Logical vs. Behavioral Scumhunting

[Raging Rabbit]

This issue of my game philosophy is being debated in quite a few games of mine atm. The main purpose of this thread is to center all these issues in one thread, thereby preventing any actual games from degrading to irrelevant discussions. I also think it's a real interesting for people who aren't in games with me as well, and generally want as much feedback as possible from basically anyone. I greatly appreciate your response.

My basic thinking is as follows:

Scum have two goals in using their logic - pretend to think protown, and cause to town to mislynch. At some point, they'll have to compromise one in favor of the other.
They have only on behavioral goal, however, which is to act as pro town as they possibly can.

Logical scumhunting is therefore inherently more efficient, because it capitalizes on mistakes scum are eventually bound to make.

Logical scumhunting also has the considerable benefit of improving the town's quality of play - by suspecting any use of bad logic, you're basically forcing everyone to think twice before making a play. This also makes it far more difficult for scum to "accidentally" make bad plays.

I'm not completely discounting behavioral scumhunting, of course - it can certainly be useful in certain situations, but it's by far the less efficient method imo. It seems to derive almost completely from intuition, which is very different from player to player, and it's therefore extremely difficult to convince the town with a behavioral case. There's also always the chance you're just wrong about the guy, especially if you've never played with him before. Psychological guidelines simply don't apply to everyone. I think it's seldom easy for a town to correctly lynch scum on purely behavioral reasoning, probably almost only happens in the case of serious blunders.

Well, what do you think?

[Fuldu]

I think that if you're prefacing a thread with "This issue of my game philosophy is being debated in quite a few games of mine atm," then it probably constitutes game-relevant discussion and should be pushed off until after those games are completed.

[Mr Stoofer]

Can you define "Logical Scumhunting" and "Behavioural Scumhunting" for me?

[GreenLiquid]

As scum, I think it is generally unwise to use faulty logic (aka logical fallacies) to lead the town astray, as they are easy to point out and will probably get you lynched before you can even cause one mislynch. Rather, you want to make suggestions or speculations that slowly nudge the town in the wrong direction, without giving away hints as to what you're doing. Instead of saying "I think guy is scum because [logical fallacy]", it's a better idea in the long run to say "Guy is just giving me anti-town vibes, and I don't like the way he says this, etc." This is subjective reasoning, and people can only call you out on subjective reasoning if you end up wrong.

Scum that focus purely on acting pro-town must be willing to bus without mercy. If they see their scumbuddy do something that would earn them a vote if the player was a townie, he'd better vote. Looking pro-town is more focused on keeping the scum alive longer. But, if you're not leading the town astray by casting suspicion on townies, it'll be that much harder to get a townie lynched, and power roles may win the day.

Good scum groups should be able to combine these approaches. The perfect combo can result in some town mislynches, then put a scum in the clear. The classic example is a mafioso, using bad reasoning or plain suspicion casting, gets a cop or something lynched. The next day, one of his scum buddies attacks him and gets him lynched, then looks like a good guy.

All in all, it depends. Is the person more likely to use logical fallacies or gentle nudging as scum? Does anybody who looks protown look suspicious or somehow out of whack? Does a certain player never vote for a certain other player? You have to look for subtle clues when scum hunting, and good players (i.e. not I) can do this very effectively.

[GreenLiquid]

Can you define "Logical Scumhunting" and "Behavioural Scumhunting" for me?

I think it's looking for scum by checking for faulty reasoning versus looking for scum by looking at behavior patterns or their subjective arguments. Any town worth its salt should be looking at both IMO.

[Fiasco]

Townies use plenty of bad logic, perhaps more than scum. I'm not sure either logical or behavioral scumhunting works at all, for the average player. What does work is 1) cop investigations and 2) catching people in bad role claims.

[GreenLiquid]

Townies use plenty of bad logic, perhaps more than scum. I'm not sure either logical or behavioral scumhunting works at all, for the average player. What does work is 1) cop investigations and 2) catching people in bad role claims.

It's absolutely not a good idea to rely on cop investigations to find scum. What if the cop dies? What if there is no cop? Things like claims and cops help, but if you entirely rely on them, you're going to have a hard time winning the game as town.

[Mr Stoofer]

Er, what's wrong with using both?

[Fiasco]

You use any strategy that works. Without claims and cops, you'll have to look at speaking and voting behavior, which can be fun and isn't wholly useless (and is arguably the most in the spirit of the game), but is much less effective if the scum are competent enough not to make dumb mistakes.

edit: and yes, I do agree cops and claims shouldn't be the

only

things you pay attention to, but when you do catch scum it's mostly by those means.

