When is inactivity scummier than activity?

[Psyche]

If you agree with the statement, "In general, inactivity is scummy" (or its converse, 'hyperactivity is scummy'), then you're probably wrong and I have the data to explain why I think so if necessary.

If you agree with the statement, "In general, (in/hyper)activity at a certain point in a certain day (ex. inactivity 20% into D2) is scummy", then the same goes. I can show that the claim is

not

very credible.

That doesn't mean that relative inactivity is never a scumtell. It means that you can't arbitrarily call a given moment of relative (in)activity scummy. Moreover, even if you're not being totally arbitrary and you call a given moment of relative (in)activity scummy only because that relative (in)activity occurred near, say, the end of D1, you're still probably doing something terrible.

There may be events more precise than "D3 is half-way done" that reliably time with differential activity. For example, maybe scum are more active or inactive when a wagon on someone in their faction is of a certain size. And that's what I want to ask you guys about - if there are other events you think might differentially affect some faction's activity for a time.

Are there any events in a mafia game that you think probably cause scum or town or some subset thereof to be disproportionately active/inactive?

[Majiffy]

Are there any events in a mafia game that you think probably cause scum or town or some subset thereof to be disproportionately active/inactive?

Continued active pressure in regards to explaining previously unexplained reads that don't seem to make sense will cause inexperienced or non-charismatic scum to attempt to lurk away the pressure.

Aside from this and a few other scenarios, activity is not an objective scumtell and I never understand why people try to perpetuate the claim that it is.

It can, however, be a valid meta tell.

[Psyche]

few other scenarios
go!

[Majiffy]

Growing bandwagon early in any dayphase, but more typically in early days where there are still MLs, scum will sit and see if the wagon will dissipate. If it won't, they'll hop on with weak arguments that don't actually support their vote earnestly. Especially prevalent if the wagon is on their partner.

[Majiffy]

You do realize that in compiling and publicizing all of this data, scum will actively subvert all of the findings, right? And all your work will eventually be for naught?

[Psyche]

Naught? If that happens, I can do a study on how plastic site meta is.

[Psyche]

Growing bandwagon early in any dayphase, but more typically in early days where there are still MLs, scum will sit and see if the wagon will dissipate. If it won't, they'll hop on with weak arguments that don't actually support their vote earnestly. Especially prevalent if the wagon is on their partner.

This seems less about activity than voting patterns.

Whether that is the case, do you think voting patterns are more productive than activity patterns for identifying scum? How much?

[Majiffy]

Naught means nothing, zero, meaningless, etc.

[Majiffy]

This seems less about activity than voting patterns.

Whether that is the case, do you think voting patterns are more productive than activity patterns for identifying scum? How much?

I don't disagree, I'm a heavy VCA player.

I think VCA is probably one of the most important objective standards one can use, but you still have to look at the underlying given reasons and trajectory in reads when considering it.

Basically, you're trying to isolate single factors when the key is to find a number of points that all hit at the same time.

Then

you can point and say "that, for certain, is scum".

[Psyche]

You do realize that in compiling and publicizing all of this data, scum will actively subvert all of the findings, right? And all your work will eventually be for naught?

Naught means nothing, zero, meaningless, etc.

This seems less about activity than voting patterns.

Whether that is the case, do you think voting patterns are more productive than activity patterns for identifying scum? How much?

I don't disagree, I'm a heavy VCA player.

I think VCA is probably one of the most important objective standards one can use, but you still have to look at the underlying given reasons and trajectory in reads when considering it.

Basically, you're trying to isolate single factors when the key is to find a number of points that all hit at the same time.

Then

you can point and say "that, for certain, is scum".

Okay, listen.

I am not an idiot. I know what "naught" means. I know that scum can't be identified with certainty from just looking at their activity patterns. I know that human beings are capable of changing their behavior. I mean, come on.

You do not know the details or the direction of my project. You don't know why I'm pursuing that project. You don't know how many factors I'm paying attention to. Whether scum actively subvert any 'findings' has no bearing on whether any thing is "meaningless" because in general there is very little that's meaningful about how well one plays a party game on an internet forum.

But above all, this thread is not about my project. It's about telling activity patterns. I'm happy that you're interested in it, but I'd rather you not shit unprompted on some caricature of what I'm doing and thinking and then act as if you're being helpful.

[Majiffy]

Meeeyow kitty's got claws.

[Majiffy]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to misread my intentions and get pissy or if you're genuinely just not realizing how poorly you're conveying whatever it is you're trying to convey.

[ZZZX]

I am the living proof that activity / inactivity can never be used asa. Tell (for me at least)

[quadz08]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to misread my intentions and get pissy or if you're genuinely just not realizing how poorly you're conveying whatever it is you're trying to convey.

I believe his point is that he's being intentionally opaque so as to avoid people determining precisely what it is he's attempting to measure

[EspeciallyTheLies]

In my experience, which isn't that much, but, lurking isn't really a "tactic" so much as a side effect of too many different circumstances to effectively codify the phenomenon.

[ZZZX]

In my experience, which isn't that much, but, lurking isn't really a "tactic" so much as a side effect of too many different circumstances to effectively codify the phenomenon.

This

[SleepyKrew]

Activity levels with a wagon on themself?

[Majiffy]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to misread my intentions and get pissy or if you're genuinely just not realizing how poorly you're conveying whatever it is you're trying to convey.

I believe his point is that he's being intentionally opaque so as to avoid people determining precisely what it is he's attempting to measure

But if his sample size is small enough to be determined artificially then his sample size wasn't large enough to be comprehensive or reliably accurate to begin with.

Activity levels with a wagon on themself?

Bandwagons rarely give reliable information on the wagonee, I find.

[Psyche]

this thread isn't about how "artificial" my sample size is either

[Marquis]

every single post in this thread will be about that

[Marquis]

a: reply hazy,
try again

[Iecerint]

Lynch all lurkers.

[Marquis]

but i dislike losing games for the sake of trying to teach someone who probably won't care out of a bad habit

[Zachrulez]

The thing with lynch all lurkers is that it covers all types of lurking, not just the kinds that are scummy.

There are certain types of lurking you absolutely should lynch with fire.

[mastin2]

Inactivity

is

always scummier than activity...that doesn't mean it's actually more likely to make you scum.

It depends on the cause of the inactivity. Inactive because of real life = null. And in a rational town, nobody's going to suspect you for it.
Inactive because of engagement elsewhere = potentially but not necessarily alignment-indicative; prod and poke about them to see what the cause is.

I generally go inactive in games because I feel a lack of need to engage--when scum, this'll be a sign my team is doing well; when town, this'll be a sign that I'm

not

doing well. Of course there's exceptions, but that's the general trend for me. However, I think this is largely player-dependent; using this same standard on someone else would be quite likely to fail.