Revealing WHY you think someone is scum

[Guardian]

Good idea? Bad idea? Depends on the situation? Discuss.

[Thestatusquo]

I have sent this thread to chamber.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'd say it's usually a good idea, unless you've picked up on a good tell, in which case you find another reason to vote for that person. That's what I do, at least.

[Kelly Chen]

I believe it's usually a good idea. But I think people overemphasize the importance of it, as though the mere fact that you're going after somebody is not already useful information.

[ShadowLurker]

cases are scuimmy

[Thestatusquo]

cases are scuimmy

Thank you chamber.

[Cavane]

scuimmy

Skwimmy?

[xyzzy]

People assume you're trying to quicklynch if you don't give a reason.

Hence, give a reason.

[Simenon]

People assume you're trying to quicklynch if you don't give a reason.

Hence, give a reason.

Never heard that one before.

[Yosarian2]

Meh. If you expect other people to follow you, or if you want to be able to defend your actions later, it's often a good idea to give a reason or reasons eventually. Dosn't mean you have to do it right when you first cast the vote though, and there may be times when giving your reason is uncesseceary or not a good idea (just don't expect people to follow you without a reason, and don't be surprised if people want to question you).

[Simenon]

Occasionally, posting reasons ruins any possible reactions you could get because instead of reacting to the pressure, they simply reply to your points without any emotional response.

[Yosarian2]

Occasionally, posting reasons ruins any possible reactions you could get because instead of reacting to the pressure, they simply reply to your points without any emotional response.

Right, which is why sometimes it's best to not post your reasons right away, or to only post some of your reasons right away.

[Glork]

I sometimes enjoy watching people wonder why I am voting for them and/or accusing them of being heartless, gutless murderers.

Unfortunately, people tend to want explanations from me.

However, that in and of itself is not usually enough to convince me to provide one.

[gorckat]

Thesp seems to be in the same camp- vote first, explain later...or not.

And while I've been adverse to such a style, I'm starting to find it appealing. I think the risk is if you don't keep good notes to back up prior suspicions, you could end up accused of scummy vote-hopping.

[Yosarian2]

Eh; I used to think vote-hopping was scummy, until I saw Baby Jesus demonstrate that intellegent hardcore votehopping with can be a great way to find scum. I've basically dropped it off my list of scum-tells now; move your vote around 20 times a day if you want to, that just makes it easier for me to figure out your motives.

Basically, asking for reasons is often a good idea, because otherwise it'd be too easy for scum to vote for whoever they wanted. But that dosn't mean that voting without reasons is always scummy. It all depends on what you want to do, and on what works.

[Kelly Chen]

I often find it rather scummy when people seem eager to present all their reasons at the time they vote. Looks like they're trying to avoid giving anyone an excuse to ask them more about it.

[Simenon]

Vote hopping makes sense as a scumtell in context.

[Yosarian2]

Vote hopping makes sense as a scumtell in context.

Meh. Anything can be a scumtell in the right context. In general, though, I've found that scum are more concerned then townies about looking consistant with their suspicions and votes and such.

[LoudmouthLee]

This thread has been replied to so it's on my watched topic list and I can respond once a game in question is over.

[xyzzy]

People assume you're trying to quicklynch if you don't give a reason.

Hence, give a reason.

Never heard that one before.

I don't know if I'm being mocked, or just being told that I gave an unusual answer...

Basically, if I just

Vote: Simeneon

in a game without any reason, far into the game, when Simeneon isn't under scrutiny, it'll be out of place, and I'll look like I'm trying to shift attention.

If I do the same when I haven't been suspicious of Simeneon but he's at -2, I'll look like I'm bussing.

[Kelly Chen]

Basically, if I just Vote: Simeneon in a game without any reason, far into the game, when Simeneon isn't under scrutiny, it'll be out of place, and I'll look like I'm trying to shift attention.

It'll look out of place whether you give reasons or not. If you don't give reasons it'll actually look less like you're trying to manipulate other voters, since no one will blindly follow such a vote.

[Adel]

Disclaimer: Checkout the date I joined. I've never played Mafia outside of this site.

This thread is challenging my basic understanding of Mafia. I thought a central concept is that more information ='s more benefit for town. A vote without reasons presents less information than a vote with reasons. I think that Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, specifically the test of universalizability, applies here. If all people follow the rule of "voting without stated reasons" the result would be a net advantage for scum, whereas if everyone were to follow the rule "always state reasons for your vote" the town clearly benefits. Therefore when a person votes without stating a reason, their motivation (in a rational world) is likely to be due to a scum alignment. So for me voting without giving reasons is a scum tell.

Occasionally, posting reasons ruins any possible reactions you could get because instead of reacting to the pressure, they simply reply to your points without any emotional response.

I'd say it's usually a good idea, unless you've picked up on a good tell, in which case you find another reason to vote for that person. That's what I do, at least.

Simenon's point exploits a limitation in my logic: people are not rational. Is there a thread somewhere that explores how to get an emotional reaction from potential scum without making the other players think you are scum yourself? I don't follow TCS's logic though, if you found a good tell exposing it confirms your status as town, and if it is good enough to make you vote that way then if explained it should help other townies reach the same conclusion. I can see not calling someone on a minor tell so that you can collect more evidence, but then you shouldn't be placing vote on them anyways for fear of tipping them off, right?

Glork apparently totally disagrees with me, and he is the "Paragon of Mafia Hunters," and the others are way way more experienced than me as well. So what am I missing? What is the concept that I am ignorant of?

[MrBuddyLee]

If you do all the work finding the first scum, the other scums can just trundle along behind you nodding their heads in agreement. Sometimes it's best not to spill it all and make the rest of the "town" pipe up more.

[RafK]

I generally can't stand the chamber method of no-explanation, although it's better the chamber method of townie false-claiming...

Explaining is generally townie. You can't expect to persuade people to follow you without explaining (even if the explanation is "trust me"), plus it creates a trail to follow. Making people explain is good, since you can catch out lazy scum bandwagonners.

However, there can be good times to slow play and just play the "trust me" card, but this does come with the proviso that you need to have a reasonable explanation after the fact.

I also find that the act of writing out my explanation helps me sharpen (or change) my mind on the topic in question.

[Sarcastro]

I still don't see why "Sarc finds him scummy" is not a good enough reason to join a bandwagon.