How to Focus on Scum and get them Lynched

This forum is for discussion related to the game.
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 27261
Joined: April 8, 2007
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

How to Focus on Scum and get them Lynched

Post Post #0 (ISO) » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:40 am

Post by Albert B. Rampage »

Ever had a poorly skilled scum win a game because of a lurkerhunt ? I have.

Let me preface this article with How to Direct your Attention on Scum 101, in three simple steps:

1. Focus on the player that needs to be lynched. If a player catches your attention, concentrate on them. Probe, ask innocent questions, predict how the next stage of the game will unfold and ask them what they will do if such a situation arises. Surround them with their own convictions and corner them into their own self-imposed molds of accepted behavior. You want them to build a tree house for you to destroy later.

2. Don't lose sight. Ignore other players' inquiries if their questions don't move you closer to lynching your target player. Take things further. Get an emotional reaction out of your victim by heavily accusing them of scum backed by whatever evidence you have. It should be 50% evidence, 50% accusation. You should make it clear to your suspect that you will never change your mind about them, and you will do
anything
to get them lynched, every day, every page, every damn post. This will work to your advantage. Keep the ball on your court, rob the scum of their dominance and place them in a frame of
survival
. This way, you are exploiting the maximum bussing potential of a scumteam.

3. Do not justify your focus. Never justify your single-mindedness. If you present it as part of your personality, players will likely just go with it. Present your case and state your intentions, but never justify the jewel of your focal point. The reason for this is simple: you want to make the game about your victim, not about your obsessiveness with that person. The line between the two is slim but it makes a world of difference.

Here's the section you have all been waiting for: examples!

BAD FOCUS: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 096#872096
Albert wrote:I'm pretty sure he's lying. Anyone up for lynching him anyway ?
Even this weak question managed to plant the seed for lynching a claimed doctor with no counter-claims. Imagine what you can do with a full-out war. Pay close attention as both the scum partners quickly unvoted, while the town still had their votes on, but lacked the conviction of following through with the lynch.

You guys need to step up and take responsibility for every single one of your lynches, because most of the time no one else will. People are looking for someone to blame when shit hits the fan. YOU are that someone. YOU set the trends, and YOU tell other players what lynch is "in" as far as you're concerned.
Dragon Phoenix (town) wrote:I did not agree with the bandwagon, but my gut reaction to the claim is: I don't believe it. Not willing to string up a claimed doc just yet though.
Gage (town) wrote:I'm not buying the claim either.
Porochaz (town) wrote:K having read over I feel BM is most scummy, however he is now at L-2 and I really dont have much more than a "feeling" that he is scummy... and in my book that isnt enough to lynch him so I won't vote unless theres some sort of deadline that I totally overlooked.
Notice that after the claim and my reaction, there were actually
more
town players who could have been swayed into lynching BM-scum. This goes to show how the lack of faith and zeal of a single player can undermine the entire town's effort to lynching scum.

GOOD FOCUS: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 261#881261

Here, I overcome every single obstacle and get my player lynched. It was long and arduous, but these kind of things are the most rewarding. Stick to what you know to be true, guys.
You impose yourself to your target, and convince the others.
Impose and convince. I see all these noobs trying to convince their targets and imposing their beliefs on their town comrades. This is shitty play, mayeng.

You must realize that suspicious players are inter-changeable in step 2. You cannot lynch more than one player at a time, so only pay attention to one target at a time. Do not implicate anyone else with your target. Your concentration can and should shift smoothly from one player to another when your suspicions die off or peak to an all time high. Once you have reached the conclusion that someone is mafia, you poke, nudge and harass until you get what you want.

Do not get into a logical debate with your target.
This always ends with "I have my views, you have yours". Only reply to what is necessary. Build the tension until your opponent feels the heat, is ready to explode, to give up and surrender at your feet. Everything your victim does at this point will lead to one of two things that MUST be pointed out and formally written for the town to see your thought process:
  • You see them act scummier and scummier.

  • They convince you that you are wrong.
Other town members (such as Setael in this example *pg20) will often try to build their own cases. Ignore their logical arguments and tell them bluntly that the player they suspect will not be lynched that day; maybe tomorrow.

