How to Focus on Scum and get them Lynched

[Glork]

I have to say that I disagree with #2 in your list, for a number of reasons. Flat-out ignoring others rarely helps improve your own position. Remember that not only do you need to go after Player X, whom you firmly believe is a scumbag, but you also need to convince everyone else that A) You're right; and B) You're protown yourself. Being able to field questions while rooting around your potential suspects makes you that much more credible. Regarding your 50% evidence, 50% accusation, I disagree vehemently. I would prefer to use the "logic/rhetoric" axis, but to align with "evidence/accusation," I'm going to say 80-20 in favor of evidence. Putting a lot of spin on your side does not make it more sound.


Now that I think about it, I probably disagree with #3 in some instances as well. Tunnel-vision can obviously be useful in going after somebody -- I won't deny that -- but it limits what I am going to refer to as one's "world-view." By that, I simply mean the larger picture of a mafia game. Ultimately, mafia is a game of interactions and socialization, and to go after one aspect may put focus on a single player, but it also shuts you out from a critical subset of behaviors. The ebb and flow of a wagon, and the dynamics of bystanders' behaviors can be at least as telling as your focus on Player X and X's responses to your attacks. The other reason I disagree with #3 goes back to exactly what I mentioned in the paragraph above. Ultimately, you must get the majority of the other players to decide that lynching X is the best/correct play of the day. Justifying your stance -- including the narrow-mindedness of it, if you so desire to play that way -- is

essential

to getting players to agree with you.

To illustrate, I'm going to pull a few posts from Covert Ops Mafia. Some brief background info:

• Every player had a "codename" in the game.
• My role was an information role. I had a list of all of the codenames (plus six or so red herring codenames), and each night I chose one and got the full role PM of that codename.
• After I claimed to have an investigative role, DrippingGoofball (scum cop) claimed to have one and one-upped my by claiming a guilty result (on the other scumgroup)
• One of my main goals was to convince players to give me codenames. Anybody who lied was obviously scum (because I had a list of all possible codenames), and anybody who did not lie enabled me as a full rolecop.

Now... an excerpt.

DGB, I do not think that you would be one to harp on word choice and a typo in order to paint me as scum. But you're a little mixed up.


I claimed an investigative ability. Considering the fact that I was the only player who had been outed with an investigative ability, I requested potential protection.

You then came out and said "no, I need doc protection because I have this investigative ability." Did you strictly counterclaim me? Did you say "Glork is not a hacker. I am!"? No, you did not. But one of the direct results of your claim was to undermine the credibility and importance of my claim, while trying to prove yourself to the town as well. This is in every essence of the word a counterclaim.


Do you know what I find interesting? I have done my best to answer every question that has been posed to me, unless I felt it was too revealing (and even then, I addressed it by saying that I didn't want to answer at the time). I've given my codename, I've given flavor, I've complied with as many requests as possible to gain the trust of the town.
DGB, on the other hand, either refuses to tell us (or worse, claims she is unable to tell us) important role information. What is her codename? What is her second guilty result? She says she feels like she's in a punishing mood, so she won't claim. I call a stalling tactic. DGB is relying on one player (Pooky) to confirm her ABILITY and trying to imply that this confirms her ALIGNMENT. In all other aspects of this scenario, she is being irrational and unhelpful.

This fits into two categories that ABR denounced in his mini-essay.

First, I relied almost exclusively on logical arguments/debates to ultimately defeat DGB. The point that I most disagree with is ABR's assertion that one should stay away from logical debates. In explaining his point, he says:

This always ends with "I have my views, you have yours".

A) That is

not

always how it ends. I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but I can go find exmamples of where I have eaten my own words after a debate; and
B) Disagreeing with your target is an insignificant consequence of the logical debate.

Of course

your views are likely going to differ from the person you are attacking. If you have indeed found scum and you want them lynched and they do not want to be lynched, they are not going to agree with you that they are scummy. But

you yourself, ABR, correctly point out that, convincing your target is not the point of making a case

. I don't care if Player X becomes defeatest or takes an "agree to disagree" stance. The point of the logical debate is to convince

THE REST OF THE TOWN

that I am right and X is scum, and that is MORE than possible.

