you the explain that Sklansky guy more please.

On an entirely unrelated note, the phrase "Appeal to Ants" genuinely made me laugh out loud

Yay!

I'd like to use this opportunity to

offiaclly apologize to PJ

. While I still disagree with his first 3 points, I was being needlessly resentful to him on acount of my anger with Thok. PJ, it'll hopefully never repeat itself, I honestly like your posting style and would honestly like you to expand on your 4th point please. Thanks.

[Raging Rabbit]

After rereading the last page to add a late disclaimer of sorts to my earlier misguided posts, I just realized no one has yet to explain to this stupid noob exactly what does "Perry Masons" mean. Could someone please open my eyes?

[Raging Rabbit]

Isn't Perry Mason like a lawyer on a tv show? Or a cop maybe?

I thought it was some game term I was unfamiliar with, but that may very well be so. Israelis have no culture, you know...

[Raging Rabbit]

Do they not have Wikipedia either?

Is it a general social trend to know wikipedia by heart in the US? That's good to know...

(I probably should've searched the MS wiki and then maybe I'd have figured to search the real one, but I'm afraid I'm not cosious enough of the wiki's usefulness for some reason).

*checking*

80

novels?! Damn, how did I manage to miss the guy so completely?

By the way, I do plan to reply to your reply to me, but it might not be until tomorrow as I'm off to bed soon methinks.

I will never, ever forgive you for this.

(*

sarcasm

, and this is the last time I'm actually bothering with this*)

[Raging Rabbit]

Is it a general social trend to know wikipedia by heart in the US?

I wouldn't know, I'm not from the US.

Brits are way, way cooler anyways. <3

Edit: the above applies to Patrick as well.

[Raging Rabbit]

Nah. If you want cool go over to Scandinavia or Holland.

Us brits just have cool accents.

Scandinavians are da coolest, along with Brits (and Scottsmen, of course. Just listening to the accents in Trainspotting makes me go all warm inside. Irish as well. You get my drift).

While the Dutch are very fine n' all, being a Dutch citizen myself I'd feel agocentric for worshipping them.

[Raging Rabbit]

I take it you worhip me back then, with no relation to your undying love

[Raging Rabbit]

As I've also said before,

DAYKILL: CHEESEFAN

. Still lurve me?

[Raging Rabbit]

Actually you're supposed to consult Wikipedia when you want to know something. They don't expect you to memorize it. I don't know any Americans who have memorized it.

Of course

there aren't any Americans like that in "apocalyptic scene"...

[Raging Rabbit]

As I said, that's where the logic comes in.

I probably misuderstood then, I thought you were talking about pure gut - i.e "I've just got the mad nagging feeling X's scum".

In general, maybe, but it's all about specific cases.

Once again, my only intention is to speak

in general

. I'm not trying to discredit BHSing by any means.

Main point?

See first post.

It's not how you catch the scum that matters, as I said. It's that you do.

Of course. What's wrong with some purely philosophical discussion about the most theoritcally effiecient one, though? I'm not exactly sure how this should influence my actual strategies, and really don't wanna think about it too much until I'm sure enough in the basic logic.

You're Dutch? Amusing.

My grandfather died serving Holland in WW2, so you should really root for me in any future arguments to repay your countries debt.

Your location reminds me of a village near where I live.

You know what else we have where I live? MOUNTAINS! OMG, OCCASIONAL CHANGES IN TERRITORRY!!1

There is no one way to catch scum. Some scum can be caught by behavioural tells, some scum can be caught by logic.

To sum it up, I never ever said this wasn't true and it's not what I'm trying to figure out.

I work at Blockbusters

Your a servant of capitalism and general bad taste in cinema (and hopefully used to my puns by now).

Anyway, your general argument is somewhat valid, and as I said I'm not exactly sure what to do with my logic even once I'm sure it's unpwnable. Still, your way of thinking basically discredits any "meaningless" philoshopical discussion, and that's no fun imho. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you to be. I'm certainly not trying to get anyone to see the light and join the Bunny Aliance Of Logical Thinking or somethin'.

I somewhat disagree about Freud as well, but arguing with you on that will inevitably end in getting my but kicked since you know all the facts that supports your POV while I do not.

