How to Focus on Scum and get them Lynched

[Mr. Flay]

Thank you for posting this, ABR.

[Albert B. Rampage]

O.K. Glork, let me demonstrate:

Green = Non-logic / Focus Fluff / Whatever you want to call it

Red = Commentary by me

Why is it amazing?

I didn't say I was 100% OMG SUPER CERTAIN he was town. If I was, I'd be voting Glork. I'm just of that opinion (leaning that way) at the moment.
Why would 100% certainty of Patrick's alignment lead you to vote for me?

Ripley's attack on apple still seems wonky.

I am perfectly content with Crub's play. I'd give very strong odds that he's town.

Ripley: Given that we've seen plenty of "Village Idiots" on both protown and scum sides in the past, what made you conclude that Apple's behavior was more indicative of him being a scum-VI rather than just... an idiot?

<--- Glork applying to the letter the concepts of my first point.

Patrick's switch to Apple still feels weird, too.

I think the FoS served to indicate that his vote had gone from "not serious" to "serious"... is there anything wrong with that? If Apple had instead said "I guess I'm pretty happy with my vote on Ripley," do you think you would have reacted differently?

I still don't understand the Andyhate. IH cited Post 42:

FoS: Elmo I'd like an explanation on why you mentioned Patrick so suddenly.

Shanba voted for Elmo, stating that he was "amazed" that Elmo could have gotten a read. I guess I fail to understand how Andy's FoS seems to be insincere, whereas Shanba's vote has gone largely unmentioned.

Just on gut and voting patterns, I'd say maximum one of Andy/Apple is scum. I am currently of the opinion that both are protown.

See, IH's explanation at least makes sense (the fact that Andy did it after Elmo's response had taken place). It shows a logical distinction between Andy's behavior and those of [Glork, Patrick, Shanba]. While I don't have a problem with IH's probe, I still question the validity of those who followed.


General gameplay question for everyone...
Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

<--- applying what I've said again

The exchange between Patrick and Crub makes me feel somewhat better about Patrick's alignment.

This is just some random in-game quote I pulled out in 5 seconds.

I'm not doing this to "own" you or whatever. I am just hoping that you will see the distinction I make between FLUFF and LOGIC, and how there's a place for both in mafia.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Also, I agree with Glork. Empty retoric dosn't do all that much

I never, ever, ever encouraged empty rhetoric.

[Glork]

I would ague that your first part of red is logic. I ask him to provide evidence (or a logical progression) of what led to "scum-VI" rather than "town-VI."

My comment regarding Shanba/Andy is logically based, too. It is a reasonably common tell for scumbags to get less heat when performing similar behaviors as protown players. In this case, both Shanba and Andy were scum, but I applied a personal rule of mine based on experience (evidence from other games). I was trying to bring attention to Shanba by pointing this out.

Also, the general gameplay question was not rhetorical at all. It was an honest question asking people to categorize poor contributors. Those paralleled to Apple (the former) and... somebody else (I forget), but the goal was to look for inconsistencies in how people answered that question and how they felt about the two players in question. It very much had a logical background to it.





I will admit that you pulling a random quote from me, without knowing (much less being able to explain) context, probably won't do much. But I do not see the distinction you make from this particular example, because I know that my comments in that were based on logic.

[Yosarian2]

Not sure what you're getting at here, Albert. Glork is not at all doing what you talked about, he's actually commenting on several different people, and giving specific reasons for him comments. Something like "Patrick's switch to Apple still feels weird, too" or "Ripley's attack on apple still seems wonky" isn't really logic per se, but it's valid evidence that other people in the thread can look at and form opinions on, so I wouldn't call it "fluff" or "rhetoric" or anything.

[Glork]

Yos makes a good point.

Gut != Fluff. Not by any means.

EDIT: And actually, the "feels wonky" was probably because it didn't make sense to me (from a logical standpoint).

[Albert B. Rampage]

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.

I rest my case.

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.

This is not a universal law for scumhunting. This is for when you know who is scum but can't get them lynched. When you are so sure that you would bet your horse and wife on it, but nobody will listen. That's what this article was for. Not a bunch of newbes ignoring each other because of their faulty beliefs and ego too big to realize they might be wrong.

[lord_hur]

Fascinating discussion^^

Wish I could participate...not enough experience on the subject though.

[Albert B. Rampage]

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.

This is what Glork used.

[Glork]

How? I made a number of points on a number of people.

A) I was not "focused" on any individual person.
B) I did not think anybody "needed to be lynched" at that time.

EDIT: I honestly think you just picked a bad example. I am not trying to convince anybody or anything in that post, nor am I trying to set anybody up. That post was pretty early in D1 of a game, and there's no way I had anybody in my sights. I would suggest grabbing a post from Face-To-Face, when I was going after MBL.

[Albert B. Rampage]

"Ripley's attack on apple still seems wonky" isn't really logic per se, but it's valid evidence that other people in the thread can look at and form opinions on, so I wouldn't call it "fluff" or "rhetoric" or anything.

The exact same thing can be said of accusations, or what I will name "Focus Fighting" or FF for short. People can look at an accusation and contemplate it, see how it fits into their belief systems and form an opinion on it.

EDIT: Actually, this name SUCKS. I need something better. Suggestions ?

[Albert B. Rampage]

How? I made a number of points on a number of people.

A) I was not "focused" on any individual person.
B) I did not think anybody "needed to be lynched" at that time.

You must first determine who to focus on, to actually focus on them. Just like you must know what you want, before you can take it.

EDIT: My point is just is that everyone does it and its not something new. I've just broken it down for you. Everyone accuses sparsely between evidence. And this actually helps the lynching process, according to my experiences.

---

BTW, if you've read the examples of the article it should clear up any misconceptions.

[Glork]

Everyone accuses sparsely between evidence.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I would counter that sparse accusations do not make up 50% of real, "I'm convinced you are scum" cases. That is the assertion you made, is it not?

[Albert B. Rampage]

You said you use 80-20, and that fits perfectly into my world-view.

Some players like you and Yosarian are in it for the logic aspect of the game, and this article may have hit a nerve or something.

Other players will derive more fun from the actual winning, without the will to necessarily exert that much effort. Appeal to this aspect with the theatrics and you will improve your odds.

I can only speak generally, because most of these things depend on countless different factors. Nothing is definitively set in stone for sure, its just
what I think you should try out to get a higher chance of lynching scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Look, the basic principle is this:

To the mafia, you all start out as cucumbers. Once you strongly turn against them, you become a threat, you become a pickle. From that point on you will be a threat to the scum until you die.

Even if you might change your mind later, you want to give the impression that you won't. This encourages them to make mistakes, overreact, bus, calculate their odds of winning and get an erroneous or hopeless result, etc.

Also, your first post was great Glork.