Secondly, while I plugged vehemently for DGB's lynch, I kept a very scrutinizing eye on all of the other players. That eye led me to nab

FOUR

more scumbags by the very next day. Though I made numrous other lengthy posts against Dripping Goofball, I also managed to out MoS, Fritz, and TSS and 3WN. My attention to world-view, my eye to connections and other players, led me to not only find DGB as scum that day, but it

absolutely crippled both scumgroups

and led to the domination of that game by the town. One will never convince me that ignoring others in favor of going after Player X is ever (much less universally) the correct way to play.

Now, one might argue that while finding other scums to lynch on future days can wait until Player X is lynched, I disagree wholeheartedly. One of the general rules by which I live is that earlier interactions are more important than later interactions. The reason for this is simple: The town knows less earlier in any given game (fewer claimed/killed roles), and most scumbags mistakenly believe that they can get away with more. One of the reasons I think I used to be such a strong player is because I had developed a knack for reading back and noticing interactions that, in later parts of a game, were not visible in the heat of the moment. I encourage players to force interactions upon one another. They may seem unimportant at the time, but they do become invaluable as the game progresses,

provided that those players alive in late-game are willing to look back for them

.

Just a quick sidenote -- I guess why I see 80-20 as the ratio of acheiving a scumlynch is reconciled with ABR's 50-50 view in his "three pre-dominant factors" in acheiving a lynch. His first factor is your confidence level that Player X is scum. The "analytical and observation" skill sets required are categorized as a prerequisite in ABR's explanation, whereas I categorize it as a part of actually convincing everyone else to lynch Player X. This could lead to an interesting discussion, but I feel it would be tangential at best, so I will not get into it here and now.

I also strongly disagree with ABR's "don't make scumlists" point. Again, this relates to the world-view, which I assert is at least as important as finding a single scum,

particularly

in mid- to late-game situations. On D1, "find the scummiest player" obviously applies more than "figure out the entire game." As you progress through the game, roles are claimed, people die off, and player interactions form and solidify. That's when world-view becomes extremely important, and the dangers of rampant narrow-mindedness rise exponentially.

---

Now. That said, I do agree with many of the sentiments ABR expresses, even if I disagree with the certainty, universality, and the passion with which he presents them. As a recent example of my own failure to "stick to my guns" (as I like to put it), take Ether's Basic Twelve Player. I had Patrick dead to rights after like four pages, and had developed a strong eye towards Shanba as scum (and the last scum, Andy, was on the fringe of my radar). Nevertheless, literally

every single day

, towards the end of the day, I found myself settling for somebody I probably suspected less overall, but who pinged my 'dar late in that given day.

Throughout this game, following some of ABR's principles would undoubtedly enabled the lynches of both Patrick and Shanba... and, eventually, Andy. I conceded too much, did not stick to my own resolutions, and consequently I suffered the embarassment of being killed in endgame for the second time ever.

---

Finally, I want to take a step back and explain a couple of reasons why this approach should neither be used all the time nor by everyone.

First, if everybody plays the "I'm going to focus on Player X and not let up and not switch and not listen or respond to anybody else," no town will ever acheive a proper lynch. In fact, I would posit that if more than 10% of a given playerlist behaves this way, they would make life extremely difficult for their counterparts. Hyperaggression has its place, and it can be a

wonderful

tool for finding and lynching scum. But like most things, it must be used in moderation and only where appropriate.

Secondly, not all players are capable of (or would enjoy) playing this way. One of my favorite quotes for the last couple of years has been when, after Graduation Mafia, mlaker got very upset with me. I had played my hyperaggression, and it had worked beautifully (scum on D1 and D2), but mlaker was very upset with my play, even though it had worked. Keep in mind that others' interests and talents do not necessarily align to your own, and that yours may not fit with this kind of playstyle. Rather than setting in stone a given way to "focus on and lynch scum,"

I would strongly advocate trying out a wide variety of playstyles as you develop your own talents as a mafia player.

Sooner or later, you will find your niche, and you will find something which you enjoy, and that will make your playing experience that much sweeter.

[Glork]

To each his own style, my 50/50 guideline is there because IME theatrics go a long way, contrary to lengthly semantics where 50%+ of the players wouldn't give a second glance. You don't want to prove the absoluteness of your arguments, you want to get scum lynched. Its all about priorities to me.

It is certainly possible to have very right-brained logical players in the game, that will read each and every post and analyze it to bits and pieces, I'm not denying that. In that case, logic is the best way to get your lynch.