[Raging Rabbit]

I've heard he was a Mussolini supporter.

You know what else we have where I live? MOUNTAINS! OMG, OCCASIONAL CHANGES IN TERRITORRY!!1

Territory is for cavemen.

I suppose you (?) people are too high to care, anyways.

[Raging Rabbit]

Not in a mountainas game; in a vanillia mafia game, confirmed-ish townies end up dead fast.

Not too tricky. You'll again be suspected but this time for not dying and hopefully end up lynched.

To be clear, I don't agree with your premise that logical deductions are

always

better then gut.

That's because it isn't my premise. I'm saying because of the conflicting interests in scum logic, it's on average somewhat more effiecient than BSHing. Say you take a million purely logical lynches and a million purely behavioral (I know it doesn't work that way, this is

theoretical

), you'll get a higher percentage of correct logical lynches. I'm not that sure of this premise, though, which is why I've been trying to get someone to pwn it for quite a while now. Do you agree with that, incidentally?

(Sorry for making you my authority figure before, I really felt like answering Thok with something other than "logical fallacy!!1".)

In the most general sense, one theory is that the human brain has actually been evolved specifically for the purpose of better communication; better abilites to manipulate others and to tell when others are trying to manipulate you, better ability to cheat and to catch those who cheat, and better ability to lie and to catch liars. A sucesfull liar, cheater, or manipulater will tend to get more resources and better chances at reproduction then others and thus have an evolutionary advantage, while the ability to figure out when people are tryign to lie, cheat, or manipulate you also has an evolutinary advantage for you and for the group as a whole. In other words, your brain's been specicifically designed to notice little signs that a person might not be trustworthy, so you should pay attention to your instints.

While interesting, that's:
1. Like the evilest theory ever (and I'm perfectly familiar with Freud).
2. Finally explains how politicians are chosen nowdays.

I really don't have the brain science knowledge to know what else to make of it, unfurtonately.

I can't always trust my scum-dar, but I've got a lot of faith in my townie-dar.

Now this makes me honestly curious, since you certainly aren't the first to say this here IIRC. Have you noticed some sort of general patterns in either of your 'dars that always effect your feelings, or do you just go completely arbitarlily for whatever you happen to feel? Any other reason you could possibly think of why you trust to-dar better then scu-dar?

[Raging Rabbit]

Perhaps, but those kind of arguments rarely lead anywhere. It's basically "We all think you're town, and you're a good player, and you're not dead yet, so you must be scum!" "Or perhaps YOU'RE scum who didn't kill me just so you could make that argument!" Trying to guess why the scum killed certain people can occasioanlly be useful, but it's probably more prone to a rapid decay into WIFOM uselesness then any other source of information the town has.

But you were just saying in the later paragraph scum may sometimes get themselves lynched for acting "too pro town". We can keep going round and round here, but the scum's chances of being the lynch are about equal to anyone else's imo.

Well, no, not really. "Pure logic" lynches tend to take out the more illogical players more then the most scum at first, then in the second itereration you have to logically take that metagame stuff into account ("but person X is ALWAYS illogical even when town...").

Both have their place. Logic and keeping track of votecounts and such is quite useful for the town, simply because it makes it harder for scum to do whatever they want and forces them to do things like bus their partners in order to look more pro-town, and forcing the scum to act against their own interests helps the town's odds. However, once the scum start doing that, you sometimes have to take the next step and go after people who logically appear to be town. But if you go too far in that direction, then the scum get back to being able to basically do whatever they want and mindlessly bandwagoning townies and getting away with it.

It's a careful balance, and even if you could isolate one mode or the other I don't think it would be helpful; behavioral scumhunting works to some degree BECAUSE other people are doing logical scumhunting, and logical scumhunting works to some degree BECAUSE some other people are more focused on behavioral scumhunting.

This is probably the best "irrelevant" explanation for why I'm wrong yet. While it's certainly very convincing, I can't shake the feeling that the fact that in a purely theoretical sense, scum

are

more prone to make logical errors must have some sort of in-game merit, though. It does go a long way towards convincing me that even if I'm basically right, I'll have one heck of a hard time actually figuring out how to implement anything from it.

