Metagaming...

[Iammars]

So what? You're asking us not to lynch you based on a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point you to scum because your lynching people on a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point them to scum?

Exactly! To lynch me based on a playstyle that doesn't necessarily point to me being scum because I'm lynching people based on a playstyle that doesn't necessarily point to them being scum would be to engage in the very act that you would supposedly be punishing me for.

But according to you, you should now be lynched in every game you are in because your playstyle is to lynch other people based on playstyles that don't necessarly point them to scum, and you can't use your playstyle to your defense because according to you, no matter if your playstyle necessarly means that you are scum or not, you should be lynched for it.

By using your same rule, everyone should be lynched. Each person has their own unique playstyle, whether it is one of the more famous ones or something subtle. Therefore, everyone has a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point them to scum, and therefore, everyone should be lynched. Therefore, no one should be lynched. Therefore, your theory is stupid.

I WIN!

[EnderX]

But according to you, you should now be lynched in every game you are in because your playstyle is to lynch other people based on playstyles that don't necessarly point them to scum, and you can't use your playstyle to your defense because according to you, no matter if your playstyle necessarly means that you are scum or not, you should be lynched for it.

Ow...I think my brain just broke.
Is this starting to remind anyone else of an Abbot and Costello routine?

[Yosarian2]

Hmm... I suppose it's possible. Still, in that case, there's no need to invoke "it's my playstyle" as an excuse when you can just argue that it's good protown play.

That's the thing, though. Sometime people get lynched because they're acting in a way that seems to be anti-town, but just as often, people get lynched because they're acting wierd or strange in some way that just disturbs everyone or "sets off their scumdar" or whatever. The second catagory is where playstyle questions become more useful.

[Iammars]

HA! I see that no one has tried to respond to my post. Now I really win!

[EnderX]

I tried to respond, but you broke my brain.

[Yosarian2]

But according to you, you should now be lynched in every game you are in because your playstyle is to lynch other people based on playstyles that don't necessarly point them to scum, and you can't use your playstyle to your defense because according to you, no matter if your playstyle necessarly means that you are scum or not, you should be lynched for it.

However, if by voting for him you are encouraging other people to act in anti-town ways and get away with it by calling it their playstyle, then you are also acting in an anti-town way, and therefore, as we're ignoring playstyles, we should logically lynch you.

[teucer]

Vote: Iammars

for obvious WIFOM.

[Iammars]

But according to you, you should now be lynched in every game you are in because your playstyle is to lynch other people based on playstyles that don't necessarly point them to scum, and you can't use your playstyle to your defense because according to you, no matter if your playstyle necessarly means that you are scum or not, you should be lynched for it.

However, if by voting for him you are encouraging other people to act in anti-town ways and get away with it by calling it their playstyle, then you are also acting in an anti-town way, and therefore, as we're ignoring playstyles, we should logically lynch you.

No, I'm saying that Fiasco wants to be lynched because he wants to lynch people who have a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point them to scum, and he has a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point him to scum.

BUT

We know that lynching people based on playstyles that don't necessarly point them to scum is bad because everyone has a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point them to scum, so everybody should be lynched, therefore no one should be lynched. Basically, Fiasco wants to commit suicide, but he has to do it himself, since we can't, otherwise we would be lynching him on an arbitrary reason.

[BabyJesus]

My impression was that they jump onto any bandwagon at all, which means there is no room for instincts to get involved. Even if that's not true, and even if they do have scum-finding instincts (which I'm not convinced of), why can't they try putting them into words?

I was a SK in a game with Baby Jesus once. I know his playstyle seems scary when you're pro-town, but trust me, when you're a bad guy and he suddenly changes from appearing to trust you to suddenly turning and attacking you without explaining why right away, it's downright terrifying, and it's very difficult to respond to those attacks in a rational way. The way other people react to Baby Jesus's seemingly random attacks can be extremly informative. And, except on day 1, he usually does seem have a reasonfor his votes, he just often dosn't share it.

[LoudmouthLee]

I've said it before, and will indeed say it again. BJ, IMHO, is twice the player that IS was.

BJ has quite a scumdar on him. He's dangerous pro-town. He's no so dangerous as Mafia though.

He becomes what I call a "necessary lynch" at some point. In order to ascertain his unique playstyle, the town will never quite know if he's scum or he's town.

BJ and I fought like cats and dogs the first game we played together. Ultimately, we got along, and I believe we have a very nice mutual respect for each other.

BJ is an acquired taste, but once you get past the bitterness at the beginning, he's quite a fun player.

[Fiasco]

Just to be clear, I never said anyone was a bad player... it's just, I think there are some people whose play would help the town more if they used a different playstyle.

[Pink Princess]

Hmm. I've never played with BJ. It seems like it would be an invigorating experience. Note to self: Get in game with BJ.