However, most of the time, it is far more useful to persuade everyone that you are right. You don't need to prove every point and write lengthly dissertation to get someone lynched; that's a fact.

I agree that it is essential to "persuade everyone that you are right."

My contention is with

how

one "should" go about doing so. Most players will not play based on who is the smoothest talker. They will take action based on what makes the most sense to them. Rhetoric can only get you so far, and when your words are attacked and you cannot back them up with facts and logical progression, you will inevitably fail in your bid to convince others. One can get away with rhetoric against players who are less inclined to use thorough logic themselves, but let me put it this way: If you ever try to rhetoric

me

to death, I will rip you apart faster than you can say "die suck die."


EDIT:

What a very logical-minded person will tend to do is branch out his arguments and get lost in it.

This statement is inherently wrong.

A very logical-minded person will keep his facts, his arguments, and his opponent's counter-arguments properly in check.

A person who is not at all logical will be the one who gets lost in his own arguments.

You seem to be making an assertion which is simply not true.

[Glork]

I have never, in all my games, ever seen scum defend against rhetoric.

You apparently have played a very limited subset of players, then. A good scumbag will respond to rhetoric exactly as a good protown player would do. He would explain why it is mere hand-waving, dismiss it and the accusations which result from it, and focus on the bare bones of the argument.

[Glork]

Glork, you can't break me by responding to a pure accusation. You can only break me by responding to my evidence.

I cannot "break you" so to speak by defending against pure accusation. What I

can

do is destroy that subset of players who you claim "will be convinced by the rhetoric." Once that is gone, what do you have left?

[Glork]

Prove it.

[Glork]

Any individual can take an exception and present it as the norm. You have done nothing to prove to me that yelling your way through an argument is the "best" way to find scum and convince others.

[Glork]

"Focus on," then. Forgive the typo.



You still have not addressed my question. You have made a number of assertions which you cannot back up with evidence, and I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Your response is a shield of rhetoric, and I am dismissing it and forcing you to return to the facts.

Guess who's winning this argument?

(See, there's that 20% making its way into the conversation.)

[Glork]

I agree with Glork.

Sigged like a champ.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Also, though mostly unrelated, a response to this:

"Don't be a sissy. Just lynch the poor sucker already."

This is an accusation / rhetoric / non-logic ^

That statement is not, by any means, intended as an accusation. It stems from the number of deadline lynches (or, in some cases, no-lynches) from people not willing to suck it up and go with a lynch that they do not absolutely support. In fact, if anything, it is an affirmation of my own stance, because it appeals to the world-view, and

not

tunnel-visioning on one player who isn't being lynched.

[Glork]

I would ague that your first part of red is logic. I ask him to provide evidence (or a logical progression) of what led to "scum-VI" rather than "town-VI."

My comment regarding Shanba/Andy is logically based, too. It is a reasonably common tell for scumbags to get less heat when performing similar behaviors as protown players. In this case, both Shanba and Andy were scum, but I applied a personal rule of mine based on experience (evidence from other games). I was trying to bring attention to Shanba by pointing this out.

Also, the general gameplay question was not rhetorical at all. It was an honest question asking people to categorize poor contributors. Those paralleled to Apple (the former) and... somebody else (I forget), but the goal was to look for inconsistencies in how people answered that question and how they felt about the two players in question. It very much had a logical background to it.





I will admit that you pulling a random quote from me, without knowing (much less being able to explain) context, probably won't do much. But I do not see the distinction you make from this particular example, because I know that my comments in that were based on logic.

[Glork]

Yos makes a good point.

Gut != Fluff. Not by any means.

EDIT: And actually, the "feels wonky" was probably because it didn't make sense to me (from a logical standpoint).

[Glork]

How? I made a number of points on a number of people.

A) I was not "focused" on any individual person.
B) I did not think anybody "needed to be lynched" at that time.

EDIT: I honestly think you just picked a bad example. I am not trying to convince anybody or anything in that post, nor am I trying to set anybody up. That post was pretty early in D1 of a game, and there's no way I had anybody in my sights. I would suggest grabbing a post from Face-To-Face, when I was going after MBL.

[Glork]

Everyone accuses sparsely between evidence.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I would counter that sparse accusations do not make up 50% of real, "I'm convinced you are scum" cases. That is the assertion you made, is it not?