Questioning: What should be the best approach regarding this

[Frozen Angel]

The only time I've seen people pull off a reaction test correctly was when they were an unrevealed Innocent Child.

It didn't actually really help, but it was one of the few occasions on which it didn't hurt either.

siriously

you logical guys are so obsessed with calling whatever you can't understand , hurtful.

There is no hurt in asking questions. even if your question is shit and the answer is already revealed , the way people react to your question , the way people back each other and the way they will panic or get frustrated when you start cornering them with tones of questions are all critically - correct - only true way for scum hunting.

all your others logical scum tells or scum slips are just pure shit and NAI as they can be from town or mafia. they can be used for pushing the above and giving a correct read though.

[Frozen Angel]

There is a hurt in reaction testing as town.

It makes it harder for people to read you, which increases the chance that you'll be mislynched, and at the least makes it hard for you to push your reads.
It also makes it easier for scum to hide, because if reaction testing is commonplace as town, scum can do it themselves to make it harder to read.

Asking questions is not a reaction test, and it's something I agree with a lot. (In fact, it's my most commonly used tool for scumhunting.)

I've never got misslynched.

just once in a lylo by a lurker.

but yeah I can't push my reads / although their so accurate.

[Frozen Angel]

The problem isn't that we don't understand it


The problem is we understand it waaaaaay too well after watching it go wrong time and time and time again

O.O

why mines are so much accurate then?

lucky I guess?

[Frozen Angel]

As I say, reaction tests begin with an assumption: "town wouldn't do this," or "only scum would do this." But that's your opinion of what other people would or wouldn't do. Every player does things differently. How you react to a "test" as town, I'd react differently. So then you push AHA HE MUST BE SCUM LOOK AT THIS REACTION. But then you're wrong because you've made an incorrect assumption of how town would react--- or how I would react as town. So either you mislynch me (not likely) or I push back pointing out how easily scum can hide behind "reaction tests" to get away with scummy behavior. And you get lynched. And then you flip town and rage in the dead PT how I must be scum and how am I getting away with that shit... And then I flip town too and we call each other shitty players: me for reacting in a way you didn't expect, and you for basing your reads on a dumbass reaction test.

This sort of thing happens all the time. This is why reaction tests are fucking stupid.

thats not the way I do it

but yeah assuming stuff is the first step. you assume stuff , will force them to get out of their shells and forget what they were hiding , then you see if their lying and faking that rection or their genuine.

I'm satisfied with the results of my approach and I will continue to do so! and their not fucking stupid. if you can't use something or you saw people who can't use it don't call the whole idea stupid!

[Frozen Angel]

to be fair, though, you'd be correct to call someone a shitty player for basing their reads on a dumbass reaction test

to be fair you are a shitty player for refusing the idea becuase you don't know anything about it!

I agree I am a shitty player!

But I'm a correct shitty player normally. and its written all over my meta <3

[Frozen Angel]

I mean, the closest I get to a reaction test is in throwing out a question to the game at large that I think scum are more likely to answer than town.

The main difference between this and a typical reaction test is that I rarely use it to push someone immediately, more treating it as weak evidence that can go into forming a case later in the game. It acts as a starting point when I don't have any strong reads yet.

There's also the case of asking someone a question that you don't think they'll be able to answer as scum, but that isn't really a reaction test at that point. It's more of a self-demonstrating method of pushing someone, which has the advantage that if they're actually town they may be able to talk you out of it.

That said, most of the questions I ask aren't reaction tests because I'm not envisaging anything particular in mind for them, and rather asking for guidance and looking for somewhere to start thinking. The vast majority of my questions aren't trick questions, they're just giving people an opportunity to expose their thought process. And on the rare occasions that the answer turns out to be mindbogglingly scummy, that's on the person who answers, not the person who asked the question, and other players will pick up on it too.

the typical reaction test your saying is hard tunneling which is stupid. what I was talking about was different . I'm not sure why I'm bothering you with explaining my methods.

lets live our lives shall we?

[Frozen Angel]

There is a hurt in reaction testing as town.

It makes it harder for people to read you, which increases the chance that you'll be mislynched, and at the least makes it hard for you to push your reads.
It also makes it easier for scum to hide, because if reaction testing is commonplace as town, scum can do it themselves to make it harder to read.

