How to Focus on Scum and get them Lynched

[Albert B. Rampage]

Ever had a poorly skilled scum win a game because of a lurkerhunt ? I have.

Let me preface this article with How to Direct your Attention on Scum 101, in three simple steps:

1. Focus on the player that needs to be lynched. If a player catches your attention, concentrate on them. Probe, ask innocent questions, predict how the next stage of the game will unfold and ask them what they will do if such a situation arises. Surround them with their own convictions and corner them into their own self-imposed molds of accepted behavior. You want them to build a tree house for you to destroy later.

2. Don't lose sight. Ignore other players' inquiries if their questions don't move you closer to lynching your target player. Take things further. Get an emotional reaction out of your victim by heavily accusing them of scum backed by whatever evidence you have. It should be 50% evidence, 50% accusation. You should make it clear to your suspect that you will never change your mind about them, and you will do

anything

to get them lynched, every day, every page, every damn post. This will work to your advantage. Keep the ball on your court, rob the scum of their dominance and place them in a frame of

survival

. This way, you are exploiting the maximum bussing potential of a scumteam.

3. Do not justify your focus. Never justify your single-mindedness. If you present it as part of your personality, players will likely just go with it. Present your case and state your intentions, but never justify the jewel of your focal point. The reason for this is simple: you want to make the game about your victim, not about your obsessiveness with that person. The line between the two is slim but it makes a world of difference.

Here's the section you have all been waiting for: examples!

BAD FOCUS: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 096#872096

I'm pretty sure he's lying. Anyone up for lynching him anyway ?

Even this weak question managed to plant the seed for lynching a claimed doctor with no counter-claims. Imagine what you can do with a full-out war. Pay close attention as both the scum partners quickly unvoted, while the town still had their votes on, but lacked the conviction of following through with the lynch.

You guys need to step up and take responsibility for every single one of your lynches, because most of the time no one else will. People are looking for someone to blame when shit hits the fan. YOU are that someone. YOU set the trends, and YOU tell other players what lynch is "in" as far as you're concerned.

I did not agree with the bandwagon, but my gut reaction to the claim is: I don't believe it. Not willing to string up a claimed doc just yet though.

I'm not buying the claim either.

K having read over I feel BM is most scummy, however he is now at L-2 and I really dont have much more than a "feeling" that he is scummy... and in my book that isnt enough to lynch him so I won't vote unless theres some sort of deadline that I totally overlooked.

Notice that after the claim and my reaction, there were actually

more

town players who could have been swayed into lynching BM-scum. This goes to show how the lack of faith and zeal of a single player can undermine the entire town's effort to lynching scum.

GOOD FOCUS: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 261#881261

Here, I overcome every single obstacle and get my player lynched. It was long and arduous, but these kind of things are the most rewarding. Stick to what you know to be true, guys.

You impose yourself to your target, and convince the others.

Impose and convince. I see all these noobs trying to convince their targets and imposing their beliefs on their town comrades. This is shitty play, mayeng.

You must realize that suspicious players are inter-changeable in step 2. You cannot lynch more than one player at a time, so only pay attention to one target at a time. Do not implicate anyone else with your target. Your concentration can and should shift smoothly from one player to another when your suspicions die off or peak to an all time high. Once you have reached the conclusion that someone is mafia, you poke, nudge and harass until you get what you want.

Do not get into a logical debate with your target.

This always ends with "I have my views, you have yours". Only reply to what is necessary. Build the tension until your opponent feels the heat, is ready to explode, to give up and surrender at your feet. Everything your victim does at this point will lead to one of two things that MUST be pointed out and formally written for the town to see your thought process:

• You see them act scummier and scummier.
  
  
• They convince you that you are wrong.

Other town members (such as Setael in this example *pg20) will often try to build their own cases. Ignore their logical arguments and tell them bluntly that the player they suspect will not be lynched that day; maybe tomorrow.

Re-direct the town's attention every time they steer you away from your path. You are on a straight collision course with the scum and nothing can stop you. It always comes down to who wants it more, and who is more confident in their choice.

There are three pre-dominant factors that will influence other players to vote your bandwagon candidate:

• How confident you are of that person being scum.
  
  
• How compliant the rest of the town is to you.
  
  
• How much you have adjusted your actions with your beliefs.

The only way to check off the first one is experience. You need to have seen it to recognize it. This is all about your analytical skills and observation prowess.

The second is simple: look pro-town, never go back on your word, and get credit where it is due. Make points that other town players will agree with. Ultimately though, its a case-by-case scenario. Certain players will be severely hard-headed and will stubbornly oppose you no matter what you do.

Third is extremely easy. Put your vote where your mouth is. Don't create scumlists. There are a limited number of scum, and you are only focusing on one. Walk the talk.

