Titus Academy: Article 1 - Town Cohesion

[Randomnamechange]

any fakeclaim that can be retracted before it has potential permanent negative effects e.g. bp claiming doc to draw the kill when they know there won't be another protective can be OK if handled sensibly.
any that has an unknown factor or relies on certain reactions from other players generally is bad for the town.

[Titus]

Will there be scum play advice?

I can do that as Article 3.

[Titus]

Although tbf nancy would extend that logic to town fakeclaiming and stuff like that, where I draw the line before that point

yeah actually, if town would just never fakeclaim at all that'd be great

This can be article 4. How to fakeclaim, but mostly don't.

[nancy]

I think that if a magician cast a spell on everyone compelling them not to fake claim as town, town would win more games and games would be, overall, more pleasant to play. Town would miss some wins, it's true(like nancy's newbie), but the overall win rate would increase because there's no more nonsense.

I think if Town fakeclaimed only when it was really necessary and optimal to fakeclaim that would be best. I've fakeclaimed before simply out of selfishness/boredom and that isn't something I'd do again at all. Fakeclaiming can be optimal and should happen when it is. The fakeclaim I mentioned happened because there was no other more optimal play. Town would've /maybe/ still won (even though it was only because I survived the Night with my BP claim that I was able to get the 2nd scum lynched - they were universally townread except by me and it took 100 pages to finally get people to realize that they were scum) but it would've been in LyLo rather than on Day 2.

[MathBlade]

Meh.

I don't like this document.

The Town cohesion bit I do not understand flatout.

It pretty much reads "Do whatever the loudest" people want. That isn't cooperation IMHO. That is bullying dissenting voices into submission.

I'm honestly not sure I see how you could interpret it that way. Could you elaborate?

Player A and B are loud and claim a scumread on player C.
Player D has an unorthodox read on player E as scum.

Player A and B say "work with the town or we lynch you because A and B think E is town"
Player A and B accuse player D of not working with them because they don't want to lynch player C because they townread player C. Player A and B get hostile.

Player A and B threaten to lynch player D because they disagree saying that "They must be mad etc."

Meanwhile C is Town and then just disagrees with A and B and D whenever they get online.
A and B essentially are the "loudest voices" and if everyone else doesn't go along they get the stink eye.

[MathBlade]

This pretty much says sheep whoever is loudest and feels wrong.

[Lycanfire]

town cohesion is great if you draw scum and promote your teammates as town

[MathBlade]

Honestly look at Gistou or Shadowrun.

I just got in the townblock and stayed there.

Anyone who disagreed with FA was promptly lynched or ignored. I have yet to see a townblock game go well besides in memory and that I fucked up.

[Hikari Link]

Player A and B are loud and claim a scumread on player C.
Player D has an unorthodox read on player E as scum.

Player A and B say "work with the town or we lynch you because A and B think E is town"
Player A and B accuse player D of not working with them because they don't want to lynch player C because they townread player C. Player A and B get hostile.

Player A and B threaten to lynch player D because they disagree saying that "They must be mad etc."

Meanwhile C is Town and then just disagrees with A and B and D whenever they get online.
A and B essentially are the "loudest voices" and if everyone else doesn't go along they get the stink eye.

Except in the scenario you've just described, A and B are disregarding what she said on her 4th point.

The only time it would go down as you've described, assuming we were using the criteria Titus laid out, is if D is a legitimate disruption to the town and are being policy lynched, as mentioned in point 5 (which is a strategy I don't really agree with in most cases).

The solution, as I see it, is that A and B should be having a dialogue with D about all of their respective reads as they try to reach a consensus (or, at least, a better understanding of each other). Not to mention, you are leaving out the rest of the town's input. Why are A and B such powerhouses that every other member of the town must go along with them or risk being lynched/labeled incompetent? And again, if that's happening, then the town should be questioning A and B anyway, because if they are disregarding any alternative opinions, it means they are just operating in an echo chamber and probably doing a poor job of proper scumhunting.

And, I mean, we're not even discussing here whether any of the claims presented by A, B, or D have any logical merit, as well as whether the rest of the town is being swayed by any of these arguments. I realize it's just a hypothetical scenario, but it still just seems like it's a gross oversimplification.

Honestly look at Gistou or Shadowrun.

I just got in the townblock and stayed there.

Anyone who disagreed with FA was promptly lynched or ignored. I have yet to see a townblock game go well besides in memory and that I fucked up.