[GreenLiquid]

You use any strategy that works. Without claims and cops, you'll have to look at speaking and voting behavior, which can be fun and isn't wholly useless (and is arguably the most in the spirit of the game), but is much less effective if the scum are competent enough not to make dumb mistakes.

But to use

only

claims and cops means everything boils down to one massclaim. If, for example, the godfather buses to get in a really good claim, that undermines both of those tactics.

[Fiasco]

I was probably unclear in my first post here; I didn't mean to say they're not tactics you should use, just that they probably won't work (compared to analyzing the night game).

[GreenLiquid]

I was probably unclear in my first post here; I didn't mean to say they're not tactics you should use, just that they probably won't work compared to analyzing the night game.

Ah, ok I get you now. If anything, I suspect the issue boils down to objective vs. subjective reasoning, and you most certainly need some of each to get anywhere. I think claims and investigations probably fall more under objective reasoning.

[Twito]

The way RR does it is the wrong way and the way Twito does it is the right way. 'Nuf said.

[Fircoal]

The way RR does it is the wrong way and the way Twito does it is the right way. 'Nuf said.

AGain, your wrong, the way Fircoal does it is the best.

[Raging Rabbit]

Wow, blatant advertising is more useful than I thought...

I think that if you're prefacing a thread with "This issue of my game philosophy is being debated in quite a few games of mine atm," then it probably constitutes game-relevant discussion and should be pushed off until after those games are completed.

That's exactly what I originally said, but this thread is mith-approved.

Can you define "Logical Scumhunting" and "Behavioural Scumhunting" for me?

Sure thing. Note that actual plays fit in both categories.

Logic - the reasoning behind plays.
LSHing - hunting based on faulty logic/awkward logical patters.
Behavior - everything that isn't logic.
BSHing - hunting based on gut/intuition/whatever, which is based on behavior.

As scum, I think it is generally unwise to use faulty logic (aka logical fallacies) to lead the town astray

That'd mean giving up causing the town to mislynch in favor of looking innocent, to an extent.

Good scum groups should be able to combine these approaches.

Exactly

. The rest of your post is basically telling me things aren't so simple, which I realize perfectly well. That doesn't effect my basic theory, though.

Is the person more likely to use logical fallacies or gentle nudging as scum?

Said "gentle nudging" is often the same as logical fallacies, only cleverer. It's really hard to consistedly cause the town to mislynch using only good logic.

Does a certain player never vote for a certain other player?

Why would anyone ever do that?

Townies use plenty of bad logic, perhaps more than scum.

Town and scum have the same average intelligence. Scum sorta

have

to use bad logic, though. While my method will obvioulsly get lots of stupid townies lynched (which has the additional benefit improving the general level of play), I think it's the most efficient in the long run.

I'm not sure either logical or behavioral scumhunting works at all, for the average player. What does work is 1) cop investigations and 2) catching people in bad role claims.

If that's the case, why not just random lynch and wait for the cop to save your sorry asses?

Er, what's wrong with using both?

Nothing, which is why I said I'm not completely discounting BSHing by any means. I'm just trying to explain why I think it wise to relay more heavily on LSHing.

I was probably unclear in my first post here; I didn't mean to say they're not tactics you should use, just that they probably won't work (compared to analyzing the night game).

Of course they're not infallible, but you have to realy on

something

other than random lynching/power roles to get you through the days and there aren't any other options.

Ah, ok I get you now. If anything, I suspect the issue boils down to objective vs. subjective reasoning, and you most certainly need some of each to get anywhere.

This thread only discusses subjective reasoning, though.

The way RR does it is the wrong way and the way Twito does it is the right way. 'Nuf said.

Thank you for your blazing insight.

[GreenLiquid]

That'd mean giving up causing the town to mislynch in favor of looking innocent, to an extent.

Precisely. Outright logical fallacies are a good way to get called out quickly, town or scum. Speculation and subjective opinions can't just get called out. The only way you can be 'caught' with those is by ending up wrong.

Exactly. The rest of your post is basically telling me things aren't so simple, which I realize perfectly well. That doesn't effect my basic theory, though.

It's possible that scum will shift one way or the other. But they most likely won't (and shouldn't) do so as a group. Each scum is going to go a certain way based on what's happened thus far and his preferences, or possibly based on a busing plan. The catch, though, is that the scum acting town are very hard to call out without using subjective reasoning yourself.