I'm not telling you noobs to fake it til you make it...far from it. I'm giving you this information because, once in a while, some noob will find a scum and let the bastard slip right through his fingers for the win because he was too soft on the sod. Ever had that "I KNEW YOU WERE SCUM" post-game rant ? This article was for you.

If you were with me this entire time, I'd like to thank you for reading with a little funny post I wrote:

Look, fuck this ego bullshit. I know you are hopelessly paranoid of everyone, but you've got to do the one thing that makes sense. Stand up for yourself as a man. Do the right thing.

Yeah I said I would vote you tomorrow. And I will. This game is not survival-based.

IF I were scum, I would have hammered that idiot who voted himself ages ago and went along with his flawed little plan. But I'm not. Setael gave me immunity because she will kill me tonight. Are you following ?

Quit being manipulated so easily, you gullible sheep. Don't you see she is USING your pathetic ass ? Break free of your lethargy. Vote Setael. End this game and take the trophy home.

I know you don't like me, and that's fine.

All I'm saying is that we put our differences aside and do the one sensible, strategic move. Because, honestly, if you aren't lynching Setael today, in all probability she will lynch you tomorrow and mark yet another victory on her scumboard.

I'm just saving you the shame here. I know who Thesp will hammer. I know who will win. The end result will be the same. But you have the power to put YOUR vote on HER ass and say "there, I did it, I'm the one who hammered the last scum. Praise me." You can make that choice. Or, you can let somebody else make that choice for you and sulk in the post-game, doubting yourself thinking about the what-ifs.

[...]

I'd like to thank Setael for giving me the inspiration to write this post with her comment after Mini 508:

Yeah Albert, but no one can compete with your "shove it down their throats" style. I definitely find it tough to escape once it's aimed at me. I think that's a compliment.

Keep your scumdars technologically superior, and happy scumhunting.


-Albert


P.S.:

I see some noobs applying this, and I can't help but notice how they start to ask loaded questions and resort to scummy tactics to get their player lynched.

Don't do this

unless you want your prey to flip the script on you. Be the hunter, and hunt them bitches down.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'll look into that game more in detail. For now, this what I have to say about the first part of your post:

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.

I said:

Ignore other players' inquiries if their questions don't move you closer to lynching your target player.

Making yourself look more pro-town and convincing others that you are right DOES move you closer to lynching your scumbag.

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.

To each his own style, my 50/50 guideline is there because IME theatrics go a long way. Most players wouldn't give a second glance to lengthly semantics - sometimes they just skip to the conclusion to see who "looks like they're winning." 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 a long dissertation to get someone lynched; that's a fact.

Dish out the evidence and pummel it into everyone's brains instead of going into the details. What a very logical-minded person will tend to do is branch out his arguments in response to the scum and get lost in it. This often becomes a duel between a scum and a town, which is not to your advantage. The sole strength of a town lies in its MAJORITY. You have to do whatever it takes to get the majority on your side.

This ain't a cowboy showdown, its a mob of people ganging up on one person.

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.

Since step 2 is inter-changeable, I don't see a problem with step 3.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Hence the 50/50 rule. You will respond to 50% of the logical debate, and ignore the rhetoric, while others will be convinced by the rhetoric supported by the evidence.

I have never, in all my games, ever seen scum defend against rhetoric. There's just no point in doing so, it will just put them in a very defensive position and further put the spotlight on them.

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.

Thank you for correcting my misconstruction in my haste. That's what I meant.

If the counter-counter-counter-argument is only a minor scumtell, ignore it and repeatedly hammer out the big scum tells that you started out with.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Often, what you call rhetoric is just an introduction, conclusion or tangent to a case based on logic. It is seamlessly blending in with everything else. You do it yourself, to a lesser extent.

There are no accusations that "result from it". It IS the accusation. Re-read my first article. 50% of your time should be spent ACCUSING the person of scum, and the other 50% of why you are accusing them of scum.

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

[Albert B. Rampage]

Nay, you can't do that either. Those players will of course rely on the 50% of evidence I put out as a shield.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Any examples I provide would just be dismissed as a freak coincidence by you.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I never said anything about finding scum. What I gave was my opinion on how to focus on who you think is scum and seeing them lynched by the end of the day.

lol@youre quote btw

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

This is an accusation / rhetoric / non-logic ^

[Albert B. Rampage]

O.K. Glork, let me demonstrate:

Green = Non-logic / Focus Fluff / Whatever you want to call it

Red = Commentary by me

Why is it amazing?

I didn't say I was 100% OMG SUPER CERTAIN he was town. If I was, I'd be voting Glork. I'm just of that opinion (leaning that way) at the moment.
Why would 100% certainty of Patrick's alignment lead you to vote for me?

Ripley's attack on apple still seems wonky.