Re-direct the town's attention every time they steer you away from your path. You are on a straight collision course with the scum and nothing can stop you. It always comes down to who wants it more, and who is more confident in their choice.

There are three pre-dominant factors that will influence other players to vote your bandwagon candidate:
  • How confident you are of that person being scum.

  • How compliant the rest of the town is to you.

  • How much you have adjusted your actions with your beliefs.
The only way to check off the first one is experience. You need to have seen it to recognize it. This is all about your analytical skills and observation prowess.

The second is simple: look pro-town, never go back on your word, and get credit where it is due. Make points that other town players will agree with. Ultimately though, its a case-by-case scenario. Certain players will be severely hard-headed and will stubbornly oppose you no matter what you do.

Third is extremely easy. Put your vote where your mouth is. Don't create scumlists. There are a limited number of scum, and you are only focusing on one. Walk the talk.

I'm not telling you noobs to fake it til you make it...far from it. I'm giving you this information because, once in a while, some noob will find a scum and let the bastard slip right through his fingers for the win because he was too soft on the sod. Ever had that "I KNEW YOU WERE SCUM" post-game rant ? This article was for you.

If you were with me this entire time, I'd like to thank you for reading with a little funny post I wrote:
Look, fuck this ego bullshit. I know you are hopelessly paranoid of everyone, but you've got to do the one thing that makes sense. Stand up for yourself as a man. Do the right thing.

Yeah I said I would vote you tomorrow. And I will. This game is not survival-based.

IF I were scum, I would have hammered that idiot who voted himself ages ago and went along with his flawed little plan. But I'm not. Setael gave me immunity because she will kill me tonight. Are you following ?

Quit being manipulated so easily, you gullible sheep. Don't you see she is USING your pathetic ass ? Break free of your lethargy. Vote Setael. End this game and take the trophy home.

I know you don't like me, and that's fine.

All I'm saying is that we put our differences aside and do the one sensible, strategic move. Because, honestly, if you aren't lynching Setael today, in all probability she will lynch you tomorrow and mark yet another victory on her scumboard.

I'm just saving you the shame here. I know who Thesp will hammer. I know who will win. The end result will be the same. But you have the power to put YOUR vote on HER ass and say "there, I did it, I'm the one who hammered the last scum. Praise me." You can make that choice. Or, you can let somebody else make that choice for you and sulk in the post-game, doubting yourself thinking about the what-ifs.

[...]
I'd like to thank Setael for giving me the inspiration to write this post with her comment after Mini 508:
Setael wrote:Yeah Albert, but no one can compete with your "shove it down their throats" style. I definitely find it tough to escape once it's aimed at me. I think that's a compliment.

Keep your scumdars technologically superior, and happy scumhunting.


-Albert


P.S.:
I see some noobs applying this, and I can't help but notice how they start to ask loaded questions and resort to scummy tactics to get their player lynched.
Don't do this
unless you want your prey to flip the script on you. Be the hunter, and hunt them bitches down.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
User avatar
gorckat
gorckat
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
gorckat
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2830
Joined: January 17, 2007
Location: Bawlmer, Hon!

Post Post #1 (ISO) » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:58 pm

Post by gorckat »

Fascinating.

You should wiki this.
User avatar
Adel
Adel
Crystalline Logick
User avatar
User avatar
Adel
Crystalline Logick
Crystalline Logick
Posts: 6743
Joined: May 23, 2007
Location: Central Oregon / High Desert

Post Post #2 (ISO) » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:08 pm

Post by Adel »

wow.

ABR wins with post 0. nice.
User avatar
shaft.ed
shaft.ed
dem.agogue
User avatar
User avatar
shaft.ed
dem.agogue
dem.agogue
Posts: 4998
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis

Post Post #3 (ISO) » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:10 pm

Post by shaft.ed »

Can you tell me how to find scum since the wagon driving is pretty easy for me but selecting the proper wagon seems to be my biggest problem. A simple how to video would be great. Maybe get that Oxy-Clean guy to do it?
User avatar
Claus
Claus
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Claus
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1734
Joined: June 1, 2007
Location: Tsukuba
Contact:

Post Post #4 (ISO) » Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:40 pm

Post by Claus »

How to find scum? Use the force, Shaft.ed.