Asking questions is not a reaction test, and it's something I agree with a lot. (In fact, it's my most commonly used tool for scumhunting.)

oh and @kuribo : I never ended up like that with someone. oh well once I did , it was a 7 player lylo and I called two teams . I was correct about them being a team , I just got them vise versa! :/

[Frozen Angel]

i think the amount of time someone is correct about what a "reaction test" means is roughly the amount of time you might expect someone to be right by random chance

siriously

Are you requesting for a meta dive? becuase I have like 35 games here in my 40 town games.

and thats not random chance. I'm the unluckiest person in the universe. thats pure analyzing.

[Frozen Angel]

ok!

I'm lucky! let me do my luck work and follow my lead more often. Its proven useful <3

[Frozen Angel]

i mean, i really really REALLY don't want to bring up camn's apartment because I was in that game for like two hours before ragequitting

but that's a pretty good example of the kind of bullshit that passes for reaction test

including up to AFTER MY SLOT DIED, the guy that did it saying "how did that slot flip town?!"

yeah, there's a reason my slot died before yours, stick your reaction tests where the sun don't shine, bub.

I don't care how others used this and I think we're not talking about the same "reaction testing" here.

so whatever! <3

[Frozen Angel]

as I said I understand.

I'm just saying refusing the whole idea like that while it can be more effective if used and analyzed correctly is wrong. specially when it can be easily misunderstood with a emotional rage on something - what people use to misrepresent my cases to save themselves and their teammates -

its easily misunderstandable becuase of its nature , and its really hard to explain . but its not related for it being a bad method or a not correct one.

[Frozen Angel]

it's bad because it introduces unnecessary elements into the game

if you can analyse someone's posts as well as you say you can, then you can do it without "reaction tests"

Its the "Reaction Test"

unnecessary elements your talking about are the only elements that matter while determining someone's alignment (whose alignment isn't confirmed in a logical way I mean) . logical fallacy means nothing in that matter by itself.

[Frozen Angel]

ok!

I don't think I'm obvious as scum though. its discussable!

[Frozen Angel]

I did that already.

I just felt like a useless peace of shit whose reads were all screwed up.

[Frozen Angel]

whats an rxn test?

I'm sure we have definition here.

[Frozen Angel]

when you say something that doesn't reflect your true thoughts about the game specifically to make someone else react to that thing that you said, in the hopes of discerning his alignment from his reaction

nah its not lieing. and the second part is not a very deep way for looking into what I mean.

its basically a general way for analyzing after researching the differences between the way reacted to different stuff in game . it will tell if they are hiding something or they are over protective about someone else. it will give you a map of associations. The rest is your duty for analyzing what are the meaning of them.

have you ever seen someone in real life detecting other lies? its similar.

[Frozen Angel]

@Smithreen

> reading human behavior is a complicated - detailed psychology study and its not impossible. It is possible and its a very old scientific study. one of the measurments of how smart is someone is social intelligence. Its variant from people to people , and understanding of others behavior and how they feel about a commuinication is a part of it. you may argue that in here we only see words and reading behavior over words are a stupid claim. I will argue back and claim that even through words you may see how other person feel .

> what I was talking about is not a simple asking / answering test.

> yes. Everyone underestimate that. Its very complex and very beuitiful if you start looking more deep into it. and it tells you so much facts.

>and I claim the reaction testing is the only true way for investigating others agenda. and reasons (or how we call it here : alignment). logical analyzing helps in a deep way but when we're talking about human behaviors its much more complicated than logic and logical tells are wrong at least half of the times.

I am claiming that omgus is not a scum tell. its a very good start for looking deeper in the reason someone omgus'ed though.

[Frozen Angel]

And you look for the right clues while your analyzing reactions you will detect the abnormalities and differences when someone is scum and when their not.

its not meta reading and it won't shape a meta read. its something unique for the momentum and the current game. its pure analytic based on current facts and it has a high chance of succession if it get done correctly.

[Frozen Angel]

that's not reaction testing though that's just normal post analysis

thats not what anyone else is doing as far as I see...

so call it whatever

[Frozen Angel]

I hate gambits in general.

[Frozen Angel]

@Smithreen

> reading human behavior is a complicated - detailed psychology study and its not impossible. It is possible and its a very old scientific study. one of the measurments of how smart is someone is social intelligence. Its variant from people to people , and understanding of others behavior and how they feel about a commuinication is a part of it. you may argue that in here we only see words and reading behavior over words are a stupid claim. I will argue back and claim that even through words you may see how other person feel .