That sounds like a scenario where the group has become

too

cohesive and has succumb to groupthink. The whole point is for a plurality of opinions and an openness to different ideas in order to find the best solutions.

[rb]

Gistou was pretty bad, and town were made pretty lucky from night actions since the 2 scumteams cross-killed each other...for thinking the people they were killing were town.

Town _should_ have lost Gistou I think.

[MathBlade]

Player A and B are loud and claim a scumread on player C.
Player D has an unorthodox read on player E as scum.

Player A and B say "work with the town or we lynch you because A and B think E is town"
Player A and B accuse player D of not working with them because they don't want to lynch player C because they townread player C. Player A and B get hostile.

Player A and B threaten to lynch player D because they disagree saying that "They must be mad etc."

Meanwhile C is Town and then just disagrees with A and B and D whenever they get online.
A and B essentially are the "loudest voices" and if everyone else doesn't go along they get the stink eye.

Except in the scenario you've just described, A and B are disregarding what she said on her 4th point.

The only time it would go down as you've described, assuming we were using the criteria Titus laid out, is if D is a legitimate disruption to the town and are being policy lynched, as mentioned in point 5 (which is a strategy I don't really agree with in most cases).

The solution, as I see it, is that A and B should be having a dialogue with D about all of their respective reads as they try to reach a consensus (or, at least, a better understanding of each other). Not to mention, you are leaving out the rest of the town's input. Why are A and B such powerhouses that every other member of the town must go along with them or risk being lynched/labeled incompetent? And again, if that's happening, then the town should be questioning A and B anyway, because if they are disregarding any alternative opinions, it means they are just operating in an echo chamber and probably doing a poor job of proper scumhunting.

And, I mean, we're not even discussing here whether any of the claims presented by A, B, or D have any logical merit, as well as whether the rest of the town is being swayed by any of these arguments. I realize it's just a hypothetical scenario, but it still just seems like it's a gross oversimplification.

Honestly look at Gistou or Shadowrun.

I just got in the townblock and stayed there.

Anyone who disagreed with FA was promptly lynched or ignored. I have yet to see a townblock game go well besides in memory and that I fucked up.

That sounds like a scenario where the group has become

too

cohesive and has succumb to groupthink. The whole point is for a plurality of opinions and an openness to different ideas in order to find the best solutions.

Maybe I am not explaining it well enough.
The merits aren't discussed or if they are they are just "No you suck." And at best a sentence or two reply that is on point and the rest is a 2-3 page rant about being a distraction because you disagree. And then I have to be louder to be heard and it starts a vicious cycle in which then people are right loudest voices take over and are dissenting.

OR I can take the insults any time I disagree and just not get a single question answered.
Take 1900 for example. I incorrectly scumread Transcend. Not a single person addressed the case on him for three days. Titus begged to vig me because I didn't see a nonexistent case. :/ Honestly if someone had tried that game instead of just "No. I don't lynch Transcend D1 ever. That game could have gone different."

Blindly sleeping because voices are loud is horrible to me and I cannot understand it.

[MathBlade]

Gistou was pretty bad, and town were made pretty lucky from night actions since the 2 scumteams cross-killed each other...for thinking the people they were killing were town.

Town _should_ have lost Gistou I think.

Honestly I think I would have coasted were it not for me dying the only way I could :/

But it was because I used what Town gave me. :/

Like I just don't understand the points. I am trying them but to be frank I don't get them and I don't see how turning off trying makes me a better Town player.

[Infinity 324]

Yeah the problem is that unless other people follow this guide too, it's difficult to cooperate.

[nancy]

Yeah the problem is that unless other people follow this guide too, it's difficult to cooperate.

It's generally difficult to cooperate with people who are uncooperative, yes

[Alisae]

Yeah the problem is that unless other people follow this guide too, it's difficult to cooperate.

What is this myth?

You get people to cooperate by working with them, and talking to them. If anything, you try to get your townreads to work together and not against each other.
Don't fuckin give up trying to work with someone because they have a scumread on x because Star Wars.

[Infinity 324]

Yeah the problem is that unless other people follow this guide too, it's difficult to cooperate.

What is this myth?

You get people to cooperate by working with them, and talking to them. If anything, you try to get your townreads to work together and not against each other.
Don't fuckin give up trying to work with someone because they have a scumread on x because Star Wars.

I know, but if other people are tunneling and not listening to you, you won't get anywhere.