That's all about it. You print down the thread, and wave your hand over each posts. You will feel a different vibe over the posts written by scum.

True dat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVVmAG0RXmo
User avatar
Ythill
Ythill
Fabio
User avatar
User avatar
Ythill
Fabio
Fabio
Posts: 4892
Joined: November 10, 2007

Post Post #5 (ISO) » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:08 pm

Post by Ythill »

ABR wrote:I know who Thesp will hammer.
ABR did not, in fact, know who Thesp would hammer. :P

Good post though. Having been a part of that game, and having found Seta suspicious, and having later started thinking she was town, and then being lynched before her, I can agree with much of ABR's lesson.

However, his illogical/emotional drive to lynch her convinced me that he was scum so much that I attacked the claimed doc, and was lynched for it in Seta's place. His tirade drew suspicion from another townie as well. Before ABR replaced in, both myself and this other townie had town reads on the role, a fact that ABR managed to spoil in less than 48 hours.

It was only after ABR replaced back out and his role was NKed/confirmed that Seta was lynched and, honestly, I don't know that he had a lot to do with it, though she seemed to think that he did.
Record:
Town 10W/15L
Scum 4W/1L
Other 2W/2L
Newbie 1L


"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG
User avatar
lord_hur
lord_hur
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
lord_hur
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1204
Joined: February 20, 2008
Location: France

Post Post #6 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:57 am

Post by lord_hur »

A+ material.

I've been trying to use this technique for the first time, but now that I've read your post, things are infinitely clearer for me. You put forth many tips that will probably make the difference between a successful lynch and utter failure (because there is no middle ground there).

Thanks much for taking the time to write this.
All lurkers unite! And jump off the nearest cliff. Now.
User avatar
Scigatt
Scigatt
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Scigatt
Goon
Goon
Posts: 833
Joined: January 4, 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post Post #7 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:48 am

Post by Scigatt »

Albert B. Rampage wrote: I'm not telling you noobs to fake it til you make it...far from it. I'm giving you this information because, once in a while, some noob will find a scum and let the bastard slip right through his fingers for the win because he was too soft on the sod. Ever had that "I KNEW YOU WERE SCUM" post-game rant ? This article was for you.
Oh man...I've had at least one game end like that.
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #8 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:51 am

Post by Glork »

I have to say that I disagree with #2 in your list, for a number of reasons. Flat-out ignoring others rarely helps improve your own position. Remember that not only do you need to go after Player X, whom you firmly believe is a scumbag, but you also need to convince everyone else that A) You're right; and B) You're protown yourself. Being able to field questions while rooting around your potential suspects makes you that much more credible. Regarding your 50% evidence, 50% accusation, I disagree vehemently. I would prefer to use the "logic/rhetoric" axis, but to align with "evidence/accusation," I'm going to say 80-20 in favor of evidence. Putting a lot of spin on your side does not make it more sound.


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
essential
to getting players to agree with you.

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.
Now... an excerpt.
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.
This fits into two categories that ABR denounced in his mini-essay.

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:
ABR wrote:This always ends with "I have my views, you have yours".
A) That is
not
always how it ends. I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but I can go find exmamples of where I have eaten my own words after a debate; and
B) Disagreeing with your target is an insignificant consequence of the logical debate.
Of course
your views are likely going to differ from the person you are attacking. If you have indeed found scum and you want them lynched and they do not want to be lynched, they are not going to agree with you that they are scummy. But
you yourself, ABR, correctly point out that, convincing your target is not the point of making a case
. I don't care if Player X becomes defeatest or takes an "agree to disagree" stance. The point of the logical debate is to convince
THE REST OF THE TOWN
that I am right and X is scum, and that is MORE than possible.