Said "gentle nudging" is often the same as logical fallacies, only cleverer. It's really hard to consistedly cause the town to mislynch using only good logic.

Gentle nudging isn't a fallacy on the scum's part... it's a fallacy on the town's part if they begin to accept it.

Why would anyone ever do that?

If that person is their scumbuddy. It does sound stupid, but people actually do so on a rather regular basis.

Town and scum have the same average intelligence. Scum sorta have to use bad logic, though. While my method will obvioulsly get lots of stupid townies lynched (which has the additional benefit improving the general level of play), I think it's the most efficient in the long run.

I would have to agree, but I you seem to be thinking too black-and-white. Mafia isn't simple enough to be balanced by equations or anything like that. Good scum are going to be subtle. Really good scum will not use fallacies themselves, but rather make townies use them.

Subjective reasoning is sort of the mafia equivelent of propaganda, if that metaphor helps. You keep echoing a certain idea, and you can get the town to accept it. One fatal mistake of many towns is to entirely rely on people's anaylses. That error is thanks to scum giving opinions that put townies in a bad light, then agreeing with an congratulating townies who also take their stance.

[Yosarian2]

You use any strategy that works. Without claims and cops, you'll have to look at speaking and voting behavior, which can be fun and isn't wholly useless (and is arguably the most in the spirit of the game), but is much less effective if the scum are competent enough not to make dumb mistakes.

edit: and yes, I do agree cops and claims shouldn't be the

only

things you pay attention to, but when you do catch scum it's mostly by those means.

I've got to say, I strongly disagree with this.

I don't think you should be ABLE to catch scum often by bad claims in a well designed game. If that's how scum are caught, then that means the game is designed badly, IMHO.

As for cops, a few investigations will help the town a great deal, but if you're able to rely on investigations then the town is overpowered.

You can find scum without the use of either. Everyone plays differently based on their role, no exceptions. The better a player is, the harder it is to detect, but it's always there.

[Yosarian2]

About the initial question; if you're town, and you can, it's usually better to put together a logical case against someone then not, although not always right away. It's better to lay out in great detail why you think the person's scum; that way, you might convince others, or others might be able to convince you you're wrong (which is always a possibility), and it also helps everyone else see what you're thinking which hopefully will help them see that you are pro-town.

On the other hand, that's not always an option, and you should listen to your hunches and gut feelings, especally on day 1. That is, unless you're one of those people that always seems to have a "hunch" that I'm scum for no real reason, then you should ignore it.

[Fiasco]

Instead of saying looking at voting and speaking patterns "doesn't work", I guess I should have said "doesn't work well enough to do much more than compensate for the advantage over random lynching that scum gain through their bandwagon manipulations". That does make a difference.

I don't think you should be ABLE to catch scum often by bad claims in a well designed game.

It's not the game design, it's just that in my experience people are much dumber about claiming than they are about voting/speaking. For example, they'll state the wrong number of night targets or claim something that contradicts the flavor.

You can find scum without the use of either. Everyone plays differently based on their role, no exceptions. The better a player is, the harder it is to detect, but it's always there.

Sure, it's not wholly futile, but if it's comparable in power to cops/claims, then why aren't towns winning more vanilla games?

BTW, Rabbit, I've never knowingly used bad logic as scum. I don't know if townie logic is worse than scum logic, but if it is, it's because scum are more careful.

I suspect some people behave scummy when they're town just so they seem less scummy when they're actually scum. I suspect this explains part of the lurking behavior on this site.

[Raging Rabbit]

Speculation and subjective opinions can't just get called out. The only way you can be 'caught' with those is by ending up wrong.

I disagree, they can certainly be judged to some (pretty high imo) extent.

It's possible that scum will shift one way or the other. But they most likely won't (and shouldn't) do so as a group. Each scum is going to go a certain way based on what's happened thus far and his preferences, or possibly based on a busing plan.

What I'm saying is that scum

in general

are more likely to go with bad logic than town. Busing can be recognized for what it is when based on shaky logic. Scum who decide to completely sacrifice mislynching in favor of looking innocent and manage to use good logic in a consistent manner are likely to make it to the end game alone, at which point they'll hopefully be pegged by some power role. And even if they don't, it's still far from a guaranteed win.

The catch, though, is that the scum acting town are very hard to call out without using subjective reasoning yourself.

The sole purpose of this thread

is

to discuss subjective reasoning.

Gentle nudging isn't a fallacy on the scum's part... it's a fallacy on the town's part if they begin to accept it.