It is important to know when someone is willing to cooperate and work with them.

[Lil Uzi Vert]

I don't really care about fake claiming, just stop giving people shit when you're scum read or get lynched for it because you expected them to know you were.

[Lil Uzi Vert]

As for the guide, I can see where Math is coming from and if that's the case, the problem is worse than we thought.

[Alisae]

I know, but if other people are tunneling and not listening to you, you won't get anywhere.

Then try to get it through their heads that they are in a tunnel or work around them.

[Titus]

Yeah the problem is that unless other people follow this guide too, it's difficult to cooperate.

What is this myth?

You get people to cooperate by working with them, and talking to them. If anything, you try to get your townreads to work together and not against each other.
Don't fuckin give up trying to work with someone because they have a scumread on x because Star Wars.

I know, but if other people are tunneling and not listening to you, you won't get anywhere.

It is important to know when someone is willing to cooperate and work with them.

This is correct and it's important, no matter how strong your reads, to be willing to be in this group.

Seeing what other players need, and listening when they tell you is important.

If you're seeing the neon signs of "keep this up and we'll lynch you", it means that people perceive you have fallen out of the cooperation group long ago. You're tunnelling on the heart of town. People have given pages of reasons before, and your read has remained static over many many days, with zero sign of incorporating new evidence.

I was clear that divergent opinions need to be promoted, but that does not mean that the slots with divergent opinions get to spam the thread with divergent opinions and cry they aren't being "listened to" because no one agrees with them. If someone with a dissenting opinion isn't being listened to, they should do several things. First, answer who is it that is disagrees with me? Why do they disagree with me? Is it logically valid? Are the players that disagree with the dissenting opinion town? Is there another scum that I can hunt while I wait for town to see my opinion on that one? What is the setup looking like if I'm wrong?

Players who push dissenting opinions with a demand for votes with zero self reflection should get lynched. They aren't scumhunting. It's an excellent place for scum to hide. Town cannot work with them because they aren't working with town.

People indicate what they value by how much time they spend talking about it.

[Titus]

I'll add this myth.

Myth 7: If I make just the right post, town will be persuaded to follow all my logic and I shall be shown to be the person with correct reads.
Answer 7: No. At some point, town has heard your ideas and rejected them, no one will accept your ideas, no matter how accurate. The best way to get people to listen to you is to discuss what they want to talk about and only occasionally chime in with highlighting a post that is scummy on occasion. The thread has motion, like a river. If you're a log, you'll get attacked, dam or not. Water rushes towards anything in its way and diverts on its own course. Unless a dam has support, eventually it breaks.

[mhsmith0]

Myth 5: My vote should always be on my number 1 scumread at all times.
Answer 5: No. Your vote should always be on the vote that helps town win at all times. Sometimes that's voting your number one scumread. Sometimes that's voting to end a day that your townreads really need to end. Sometimes that's policy lynching that person that's annoying everyone in the town (sorry for all the times I may have). There's a reason the role PMs say your vote is your power and policy lynches are a thing. Voting people helps indicate to them that what they are doing is anti-town to you.

don't really wanna argue much but this one is categorically wrong as far as i'm concerned. on this site where deadlines are mega-long you kind of get away with this bad play but realistically:

you should always focus on your top scumread, but with flexibility for your top scumread to change based on new information. you have one vote, and brains are inherently bad at multi-tasking (sorry women, science wins). so don't multi-task your scumhunting when it's a hard enough job to find scum in the first place for most people.

anyway i think most of the guide is mostly right, so good job

FWIW I'd disagree w this one. Especially in a larger game, if you can't get your top scumread lynch, but you can get your #2, great! If you can't get your #1 or #2, but #3 is lynchable, that's PROBABLY ok, as long as you're pretty confident in your #3 (obviously #s in a micro is a sketchier wagon to be on). There's nothing inherently wrong with lynching a legitimate scumread of yours that's lynchable, if for whatever reason your #1 preference isn't.

[Infinity 324]

I'd go even farther and say that your vote should be on the wagon you find most likely to be scum towards the end of the day, even if that player is not a scumread.

[Titus]

I'd go even farther and say that your vote should be on the wagon you find most likely to be scum towards the end of the day, even if that player is not a scumread.

That's going to need to be parsed. If you think a player is more likely to be scum, wouldn't that make them a scumread?

[Infinity 324]

Not if all the wagons are on your townreads or nullreads.