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
FOUR
more scumbags by the very next day. Though I made numrous other lengthy posts against Dripping Goofball, I also managed to out MoS, Fritz, and TSS and 3WN. My attention to world-view, my eye to connections and other players, led me to not only find DGB as scum that day, but it
absolutely crippled both scumgroups
and led to the domination of that game by the town. One will never convince me that ignoring others in favor of going after Player X is ever (much less universally) the correct way to play.

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,
provided that those players alive in late-game are willing to look back for them
.

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,
particularly
in mid- to late-game situations. On D1, "find the scummiest player" obviously applies more than "figure out the entire game." As you progress through the game, roles are claimed, people die off, and player interactions form and solidify. That's when world-view becomes extremely important, and the dangers of rampant narrow-mindedness rise exponentially.




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
every single day
, towards the end of the day, I found myself settling for somebody I probably suspected less overall, but who pinged my 'dar late in that given day.

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
wonderful
tool for finding and lynching scum. But like most things, it must be used in moderation and only where appropriate.

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,"
I would strongly advocate trying out a wide variety of playstyles as you develop your own talents as a mafia player.
Sooner or later, you will find your niche, and you will find something which you enjoy, and that will make your playing experience that much sweeter.
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 27261
Joined: April 8, 2007
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Post Post #9 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:12 am

Post by Albert B. Rampage »

I'll look into that game more in detail. For now, this what I have to say about the first part of your post:
Glork wrote:I have to say that I disagree with #2 in your list, for a number of reasons. Flat-out ignoring others rarely helps improve your own position. Remember that not only do you need to go after Player X, whom you firmly believe is a scumbag, but you also need to convince everyone else that A) You're right; and B) You're protown yourself. Being able to field questions while rooting around your potential suspects makes you that much more credible.


I said:
Albert wrote:Ignore other players' inquiries if their questions don't move you closer to lynching your target player.
Making yourself look more pro-town and convincing others that you are right DOES move you closer to lynching your scumbag.
Glork wrote:Regarding your 50% evidence, 50% accusation, I disagree vehemently. I would prefer to use the "logic/rhetoric" axis, but to align with "evidence/accusation," I'm going to say 80-20 in favor of evidence. Putting a lot of spin on your side does not make it more sound.
To each his own style, my 50/50 guideline is there because IME theatrics go a long way. Most players wouldn't give a second glance to lengthly semantics - sometimes they just skip to the conclusion to see who "looks like they're winning." You don't want to prove the absoluteness of your arguments, you want to get scum lynched. Its all about priorities to me.

It is certainly possible to have very right-brained logical players in the game, that will read each and every post and analyze it to bits and pieces, I'm not denying that. In that case, logic is the best way to get your lynch.

However, most of the time, it is far more useful to persuade everyone that you are right. You don't need to prove every point and write a long dissertation to get someone lynched; that's a fact.

Dish out the evidence and pummel it into everyone's brains instead of going into the details. What a very logical-minded person will tend to do is branch out his arguments in response to the scum and get lost in it. This often becomes a duel between a scum and a town, which is not to your advantage. The sole strength of a town lies in its MAJORITY. You have to do whatever it takes to get the majority on your side.

This ain't a cowboy showdown, its a mob of people ganging up on one person.
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 essential to getting players to agree with you.
Since step 2 is inter-changeable, I don't see a problem with step 3.
Last edited by Albert B. Rampage on Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #10 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:17 am

Post by Glork »

ABR wrote:To each his own style, my 50/50 guideline is there because IME theatrics go a long way, contrary to lengthly semantics where 50%+ of the players wouldn't give a second glance. You don't want to prove the absoluteness of your arguments, you want to get scum lynched. Its all about priorities to me.

It is certainly possible to have very right-brained logical players in the game, that will read each and every post and analyze it to bits and pieces, I'm not denying that. In that case, logic is the best way to get your lynch.

However, most of the time, it is far more useful to persuade everyone that you are right. You don't need to prove every point and write lengthly dissertation to get someone lynched; that's a fact.
I agree that it is essential to "persuade everyone that you are right."