(shrug) Decent scum generally hide their tracks and mix their behavior with seemingly pro-town behavior pretty well, so the most I can usually count on my scumdar to say is "that person seems scummier then most", say, a 50/50 chance of being right instead of a 25/75 chance a random lynch might have (and that's on a good day). But if a person really feels pro-town to me, I tend to trust that more, and it's right more often.

Fair enough. Even if you

do

have some general guidlines, now that I think of it, telling them to some noob at a strategy thread where anyone can read them will go a long way towards making them useless.

[Raging Rabbit]

you sometimes have to take the next step and go after people who logically appear to be town.

And by the way, no one should ever be lynched for acting "too pro town".

Please explain what certainly looks like a contradiction here.

[Raging Rabbit]

Basically, you should never attack someone because they appear to be pro-town, that kind of overextended WIFOM stuff is just bad and usually will just make you lynch the most useful good guy in the game and at the same time encourage anti-town behavior. However, in some cases the right move is to attack someone dispite the fact that you have some logical reason to think they're pro-town, because you've got such a strong gut feeling that it over-rides the logic.

It shouldn't be something you do all the time, though; more often then not, if you've got a strong logical reason to think someone's pro-town, they are.

Ok, I see now. Thanks for the advice.

Earlier I told you that my degree was Psych major. Not exactly true. I was a Psychology-Philosophy double major (dual honours in the Brit vernacular).

You keep robbing me of my favorite debate topics by insisting to have a degree in them. Die.

What really matters in philosophy is rigourous thinking, and that includes knowing what you're talking about. Human nature, and so human interactions, are not predictable in a vacuum.
That's my claim, anyhow.

I don't claim to know the definition better than you do (NOT arrogant, see?). I do think that, whatever you want to call it, there's room for the completely abstract discussion I was going for. Call it "Robot Mafia", if you feel like it. Doesn't really matter.

Argument from design makes me chuckle

*Lightningbolt*

[Raging Rabbit]

Well, that may be the reason why you're attacking someone, but saying "I think X is scum" won't get you anywhere. Once you've got a gut feeling on someone, you should be able to go back in thread and build a case on it. If you can't find a case, then your gut may be wrong.

Agreed.

I'm afraid that it's impossible to generalize things like this. Mafia's a game of specifics. Every Mafia is different. What works in one game will fail in another. That's the charm of the game.

I'm trying to generalize the little bits and pieces I do see, though. I still don't feel my original logic has been pwnd yet.

Because it's impossible to determine the best way to catch scum. You'd have to go through every game and determine how the scum was caught and do a good quantitative analysis. However, that's a boatload of work. What you'll get if you post a thread like this is that everyone is going to post the way that works for them, specifically. And, well, they're all right. You should do it the way that works for you.

1. This is basically true.
2. I wasn't going on comprehensive research which will of course take about forever, I was going for the purely theoritical. Apparantly nobody here is interested in that. Again, though, imho I haven't yet been pwnd.

He was in the navy, I presume? Because our army didn't do a whole lot.

Yup. Funny story, there. He was taken captive on a Japanese ship along with a bunch of other Dutchmen, which the Americans drowned. Tons of the captives survived, but grandpa Volf, who was amongst the first to jump into the water, was knocked out by a Japanese rescue boat that hit him on the head and drowned. You should therefore

definitely

root for me in all arguments to make up for his humiliation.

What are mountains?

These little bulges in the ground that keep terrain interesting.

They're like RR's ego, but smaller and made of rock.

(RR's ego has year-round snow on the base and Martians dancing on the tip. Hezbollah once tried using it as an artillery platform, but found their missiles decayed into elementary particles before hitting the ground.)

LAWL.

Seriously though, since you seem to have read the V-Day thread, you should know I really don't suffer from overconfidence.

[Raging Rabbit]

I myself find that Behavioral Scumhunting works best because The goal of trying to look protown is much more difficult to do then to think protown, and most scum slip up on it.

When exactly is that? How can you tell?

Why would they have to? I disagree with this premise

Because their endgame goal is for them and their buddies to stay alive. Therefore, their logic is inherently biased.

