Logical vs. Behavioral Scumhunting

[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.

[mole]

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

[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.

[mole]

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

[Fiasco]

Are they - are they anything like windmills?

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

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

[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.

[Fiasco]

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.

[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?

[Fiasco]

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

Mountains pwn.

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.

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

Fishing for a modkill, huh?

[mole]

Why is a bandwagon that's not the town's "best lynch" necessarily imperfect logic?

[Fiasco]

The "best lynch" is by definition the player that the town has logical reason to believe will benefit the town the most if lynched. (I'm using "logic" in a loose sense here.)

[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.

[mole]

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

Sorry, you've completely lost me here.

[Raging Rabbit]

Isn't voting for someone whose not the best lynch

by definition

imperfect logic?

[mole]

Er, it's not logic at all. The

reasoning

behind it may be logical or illogical, but a vote is not an argument. I'm not actually sure what you mean by "logic" any more, though.

I probably should have asked "Why is it necessarily

based on 'imperfect logical reasoning'

?" to respond to Fiasco's point.

[mith]

It depends on what you mean by logic.

mole is saying (I think) that logic is the argument used against someone. 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).

What you seem to be suggesting is that the only valid logic is the one which determines the absolute best lynch... but if that were something everyone could agree on, it wouldn't be much of a game.

(Further, I would classify "scumhunting based on whether you are voting for the fabled objective best lynch" as behavioral, not logical. This whole discussion seems to have become a semantic argument over what is meant by "logic".)

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Voting for someone is not logic, imperfect or otherwise. It is an action.

[mith]

Ah, simulposting...

[Fiasco]

(edit, never mind)

[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.

[Yosarian2]

The real problem with justification is that

people make stuff up all the time in mafia.

That's why I think defenses are over-rated - for scum, they are most frequently an opportunity for them to cover their tracks by giving a plausible excuse for something that is a genuine scumtell. (This is not to say there are not excellent defenses which attacks the actual case against a player.) People who are better at justifying their actions do better against people looking for a strictly "logical" case, whether or not that person is scum.

Eh...your last sentance is true, people who are better at justifying their actions do better at defense then people who don't, but I don't think that means defenses are over-rated, because I think that both the best and worst scum players ever probably have an EASIER time going back and defending and justifying all of their actions when town then when scum. Newbie mc Newbie on his best day might never give as good a defense then MeMe on her worst, but nonetheless I think the newbie's defense will be probably tend to better when he's town then when he's scum, and I think that's also true for MeMe. Logical debate attack-and-defend style scumhunting will kill a lot more newbies then experenced players, it's true, but at the same time I think it also has a better then random chance of catching scum.

[Scigatt]

*gravedig*

What I want to know is the degree to which the make-up of the town influences optimal play. I don't think that I've played enough to say anything about this, but I'd like to make a conjecture:

The No Free Lynch Conjecture

Averaged over all possible town make-ups, all scum-hunting strategies(including random lynching) are equally effective.

I want to to know how true you think this is and/or how relevant it is.

[Yosarian2]

The No Free Lynch Conjecture

Averaged over all possible town make-ups, all scum-hunting strategies(including random lynching) are equally effective.

I want to to know how true you think this is and/or how relevant it is.

I'm pretty sure that's false.

No one is going to be right all the time, but in my experence a good scumhunter or decent group of scumhunters can raise the number of correct lynches from the random level of 25% or so up to 40% or 50% or so, so long as they don't get paranoid or fall into bad patterns of thinking.