My contention is with
how
one "should" go about doing so. Most players will not play based on who is the smoothest talker. They will take action based on what makes the most sense to them. Rhetoric can only get you so far, and when your words are attacked and you cannot back them up with facts and logical progression, you will inevitably fail in your bid to convince others. One can get away with rhetoric against players who are less inclined to use thorough logic themselves, but let me put it this way: If you ever try to rhetoric
me
to death, I will rip you apart faster than you can say "die suck die."


EDIT:
ABR wrote:What a very logical-minded person will tend to do is branch out his arguments and get lost in it.
This statement is inherently wrong.

A very logical-minded person will keep his facts, his arguments, and his opponent's counter-arguments properly in check.

A person who is not at all logical will be the one who gets lost in his own arguments.

You seem to be making an assertion which is simply not true.
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 27261
Joined: April 8, 2007
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Post Post #11 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Post by Albert B. Rampage »

Hence the 50/50 rule. You will respond to 50% of the logical debate, and ignore the rhetoric, while others will be convinced by the rhetoric supported by the evidence.

I have never, in all my games, ever seen scum defend against rhetoric. There's just no point in doing so, it will just put them in a very defensive position and further put the spotlight on them.
Glork wrote:EDIT:
ABR wrote:What a very logical-minded person will tend to do is branch out his arguments and get lost in it.
This statement is inherently wrong.

A very logical-minded person will keep his facts, his arguments, and his opponent's counter-arguments properly in check.

A person who is not at all logical will be the one who gets lost in his own arguments.

You seem to be making an assertion which is simply not true.
Thank you for correcting my misconstruction in my haste. That's what I meant.

If the counter-counter-counter-argument is only a minor scumtell, ignore it and repeatedly hammer out the big scum tells that you started out with.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #12 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:25 am

Post by Glork »

ABR wrote:I have never, in all my games, ever seen scum defend against rhetoric.
You apparently have played a very limited subset of players, then. A good scumbag will respond to rhetoric exactly as a good protown player would do. He would explain why it is mere hand-waving, dismiss it and the accusations which result from it, and focus on the bare bones of the argument.
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 27261
Joined: April 8, 2007
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Post Post #13 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:28 am

Post by Albert B. Rampage »

Often, what you call rhetoric is just an introduction, conclusion or tangent to a case based on logic. It is seamlessly blending in with everything else. You do it yourself, to a lesser extent.

There are no accusations that "result from it". It IS the accusation. Re-read my first article. 50% of your time should be spent ACCUSING the person of scum, and the other 50% of why you are accusing them of scum.

Glork, you can't break me by responding to a pure accusation. You can only break me by responding to my evidence.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #14 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:30 am

Post by Glork »

ABR wrote:Glork, you can't break me by responding to a pure accusation. You can only break me by responding to my evidence.
I cannot "break you" so to speak by defending against pure accusation. What I
can
do is destroy that subset of players who you claim "will be convinced by the rhetoric." Once that is gone, what do you have left?
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 27261
Joined: April 8, 2007
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Post Post #15 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:32 am

Post by Albert B. Rampage »

Nay, you can't do that either. Those players will of course rely on the 50% of evidence I put out as a shield.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #16 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:34 am

Post by Glork »

Prove it.
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 27261
Joined: April 8, 2007
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Post Post #17 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:38 am

Post by Albert B. Rampage »

Any examples I provide would just be dismissed as a freak coincidence by you.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #18 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:40 am

Post by Glork »

Any individual can take an exception and present it as the norm. You have done nothing to prove to me that yelling your way through an argument is the "best" way to find scum and convince others.
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Albert B. Rampage
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 27261
Joined: April 8, 2007
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Post Post #19 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:41 am

Post by Albert B. Rampage »

I never said anything about finding scum. What I gave was my opinion on how to focus on who you think is scum and seeing them lynched by the end of the day.

lol@youre quote btw

"Don't be a sissy. Just lynch the poor sucker already."

This is an accusation / rhetoric / non-logic ^
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
User avatar
Yosarian2
Yosarian2
(shrug)
User avatar
User avatar
Yosarian2
(shrug)
(shrug)
Posts: 16394
Joined: March 28, 2005
Location: New Jersey
Happy Scumday!