> what I was talking about is not a simple asking / answering test.

> yes. Everyone underestimate that. Its very complex and very beuitiful if you start looking more deep into it. and it tells you so much facts.

>and I claim the reaction testing is the only true way for investigating others agenda. and reasons (or how we call it here : alignment). logical analyzing helps in a deep way but when we're talking about human behaviors its much more complicated than logic and logical tells are wrong at least half of the times.

I am claiming that omgus is not a scum tell. its a very good start for looking deeper in the reason someone omgus'ed though.

I'm not seeing a valid argument here. Yes words can impart how people think and feel. No, a reaction test is not going to tell you how people think and feel. It's like the difference between considering how you would react if a person was being assaulted in front of you, vs an actual incident where someone is assaulted in front of you. In theory, you would assist the person. In practice, virtually nobody ever does. Similarly, in theory, a reaction test tells you who is scum. In practice, it tells you nothing. This is the problem with the reductionalist approaches to human behaviour. You cannot simplify people into saying that 'unmaskable feelings of panic' will generally occur under a reaction test, that doesn't happen in reality, no matter how logical it sounds to you on paper.

"Reaction testing is the only true way for investigating others agenda."

Have you considered that this is actually not true at all? I could deduce the agenda of other players by examining the fact that a certain vote lacked any justification, that a certain player is role fishing, that a certain player isn't looking for scum etc etc. Reaction testing doesn't hold water when compared to the thousands of other considerations people observe when examining the behaviour of other players.

O.O

siriously why are you going to first block again. If you have a problem with my playstyle don't play with me. I use peoples reactions and the way they act in different circumstances and for testing it I make those circumstances occasionally.

wanna see how it works? read this : http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=65639

I claimed a macho tracker and i got two tracker guilty in row. and I told that the last mafia used a no kill gambit (instead of being roleblocked) in the third day.

is that pure luck?

if it is why my method worked in all my other games?

what do you want me to tell you? yes the way people reacts to different situations matter. your saying its to complex to be considered as a tell, I'm giving you a way. test that in multiple aspects and compare them. it will start make sense .

why I'm claiming all other tells are conditional and this one isn't? everyone can scum slip logically as town or as mafia. everyone can have a logical fallacy. the way they perform this actions and their agenda is the thing we must find out not hunting down their actions.

someone who omguses is not scum. someone who omguses becuase their frustrated on hard tunnel on them is not scum.

I hope you see what I'm saying. if not I'm not forcing you to use my style. I'm just defending it and it is a valid strategy - and its definietly not pure luck.

[Frozen Angel]

just for clarification it doesn't require you to claim

or to fake hammer

or to do stupid stuff. (it was assumable becuase I linked that one)

it needs you to analyze their reactions in certain circumstances and find out the Hypocrisy or any odd interaction and relation ship between two players. I'm usually heat stuff a bit when I have those certain circumstances are not yet built in game - in that game it was the case.

[Frozen Angel]

what do you mean you don't see my defense functional

[Frozen Angel]

Frozen Angel can you give your three best games that have what you are talking about, and explain why it worked in each.

I will make a list later today. ok.

[Frozen Angel]

your saying the same thing I'm saying and your criticizing it ; your not suggesting a solution but I am

the fact that usually your wrong doesn't mean you can't get better in this. I'm suggesting a way for being better in this.

[Frozen Angel]

I'm suggesting a way for analyzing behaviors and answers and the way people answer them.

a suggesting can't be rhetoric. Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible ; you can't. as you said its highly complex. but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)

[Frozen Angel]

I must leave now

but I will post my results (although I'm not claiming I'm really good implementing mu suggestion) after I returned.

[Frozen Angel]

your saying the same thing I'm saying and your criticizing it ; your not suggesting a solution but I am

the fact that usually your wrong doesn't mean you can't get better in this. I'm suggesting a way for being better in this.

If we are both saying the same thing, then we both agree that most methods of behavioural analysis produce inaccurate results.

My solution is to recognise that most methods of behavioural analysis produce inaccurate results and begin with that knowledge in mind.
Your solution is to... use reaction tests...? Idk. You tell me.

youre not even reading what I'm saying It wasn't the part I thought we're saying the same thing. we're saying the same thing about how results of questions and events are not telling anything by itself. but I have no idea who you use that to conclude the behavioral analysis are inacurte.