I am perfectly content with Crub's play. I'd give very strong odds that he's town.

Ripley: Given that we've seen plenty of "Village Idiots" on both protown and scum sides in the past, what made you conclude that Apple's behavior was more indicative of him being a scum-VI rather than just... an idiot?

<--- Glork applying to the letter the concepts of my first point.

Patrick's switch to Apple still feels weird, too.

I think the FoS served to indicate that his vote had gone from "not serious" to "serious"... is there anything wrong with that? If Apple had instead said "I guess I'm pretty happy with my vote on Ripley," do you think you would have reacted differently?

I still don't understand the Andyhate. IH cited Post 42:

FoS: Elmo I'd like an explanation on why you mentioned Patrick so suddenly.

Shanba voted for Elmo, stating that he was "amazed" that Elmo could have gotten a read. I guess I fail to understand how Andy's FoS seems to be insincere, whereas Shanba's vote has gone largely unmentioned.

Just on gut and voting patterns, I'd say maximum one of Andy/Apple is scum. I am currently of the opinion that both are protown.

See, IH's explanation at least makes sense (the fact that Andy did it after Elmo's response had taken place). It shows a logical distinction between Andy's behavior and those of [Glork, Patrick, Shanba]. While I don't have a problem with IH's probe, I still question the validity of those who followed.


General gameplay question for everyone...
Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

<--- applying what I've said again

The exchange between Patrick and Crub makes me feel somewhat better about Patrick's alignment.

This is just some random in-game quote I pulled out in 5 seconds.

I'm not doing this to "own" you or whatever. I am just hoping that you will see the distinction I make between FLUFF and LOGIC, and how there's a place for both in mafia.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Also, I agree with Glork. Empty retoric dosn't do all that much

I never, ever, ever encouraged empty rhetoric.

[Albert B. Rampage]

First of all, you usually WANT to engage in a logical discussion with your target. You want to break down all of their arguments and defenses using logic, you want to logically go through, point by point, and show how their actions make sense as scum,

and be willing to go into as much detail as people want to hear

. That's how you get someone lynched. It puts you in a high-risk position, but it also forces the town to pay attention.

I rest my case.

On a more general note, I tend to think this dosn't work out well. The problem is that more and more people are playing like this ALL THE TIME, which means that townie A is off trying to do his wagon, townie B is trying to do something else, and townie C is trying to do something else, and no one listens to anyone else or is willing to change their minds, so the town never goes anywhere.

This is not a universal law for scumhunting. This is for when you know who is scum but can't get them lynched. When you are so sure that you would bet your horse and wife on it, but nobody will listen. That's what this article was for. Not a bunch of newbes ignoring each other because of their faulty beliefs and ego too big to realize they might be wrong.

[Albert B. Rampage]

1. Focus on the player that needs to be lynched. If a player catches your attention, concentrate on them. Probe, ask innocent questions, predict how the next stage of the game will unfold and ask them what they will do if such a situation arises. Surround them with their own convictions and corner them into their own self-imposed molds of accepted behavior. You want them to build a tree house for you to destroy later.

This is what Glork used.

[Albert B. Rampage]

"Ripley's attack on apple still seems wonky" isn't really logic per se, but it's valid evidence that other people in the thread can look at and form opinions on, so I wouldn't call it "fluff" or "rhetoric" or anything.

The exact same thing can be said of accusations, or what I will name "Focus Fighting" or FF for short. People can look at an accusation and contemplate it, see how it fits into their belief systems and form an opinion on it.

EDIT: Actually, this name SUCKS. I need something better. Suggestions ?

[Albert B. Rampage]

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.

You must first determine who to focus on, to actually focus on them. Just like you must know what you want, before you can take it.

EDIT: My point is just is that everyone does it and its not something new. I've just broken it down for you. Everyone accuses sparsely between evidence. And this actually helps the lynching process, according to my experiences.

---

BTW, if you've read the examples of the article it should clear up any misconceptions.

[Albert B. Rampage]

You said you use 80-20, and that fits perfectly into my world-view.

Some players like you and Yosarian are in it for the logic aspect of the game, and this article may have hit a nerve or something.

Other players will derive more fun from the actual winning, without the will to necessarily exert that much effort. Appeal to this aspect with the theatrics and you will improve your odds.

I can only speak generally, because most of these things depend on countless different factors. Nothing is definitively set in stone for sure, its just
what I think you should try out to get a higher chance of lynching scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Look, the basic principle is this:

To the mafia, you all start out as cucumbers. Once you strongly turn against them, you become a threat, you become a pickle. From that point on you will be a threat to the scum until you die.

Even if you might change your mind later, you want to give the impression that you won't. This encourages them to make mistakes, overreact, bus, calculate their odds of winning and get an erroneous or hopeless result, etc.

Also, your first post was great Glork.