Post Post #20 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:43 am

Post by Yosarian2 »

Albert wrote:
Do not get into a logical debate with your target. This always ends with "I have my views, you have yours". Only reply to what is necessary. Build the tension until your opponent feels the heat, is ready to explode, to give up and surrender at your feet. Everything your victim does at this point will lead to one of two things that MUST be pointed out and formally written for the town to see your thought process:


You see them act scummier and scummier.


They convince you that you are wrong.

Other town members (such as Setael in this example *pg20) will often try to build their own cases. Ignore their logical arguments and tell them bluntly that the player they suspect will not be lynched that day; maybe tomorrow.

Re-direct the town's attention every time they steer you away from your path. You are on a straight collision course with the scum and nothing can stop you. It always comes down to who wants it more, and who is more confident in their choice.
I don't at all agree with this.

First of all, you usually WANT to engage in a logical discussion with your target. You want to break down all of their arguments and defenses using logic, you want to logically go through, point by point, and show how their actions make sense as scum, and be willing to go into as much detail as people want to hear. That's how you get someone lynched. It puts you in a high-risk position, but it also forces the town to pay attention.

On a more general note, I tend to think this dosn't work out well. The problem is that more and more people are playing like this ALL THE TIME, which means that townie A is off trying to do his wagon, townie B is trying to do something else, and townie C is trying to do something else, and no one listens to anyone else or is willing to change their minds, so the town never goes anywhere.

Every once in a while, I will get hyperfocused on someone and drag the town over to a lynch on that person, but while that can work it's a high-risk move; if you're wrong, it hurts the town badly and hurts your own credibility. I'm pretty sure that the fact that I focused on Fonz like this day 1 in the Lost Boys game and ended up being wrong was one of the main reasons I eventually got lynched in that game, and a significant reason the town ended up losing. There are times to use everything you've got to bring the focus onto one person, but it is definatly not something you should do all the time, and you still should still pay attention to side issues and be willing to jump off the bandwagon you started if the moment seems right.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #21 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:44 am

Post by Glork »

"Focus on," then. Forgive the typo.



You still have not addressed my question. You have made a number of assertions which you cannot back up with evidence, and I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Your response is a shield of rhetoric, and I am dismissing it and forcing you to return to the facts.

Guess who's winning this argument?
(See, there's that 20% making its way into the conversation.)
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Yosarian2
Yosarian2
(shrug)
User avatar
User avatar
Yosarian2
(shrug)
(shrug)
Posts: 16394
Joined: March 28, 2005
Location: New Jersey
Happy Scumday!

Post Post #22 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:45 am

Post by Yosarian2 »

Also, I agree with Glork. Empty retoric dosn't do all that much. The main point of posts are:

1. To convey your logical side of the argument

and

2. To communicate how invested you are in the argument, how much of your own personal capitial you're willing to invest in this case.

"Can we lynch Albert yet?" can be a good post, but that's not because it's going to convicne anyone on a logical basis or because of rhetoric, it's because of #2.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #23 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:47 am

Post by Glork »

Yos2 wrote:I agree with Glork.
Sigged like a champ.
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
User avatar
Glork
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
User avatar
User avatar
Glork
Burdened by Proficiency
Burdened by Proficiency
Posts: 14106
Joined: July 13, 2005
Location: Dance into the fire

Post Post #24 (ISO) » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:52 am

Post by Glork »

EBWOP: Also, though mostly unrelated, a response to this:
ABR wrote:"Don't be a sissy. Just lynch the poor sucker already."

This is an accusation / rhetoric / non-logic ^
That statement is not, by any means, intended as an accusation. It stems from the number of deadline lynches (or, in some cases, no-lynches) from people not willing to suck it up and go with a lynch that they do not absolutely support. In fact, if anything, it is an affirmation of my own stance, because it appeals to the world-view, and
not
tunnel-visioning on one player who isn't being lynched.
Green Shirt Thursdays


Get to know a Glork!
Post Reply

Return to “Mafia Discussion”