Questioning: What should be the best approach regarding this

[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.

[Smithereens]

I'll review these links you've posted angel, to examine the claim.

In response to 73,
>It doesn't really matter what language you speak. The argument is the same en français as in English. You believe that scum will stumble when put to a reaction test. The justification consists largely of ideas about how people who know they are guilty would theoretically act out that guilt when asked a leading question. You had might as well be quoting Freud for all the difference it makes.

>I have nothing against behavioural analysis. I dislike it when people assert validity in methodologies that are so wishy washy they can't even be scientifically tested however. Reaction testing for example can't even be universally defined, and the features that it attempts to provoke cannot be measured. Ergo there's no way to claim that reaction testing is any more valid than tarot cards.

>There's no such thing as behaviours which cannot be faked. Especially online.

>I lol'd when you told me to go read Skinner. I've read Skinner and a whole lot more on this issue, so let me break it down to you why he doesn't agree with what you're asserting:
1) Skinner outright rejected all claims that could not be tested. He was a die-hard empiricist and logical positivist.
2) Skinner was not interested in behaviours or mental processes that could not be objectively measured.
3) Skinner believed that behaviour was inherently biologically and that the subjectivists (ie yourself) were fundamentally wrong.
Skinner in other words would not approve of your beliefs that reactions can be tested by leading questions and then examined by the questioners arbitrary standards. If he were here, he would probably say something along the lines of GFY.

There is nothing at all scientific about your beliefs. There's nothing wrong with you having them, however if we were playing together and we were both town, we'd be worse off because you believe in the non existent validity of a system that cannot be assessed let alone falsified. So it's kinda in my own best interests to push this case at you, I hope you understand.

[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.

[Smithereens]

Angel if you're going to define reaction test so broadly, then everything is a reaction test, which means 'reaction tests' don't actually exist. From looking at those games, you didn't do anything that everyone else doesn't do. I think by reaction tests you're just referring to the fact that you're playing the game right?
This method isn't defined, does not have any key features that distinguishes it from any identifiable form of gameplay, and it certainly doesn't produce results independently of anything else. Reaction testing if anything, denotes the fact that you were attentive to how players responded to you. So no, we cannot test or measure your claims.

When I said that your methods were inherently subjective, I meant exactly that. The scumminess of a reaction is based entirely on your appraisal. There's nothing objective about it and we don't need to pretend that it's anything more than pseudo-scientific BS. I don't understand your use of the word 'traces' or the later part of your post either. I read it over several times and it still doesn't make sense.

[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.

[Ranmaru]

I would like to add to Frozen's questions: Smith, how does Skinner (and anyone else that has a heavy influence on behavior analysis, etc) influence your play and thought process in game? That would be interesting.

[Smithereens]

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.

This is how I interpret your 'reaction tests'
>They are actually descriptive of general play method, not specific play method
>They are more often opportunistic or retrospective than planned and prospective
>They describe a manner in which most players play the game

While your play may be unique to you, your qualifications of reaction testing isn't. Everyone does reaction testing when you call it the ability to analyse responses, that's not saying anything.

[Smithereens]

I would like to add to Frozen's questions: Smith, how does Skinner (and anyone else that has a heavy influence on behavior analysis, etc) influence your play and thought process in game? That would be interesting.

Who would of skinner while playing mafia? That's as weird as a golfer constantly recalling quotes by Tiger woods as they take their shots. Who do you think of when you play mafia? Nobody, right?

[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.

[Smithereens]

"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."

I feel like this statement sums up everything which you believe, except it doesn't quite come across correctly in English. How does reaction testing fit into this and what do you mean by it?