Logic isn't the reasoning behind plays, it's the justification for plays

(Thanks for choosing to explain this in a nice tone, btw)

While you're right about this (and that's basically what I meant), the two are the same for the uninformed 3rd party. The

reasoning

behind plays is also dependent on alignment, and can only be judged post-game.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

The best way to judge logic is to ignore all the confusing little pretty words, and figure out what the other guy's actually saying.

The real problem with justification is that people make stuff up all the time in mafia.

Why would

any

pro town player ever want to make anything up?

The most consistent way to find scum, IMHAAO, is to find tendencies which scum exhibit more frequently than townies, and watch for those tendencies in players in the game.

A'ight, please name a few.

Are they - are they anything like windmills?

Not really, no. Not all mountains look the same.

[Raging Rabbit]

Therefore, their logic is inherently biased.

Here's where I disagree. How can someone's logic be biased? If I say "I'm gonna

Vote: Player X

because he's just bandwagonning without contributing his own thoughts", I could post the same thing whether I'm townie or mafia. Where does the bias come in?

If they guy you're voting is your scumbuddy (and assuming your logic is good), by doing that you're basically sacrifcing mislynching in favor of looking innocent. Again, conflicting interests.

[Raging Rabbit]

And if he's innocent?

If he's innocent and you have good logical reasoning to vote for him, you avoid the dillema. That doens't mean it doesn't exist, though.

[Raging Rabbit]

So if the town can, in a logical manner, come to the conclusion that Player X should be lynched, so can the mafia, just as easily.

The logic the mafia

think

of is by no means biased (other than by their knowledge of others alignment that obviously effects their thinking process whether they wish it to or not), but it's also irrelevant. The logic they

state

in game is somewhat biased by their dillema.

[Raging Rabbit]

Could you give an example of that? I have no idea what you mean by "biased logic".

They could find a scumbuddies play suspicious and choose not to comment about it.

[Raging Rabbit]

I don't know about other players, but I would put that under "behaviour".

Why so? If, for example, they later blame a pro town player for the exact same thing, you can suspect them for ignoring their scumbuddy in the past.

[Raging Rabbit]

OTOH, mountains don't help ventilate when there are weed fumes.

Mountains pwn.

[Raging Rabbit]

Mole, I kind of agree with Rabbit; if logically speaking one player is the best lynch, and it's a scum, then the scum may make up imperfect logical reasoning to conclude the second best lynch is actually the best lynch.

Is "agreeing with Rabbit" even legal in this site?

[Raging Rabbit]

There are spectacular mountains in the Netherlands, but there are also spectacular valleys; it just happens that they're in the same place so they all cancel out.

Israel is a happy, peaceful place with incredible ethnic diversion. You Dutchmen should all come visit and enjoy the fiery atmosphere.

Fishing for a modkill, huh?

If AWR is now a modkillable offence, that certainly explains quite a few recent occurrences here.

Why is a bandwagon that's

not the town's "best lynch"

necessarily

imperfect logic

?

Aren't you sorta answering yourself there?
Note: logic, like basically everything, is relative.

[Raging Rabbit]

Isn't voting for someone whose not the best lynch

by definition

imperfect logic?

[Raging Rabbit]

It depends on what you mean by logic.

Just went over this with Thesp, it's "The justification behind plays".

If I say, for example, "RR said 'to be honest'. Scum are more likely to say 'to be honest'. Therefore, RR is more likely to be scum. Vote: RR", this is fine logically. Such an argument in no way implies that RR is the "objective best lynch", just that RR is the most likely scum in my opinion (whether my real opinion or a fake one presented as scum).

1. Since honesty is the highest value in RR's Moral System, he happens to say "to be honest" a lot.
2. Of course it can't be judged objectively. When you're an uninformed party, nothing can. I can subjectively decide on "good logic" and "bad logic", though, and vote for the player whose logic is the worst since he's more likely to be scum according to RR's Dillema ( ).

[Raging Rabbit]

While I still beileve myself to have had an interesting point here, recent developments really don't make me feel anything like posting in any threads I'm not required to. If you have any further comments about your personal scumhunting approach, you're perfectly welcome to make them. Otherwise, this thread should whither and die.

This is hopefully my last post here.