[Mr. Flay]

Note to self: come back here after Clue is over (BJ is dead, but I'm not, so therefore it's probably not kosher).

[Thok]

@Fiasco-remember that part of the reason for BJ's playing style is that he

enjoys

it. This is after all a game; part of the point is to have fun.

[Fiasco]

I understand perfectly well that the point is mostly to have fun. But there's fun, and then there's fun at other people's expense. I imagine much of the fun in BJ-type playing styles is in making people mad. (I've never played with BJ, though, and don't mean to pick on him in particular.)

Losing a game of mafia doesn't make me particularly unhappy, and winning a game of mafia doesn't make me particularly happy. In that sense, I don't care about winning.

But

, for me most of the fun is still in

playing for the win

. Games like this have rules that are set up to create interesting strategic problems. Trying to solve these problems is a large part of what makes them fun for me. When others in my team start flailing around at random, that makes it less fun for me. In a team game, you do have some sort of duty to your fellow players to do your best.

Maybe players with different ideas of fun just ought to avoid each other in games, or something.

[mneme]

*shrug* I do this too, sometimes, though not as...consistently...as BJ or IS do.

(not that I've been playing for the last few months).

A lot of it, for me, is lazyness -- I'd rather just play the damned game rather than talk it to death, and if in not giving out unecessary info, I'm not helping scum all that much either.

[Fiasco]

There's a golden mean between talking things to death and not bothering to explain yourself.

[mneme]

vote: Fiasco

Obvious scummy behavior here; let's just hang him.

[Yosarian2]

There's a golden mean between talking things to death and not bothering to explain yourself.

On the other hand, one of the best way to gather information is to pull everyone, especally scum, out of their standard mafia-playing comfort zone.

[BabyJesus]

Note to self: come back here after Clue is over (BJ is dead, but I'm not, so therefore it's probably not kosher).

Yes, I know, I accused a lot of people. How do you expect to get anyone on the defensive or get a reaction if you don't accuse them?

[Adele]

Mini 269, BJ voted for me. I'm all like, "um... why?" and he was all "you should be lynched" and I'm all "why?" and he was all "because you're scum" and I'm like "why do you think that?"

I was a good guy, and his insistent distrust didn't worry me in the least. I was a little confused and a little annoyed. When he finally pointed to something I wasn't even confused and annoyed, but agreed I'd been acting weird.

It would have been really hard to

fake

that unconcern.

[Fiasco]

But would it, really? How hard is it to fake unconcern over the internet? I could see a case for scum

forgetting to

fake unconcern (less so after threads like this one), but not a case for scum

being unable to

fake unconcern.

If I'd been a good guy in that situation, I'd have gone all, "Rubbish, BJ, that's not a reason", and I'd probably have been lynched for being "defensive". Different players react to random attacks in different ways, so for the tactic to work well it requires knowing the reactor's playstyle (as town and as scum).

[BabyJesus]

Mini 269, BJ voted for me. I'm all like, "um... why?" and he was all "you should be lynched" and I'm all "why?" and he was all "because you're scum" and I'm like "why do you think that?"

I was a good guy, and his insistent distrust didn't worry me in the least. I was a little confused and a little annoyed. When he finally pointed to something I wasn't even confused and annoyed, but agreed I'd been acting weird.

It would have been really hard to

fake

that unconcern.

did I unvote you then?

[SpeedyKQ]

I've always thought the BJ/IS playstyle is more self-serving than pro-town. Once a player establishes a reputation for not explaining their votes, they're eventually not expected to explain themselves and they become much harder to read or to lynch. This ends up helping them no matter which side they're on.

I'd like to see a general policy of running up people who won't explain votes, and then lynching them if they won't talk. But nobody ever manages to get that plan to work.

My personal policy (at least when I'm town) is to ignore any vote or bandwagon if I don't see the logic behind it myself. Even if BJ is good at finding scum (and I think he is) if I don't know what side he is on, I don't feel good about following him.

[Mr. Flay]

Let me try to generalize this so it's not about any ongoing games.

I have every belief (fear? given the number of times I come up scum, maybe that's better) that IS and BJ are Hell on Wheels during speed mafia/rl games. Their insistence on accusations and pushing for reactions would work great in a fast-paced, no-time-to-think-just-act/say-or-die game. If I recall correctly, that's BJ's background on FBG, and IS played a lot in person before coming here.

But it doesn't work here. People are allowed/expected to have 24-72 hours before they have to respond to a post. Almost ANYONE can come up with a decent, measured, calm response in that amount of time. Anyone who can't, I want to play Poker with them sometime...

I just don't think it's helpful, no matter what side he's on. It provides cover if he's scum, and it is too scattershot to really be beneficial if he comes up town.