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?

[Psyche]

few other scenarios
go!

[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?

[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.

[Psyche]

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

[Psyche]

your definition of scummy is convoluted

[Psyche]

tone down the aggro plz

[Psyche]

But in all seriousness. There was some stat diving a couple of years ago by I can't remember who, but it showed that scum usually have a higher posting density on earlier days that follows a nice curve that flattens out at about the minimum posting required to not get replaced by very very late game in larges.

This is probably very false, but if it isn't I will be excited to find otherwise.

[Psyche]

tone down the aggro plz

Your definition of aggro is weak.

You wouldn't have survived growing up in my household if you find this aggro

would you like to engage in a difficult household pissing contest