Cases are anti-town?

This forum is for discussion related to the game.
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #3 (isolation #0) » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:47 pm

Post by The Fonz »

In post 1, Bricktoes wrote:Far end of the anti-walls sentiment?


Broadly, this. Plus the idea that town has gut reads, intuitions, and can act impulsively, whereas scum wants to go to painstaking length to show that they have 'good reasons' for acting as they do. The basic premise is that cases rarely actually convince anyone who wasn't going to find the behavior scummy anyway. What they can do is give scum cover for sheeping. You can say in a line or two why you think something's scummy, and people will either agree with you or not. Cases lead to point-by-point rebuttals which lead to point-by-point justifications, which lead to TL/DR.

I subscribe to a milder version of this, in that I think who someone votes for and the timing of it matters far more than any kind of justification they can raise. I'll often vote without any stated reason, in the hope it will cause people to look at my target and figure out for themselves why I suspect them. Most often, though, they just go 'Derp no reasons, that's scummy, vote Fonz.'
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #9 (isolation #1) » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:17 am

Post by The Fonz »

In post 6, kortul wrote:And what do you propose to do to those of us who prefare logic to gut/instincts/etc? For me, gut based (or no explanation) votes are more scummy, than at least some explanation. But i agree that long walls are evil, and i think most players are just skimming them, so making a long case means that most will just ignore it or catch a point or two.


Well, things aren't scummy 'For you.' They're either scummy or not.

For me, gut-based or unexplained votes always draw more heat relative to ones which are neatly explained, even when the underlying motives aren't any less valid. I feel they are unfairly presented as scummy when they're not.
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #11 (isolation #2) » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:35 am

Post by The Fonz »

Also, the longer it goes on, the more likely it is unless you're tunneled that there are several points going either way, so you're better off really just stating what you think the key argument against them is: ie active lurker/slip/every town wagon/weird interaction etc.
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #13 (isolation #3) » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:52 am

Post by The Fonz »

In post 12, Yosarian2 wrote:Answer: No.

Next question?


The position itself is too extreme, but it's the most radical form of a reasonable tendency, towards concision.
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #36 (isolation #4) » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:59 pm

Post by The Fonz »

In post 14, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
In post 9, The Fonz wrote:For me, gut-based or unexplained votes always draw more heat relative to ones which are neatly explained, even when the underlying motives aren't any less valid. I feel they are unfairly presented as scummy when they're not.


Here's the thing ... I understand your point but we have two votes.

One with attached reasoning.
One without.

The first can be analyzed for such things as scum intent and how said reasoning melds with other posts by the player.

The second cannot.


Well, the first can be analyzed for scum intent. You ask yourself rather than the player why they made that vote. And has been said already in thread, how good or consistent the logic appears to be seems to me much more a function of the player making the argument than the alignment making the argument. Generally, if a player is making arguments at all in the early days of a game, I'm not that interested in attacking them, I prefer to attack those who show little interest in going on the offensive at all. Later on, I'll rely more on looking at wagon dynamics and the timing of votes and things like that.

While we seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum as to thinking explanation is a Pro-Town action it is easier for scum to hide their pushes under the second kind of vote and say "I thought it was obvious, draw your own conclusions". Town can do it also but that only enables scum to do the same.


Well, I don't think explaining yourself is antitown. I certainly think players should usually explain their thought process if asked to. I also think both of you and I could do with being more concise in general. I just don't assume that because a player votes with one line of justification or none at all, it follows that he doesn't have any reasons. I also became excessively aware a few years ago that when I built cases of the kind you tend to deploy now, which at the time I did a lot, people would just sheep me without thinking about anything at all for themselves.

I've seen players like Chamber and Jack come under undue pressure because their posts were short far too often. Some of the best scumhunters I've seen were short post types. X-Com Terror From The Deep Mafia was one of the best examples I can think of. Chamber, playing under an alt, voted for a scum immediately after that scum had made a scummy as fuck post. And it immediately caused all the (fairly inexperienced) townies to scream 'OMG Chamber doesn't have reasons for his vote! Scum!' and he was lynched D1. Whereas to me, when I replaced in, it was excessively obvious why he'd voted the way he did when he did.
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #67 (isolation #5) » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:44 am

Post by The Fonz »

The problem I have is when someone makes a case that 30 different things a player has done are scummy, and I can't tell which are the key points, and at least 4-5 of the points are ridiculous and total confirmation bias and they cause me to ignore, or have my eyes glaze over before I get to, the 1-2 that actually nail the guy as scum.
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #125 (isolation #6) » Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:57 am

Post by The Fonz »

In post 120, quadz08 wrote:Maybe I'm jumping too far back in history then. When I read old games from like 05-07/08, nothing ever goes longer than 20-30 pages.


Here is every Large Theme I played in 07-08.

Your assertion is untrue. Worst role ideas was the only one under 80 pages, and that pretty much defined 'bastard mod game that was more about the lulz than the actual play.'

Basically, ITT we learn that Chamber is an extremist, but the tendency he represents is not without its merits. People on this site need to use the phrase 'I see what you're saying, but I don't believe you' more often.
User avatar
The Fonz
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
The Fonz
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9014
Joined: April 2, 2007
Location: UK

Post Post #128 (isolation #7) » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:05 am

Post by The Fonz »

Actually, I tend to think the actual arguments people use are a red herring - people tend to use the same kind of rhetoric as either alignment.

It's who you vote for and when that's the single most useful source of information when scumhunting.
Post Reply

Return to “Mafia Discussion”