Seol wrote:Yosarian2 wrote:Well...it's not really circular. His defination defines OMGUS quite precisely, and then the challange lies in trying to figure out of the person is actually OMGUS voting or not.
OK, I put that poorly - it's no the definition but the application of that definition to the purpose that's circular, the process of using a behaviour as a tell about motivations where the definition of the behaviour includes the motivations behind it.
I don't object to defining OMGUS like that, but to ask whether OMGUS by that definition is a tell is akin to asking whether wanting the cop dead is a tell. Tells can't be based on motivation, they're based on actions.
Why do the motivations only have to go down one level?
Yes, you can do it that way. You could take any vote and say "Why did he do that? Because he's scum/town". But it's often much easier to break it down into smaller steps: "Why did he do that? Because he wanted to protect x. Why did he want to protect x? Because he's scum." In order for something to be a scumtell, the ultimate motivation must be that the player is scum. What I was trying to do in saying whether OMGUS is a scumtell is discerning whether this motivation has the likely motivation that the player is scum or not - something I don't believe it does.
Unless, that is, you define a tell as simply the action, rather than the motivation. Here, I admit I've confused the process somewhat by looking at the motivations for the actions and seeing whether these motivations are likely motivated by being scum or not. Perhaps scumtell isn't the right word, then. If I'd said it was scummy, or indicative of a scum mindset/not indicative of a scum mindset, would that have worked better? Eh.
To summarise the summary of the summary, I'm now thoroughly confused by myself.
