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
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.
This fits into two categories that ABR denounced in his mini-essay.Post 436 wrote: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.
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:
A) That isABR wrote:This always ends with "I have my views, you have yours".
B) Disagreeing with your target is an insignificant consequence of the logical debate.
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
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,
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,
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
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
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,"