Contradictory much?

If that person is their scumbuddy.

So that person is their scumbuddy on a regular basis?

It does sound stupid, but people actually do so on a rather regular basis.

Said people are really stupid and hurt every town they're in.

Mafia isn't simple enough to be balanced by equations or anything like that. Good scum are going to be subtle. Really good scum will not use fallacies themselves, but rather make townies use them.

I never said my method was infallible or workable by some equasion. The only way to tell other's "level" of logic is to judge it subjetively yourself. Clever scum can make that really, really hard. I do consider this the best method in the long run, though.

About the initial question; if you're town, and you can, it's usually better to put together a logical case against someone then not, although not always right away. It's better to lay out in great detail why you think the person's scum; that way, you might convince others, or others might be able to convince you you're wrong (which is always a possibility), and it also helps everyone else see what you're thinking which hopefully will help them see that you are pro-town

So you basically agree, but also think you should explain your own logic to the best of your ability, which I also agree with. Why not always right away, though?

On the other hand, that's not always an option, and you should listen to your hunches and gut feelings, especally on day 1.

I never said you shouldn't, just that logic is generally better.

That is, unless you're one of those people that always seems to have a "hunch" that I'm scum for no real reason, then you should ignore it.

I actually read the original Kingmaker and was pretty sure you were scum from like early day 2, you I'll remember that.

[Raging Rabbit]

Instead of saying looking at voting and speaking patterns "doesn't work", I guess I should have said "doesn't work well enough to do much more than compensate for the advantage over random lynching that scum gain through their bandwagon manipulations". That does make a difference.

Are you

seriously

advocating comletely random lynching?

It's not the game design, it's just that in my experience people are much dumber about claiming than they are about voting/speaking. For example, they'll state the wrong number of night targets or claim something that contradicts the flavor.

Claiming is a last resort to avoid a lynch. People shouldn't be forced to resort to that unless there's a strong logical/behavioral case against them.

BTW, Rabbit, I've never knowingly used bad logic as scum. I don't know if townie logic is worse than scum logic, but if it is, it's because scum are more careful.

You're missing my point. Scum don't knowingly use crap logic or anything, but their lynching targets are biased so they tend to compromise it.

I suspect some people behave scummy when they're town just so they seem less scummy when they're actually scum. I suspect this explains part of the lurking behavior on this site.

Said people are really selfish and hurt the game in general.

[MrBuddyLee]

Mafiascum is fun because there's more than one way to skin a rabbit.

You can get shitfaced and read the thread and spot insincerity.

You can buckle down and analyze actions and vote-patterns to death and announce to within two standard deviations how/why you've triangulated scum.

You can act like a raving lunatic and see who follows along. (On this site, sadly, you're more likely to catch town.)

You can lurk for a month or two, knowing no one but scum will call you out, and then point them all out as they drag your corpse off behind a shrubbery.

You can pull Perry Masons and lay traps for your enemies.

And of course, since no one's getting paid for winning or losing, the only thing that really matters is that you're having fun doing it. So use your own style.

[Raging Rabbit]

MBL - Your post basically puts a lot of variations into the equasion. While I can try to incorporate each and every one into my theory, I'd rather not atm. You haven't commented on my actual point, though.

You can pull Perry Masons and lay traps for your enemies.

What's Perry Masons?

And of course, since no one's getting paid for winning or losing, the only thing that really matters is that you're having fun doing it. So use your own style.

While I splice my posts with lots of sarcasm and generally try to take a light approach to make the game funner, I think everyone should play to win.

[Fiasco]

Are you

seriously

advocating comletely random lynching?

No, I'm not advocating that at all.

Claiming is a last resort to avoid a lynch. People shouldn't be forced to resort to that unless there's a strong logical/behavioral case against them.

Mostly right; how does that contradict anything I said?

You're missing my point. Scum don't knowingly use crap logic or anything, but their lynching targets are biased so they tend to compromise it.

Their lynching targets don't

have

to be biased; they bus each other sometimes. Even if they don't, the bias only forces them to use slightly worse logic. My gut feeling is town logic isn't better than scum logic on average, but I don't know.

Said people are really selfish and hurt the game in general.

Yes.

I guess this sort of analysis would work better if people posted more content. How am I supposed to judge scumminess from, for example, one random vote, three off-topic comments, and three on-topic oneliners?

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You can pull Perry Masons and lay traps for your enemies.

We lynched Perry Mason. He was town, though.