Genuineness vs. sincerity of thought

[Ankamius]

I'm not going to respond to the spoilered section.

I'm saying that your actions, tone, and thought processes aren't congruent with each other as scum in a pretty significant way.

[Flavor Leaf]

Technically, LNT is BTE, and BTX is BooneyToonz 10, aka Boonin’ It In the Slums, but this definitely isn’t the first time there’s been confusion.

But Boon wars are BTE. Tbh, I vaguely remember we called it BTX, but yeah, it occurred that 10th would be BTX and I don't remember what happened next

To be fair, I feel saying BTX for Extravaganza’s aren’t going to be much of an issue after BT10 is more in the past.

[Flavor Leaf]

Because BTX does sound nice for the Extravagnazas.

[Zachrulez]

I disagree with the notion that inconsistent thought progression is scummy. I think it comes from town more often than not.

It's not scummy, but it is the cause of a surprising number of lynches.

[Gamma Emerald]

I find that when most people make reads in mafia games, they tend to conflate the two.

Genuineness could refer to just about anything at all and as such, isn’t or shouldn’t be read as AI, sincerity of thought otoh, should be.

Sincerity of thought is not about being genuine but about having

real

conviction, which isn’t easily fakeable as scum.

This makes a lot of sense, I'll tend to push the same things as both alignments I think, but how I carry myself in it probably varies.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Ank I think may have either misinterpreted what I was trying to say or I was unclear. When town makes reads, they not only have sincerity of conviction but in the thought process or reasoning behind those reads. It’s not easy for scum to make a nuanced scumcase on a town player, because they lack the congruence of thought that a townie would have, making a case. So, because scum lacks the logical and congruent thought process that goes into reads, they generally have difficulty (unless very competent or experienced), not only explaining those reads but possessing true conviction in the reasoning behind them.

So, their reasoning for those reads, often sound fake - hence why I say, “sincerity of thought” over genuineness.

I was in a game awhile ago where this player was not only seriously ill throughout the game but he genuinely felt extremely guilty that his illness was affecting his participation in the game. He was totally sincere about anything pertaining to his illness and was in no way attempting to use it as a manipulative ploy. I wrongly townread him for this and it distracted me for realizing that his reads and the reasoning behind them, were actually wooden.

[Ankamius]

I'm confused because your initial statement gives me the impression that you understand what I'm saying, but your explanation... doesn't (?)

yes, you're going to be able to catch people with that method, but primarily when they are very tonal/emotional players that constantly spew their emotional state every time they post. Even then, emotions can come from other sources and have that be used to mask the incongruence they have with how they're getting their reads.

it's not going to work against people who have very little emotion in their game since they either have very subtle or no emotional difference between their reads as both alignments in the first place; this is one thing that has to be taken into account because if there's reason to believe that you won't be able to judge their pushes (this especially applies to players like MagnaOfIllusion, who makes and presents their reads almost entirely through cold logic), then you can't trust this method to accurately read them. You need to put more emphasis on things like logical progression and whether that progression actually makes sense with how the game progresses.

ftr, if this is how I'm acting, I'm scum

everything is relative and what you're suggesting is only a piece of the puzzle; you can't rely on a single method for every player you come across or your read strength is going to be equal to random in most games.

[Nancy Drew 39]

I did understand what you were saying but your last post makes me think you’re not totally getting my point? Sincerity of thought, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how emotional a player is when they present their reads, it’s whether they actually can make a logical nuanced case and they demonstrate clear conviction in every single nuanced aspect of that case. In my experience, if you disagree with a townie’s scumcase, they may be wrong and it may not even be logical but if challenged on that read, they can argue it convincingly because they actually believe what they’re saying, where as scum if challenged, they know they’re is full of shit right? so (unless very competent or experienced) their case will often crumble, precisely because they don’t believe it themself.

Since it is extremely difficult for scum to organically make a nuanced case like a townie would, there will be lots of holes in their thought process and it will lack congruence but that might only become clear, if challenged. It’s like if you’re wrongly accused of something if innocent, you can defend yourself naturally because you know you’re not guilty but if you’re lying, you would presumably have to rehearse your responses beforehand, so not to slip up. I assume that this is one of the purposes of legal cross examination - to catch witnesses in a lie.

[Ankamius]

conviction is the result of an emotion, nancy

[Nancy Drew 39]

conviction is the result of an emotion, nancy

No, conviction is the result of confidence in one’s belief. That’s exactly what I mean by “sincerity of thought” - you not only believe your solve -

you 100% believe in the reasoning behind it

.