The reaction test by the definition your using is not accurate - but behavioral analysis are accurate.

siriously. I don't care. why should I convince you that your wrong if your not even reading what I'm asying and all your doing is to disagree and attack the results instead of whatevre lead to there?

[Frozen Angel]

I'm suggesting a way for analyzing behaviors and answers and the way people answer them.

a suggesting can't be rhetoric. Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible ; you can't. as you said its highly complex. but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)

"a suggesting can't be rhetoric."
A suggestion can be rhetoric. Your suggestion largely is rhetoric. Rhetoric is simply the use of language to make a point sound more convincing. Your practice is not evidence based, that's why I know with a great deal of certainty that it is not much more than the superfluous use of language.

"Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible."
If I suggested that we could catch scum by counting the number of words they used and comparing it to the average word count of their town games, I would be obliged to prove my claims. Same here, you have a burden of proof to substantiate the claim you made previously. The onus is not on me to discredit you.

"but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)."
I'm looking for a polite way to label this Bullshit. Unfortunately, none comes to mind. So there you have it.

My suggesting is a way to play that I used in all my past games. I hate when people accuse me of being rhetoric when they can't talk about anything else. I don't even know your fucking language to well to be rhetoric. My practice is only evidence based. Your attacking to my practice without researching about the evidences I putten in is being rhetoric. If you don't wanna discuss something and your not capable of doing so , no body is forcing you to do it.

I didn't ever suggested that. all I did in this thread so far was saying if your going to just attack behavioral analysis like the way your doing you must prove that I'm wrong becuase I have examples that are standing on my side. Your saying behavioral analysing is impossible in a mafia game I made a proof its possible. some of people like you accused me of being just lucky and I brought more examples for it. if anyone is still counting it lucky I don't care. I am satisfied with my play. i'm the one who is suggesting a thing here. if your not going to accept it , then don't!

plus there is a deep logical process included in my analyses so calling it pure luck is like counting every bit of your life based on luck - which is a true fact but thats not the imperession you want to put on my method when you call it lucky - all i'm saying is that its a valid way and it has valid answers and it pays off.

this mehod is concidering the fact people are not the same. and they will likly continue their habbits as eaither alignments. its not the targets of this method. this kind of analysis can tell if someone is hiding something , is anxious about something , is scared about something , is frustrated about something , is happy about something. i generally how someone feels about something. now this feeling means nothing on it owns but if you comare it to how that person reacted to other stuff happened you may make a behavioral sequence. By analayzing this squenece you can see how someone gets unwillingly anxious when their scumbuddy is dying - even if their the one who are bussying them -

Again you may say that this is not measurable through words on internet. the thing is , its not the words that will tell someones emotion. its the variation of their reactions from one moment than another. and its not fakeable - for that they must fake the emotion itself which won't matter as it will be obvious in the sequence of that persons behavioral changes.

It is scientific , it is a hybrid of logical/emotional anlayizing and your rejection of the core basis of this idea means absoloutly nothing to me.

oh and by the way I suggest you to read this book : Science And Human Behavior By B.F Skinner. if your not calling whatever is against your idea of word Bullshit before analyzing them.

these are all my town meta - including all the games I used this meta in and the ones I didn't:

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64200 : game canceled in day 1
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64284 : I was playing this game with pure logical analysis and I lost horribly.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63853 : I was an absoloute newbie and I had doctor. I had no idea whats going on till day 3 but I used a reaction test , by lieing about my role (doctor) and I made the scum claim him and his partner and got myself a 50-50 chance for saving someone at night but I failed.(this started before the upper one)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=64070 : they lol hammered two people in day 1 and 2 and I died night 2 so I had no chance to play.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64429 : I wasn't actually town. the game was semi king maker and town needed to decide on of me or one of the other two druids to win with them and we all needed to kill the only person with killing ability (a mage). I claimed druid under a little pressure, started noting stuff about people and I compared how people reacted to how someone with informations a mage had would react possibly. I pushed a lynch and we lynched mage day 1.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=64408 : I was purly lurking this game (don't look at my post count , there were pages that I never read even when I was in lylo)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=64520 : it was 2/2 lynch. most of my concern was to reason with the other hydra head in the game (Jeanne) so I really couldn't push my extreme questioning attitude. anyway if you track the way soren/mola hydra was reacting to my questions and the way titus was treating them you can see their attempt to be townreaded by her and rejecting engaging with me. If you compare the way they were catching up (between the heads) you can see one of them was trying so hard to dodge anything related to Jeanne but the other one was hardly trying to push her back . the variation of their behavior treating to different pushes was like they know that all these pushes are coming from town but they wanted to push Jeanne and they were trying to make Titus against her and heat Jeanne against titus.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=64215 : there wasn't any need for a scum hunting when I replaced in. all I neede to do was to softing that I'm the macho doctor to attract a night kill which failed becuase the doctor healed me. the cop solved the rest.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64753 : This is an example of what i'm talking about. RC was the one who were heating the game and I just used the way he did stuff. I had 0 doubt about the shos flip at the end of day 1 becuase of the way they tried to push back the town and use the mess to take his fish. if you iso shos you can see that he was dodging enaging at start (not a tell by itself) then when he started engaging he called the people who pushed him to post scum but then he saw he can't stand so much so he felt he needs an ally help. when the wagon deflected from him he didn't went back to his dodging style. instead he started to go wherever others pushing. when he got pressured again he started dodging the main concern again to apear like the way he was in start. he posted so many what the hell are you talking about posts and stuff. another behavioral change was when he claimed. he just throw away his dodgy style and claimed investigative (I guess ) to hang in there one more day. This behavior means servivlism and again its not a tell by itself but it highly suggest an agenda (that will be probably soon achivable) [look at his role pm which was a recruiter]
again nothing of these make him scum in first sight , ut look at them in a pattern and you understand that he can't have a town agenda.
oh and we were a vig and we shot the other scum based on the associations.

[Frozen Angel]

is not all my meta, its not even half of it

I got tired :/

[Frozen Angel]

oh absoloutly add saga frontier (when i called cerb scum and no one listened)

and the game I already posted here (two macho tracker guilty in row)

and the assassin creed game (again lynched a scum and vig shot the other)

[Frozen Angel]

all my onsite games that I finished are in my wiki.

for the rest search my ego.

[Frozen Angel]

your accusing me that I'm using language as a way for convincing. I was just hinting in the way i'm looking at mafia games.

I'm not using any of my assumptions in justifying anything.

I'm not calling anyone scum becuase they do any thing specific.

i use those specific things - that i call reactions/behaviors to see if there is any specific change upside/downside in them. Time won't change people (its extremely unlikely that someone change the way they behave in a short period of time like a week. so if they get frustrated after omguses they must get frustrated after omguses. if their not repeating the same behavior they were faking it in start. its the thing that completes the only - logical fallacy/scumtell based analyzis. I beleive those tells are not AI as they can be done by anyone( its the part I guess we agree on?).

about Skinner , I didn't study psychology. I don't know this topic and I'm sure your msunderstanding what i'm saying.

I'm simply introducing a method to detect changes instead of focusing on the answers/tells. I don't care about the names and stuff. The thing I suggested can be tested and definietly can be messured so I have no idea what is the whole thing your pushing here.
I'm not interested in mental processes that can't be mesured. I'm talking about the differences of mental processes that can be messured not based on the mental processes but their probable effects in the game.
and when I calimed that the behaviors are subjectively? I was just talking about the traces they make in game and the fact that the differences will give out facts that can be analyzed with all other facts. you don't think that behaviors make traces in the way people behave or react - or answer if your not satisfied with those words.

so no , if he says "GFY" he is misunderstanding what I'm saying too.

[Frozen Angel]

how do you play your game? and what is the meaning of playing your game? and yes analyzing every responses / acts in game means reaction testing in my opinion but thats not telling any cues unless you start comparing the results.

I guess I can't explain what I'm intended to tell and no , noone is playing any games like me as far as I can see.

[Frozen Angel]

neither of the above is what I was talking about

I'm saying you must detect the changes in behaviors of people and analyze their true agenda with that.

analyzing responses is not enough. people analyze them everywhere and they call its from scum or town without thinking about where that response is coming from and why. what I call reaction testing is deep logical-emotional analyzing of a player isolated from the game state ; like looking at them from a higher ground. what I'm suggesting is that if your going to call someones scum becuase they lied you must see how he reached that point and where is he heading to.

that was the part you were saying to and that was when I though we're saying the same thing.