Since this is multi-ball, being scum doesn't mean that you know that someone is going to flip town. It may very well be scum from another faction.
But you probably already knew this.
Since this is multi-ball, being scum doesn't mean that you know that someone is going to flip town. It may very well be scum from another faction.
In post 600, AlwaysInnocent wrote:Since this is multi-ball, being scum doesn't mean that you know that someone is going to flip town. It may very well be scum from another faction.
But you probably already knew this.
"Always plays like this" is not a reason to not vote for someone. Meta is inherently unreliable. Focus onIn post 602, BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:I see dominator as scummier than both of them, but others have commented that he always plays like this, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in it.
Something I do every game cannot, by definition, be scummy.Always Innocent wrote:But they are.
What.You know you are going to have to revise it anyway, which you seem to be hesitant about, even though a lot has happened in the meantime.
You cannot lure out someone whose posting times are unaffected by your mafia time and are instead affectedForgive me for luring you out.
No, I'm defending myself against the things which are explicitly BS. You know the things of yours I haven't defended?So you mean you are only defending yourself against things you cannot defend yourself from, but not the things you should be defending yourself from?
Clearly you don't.You don't think I look for motivations?
And you think a person who has played mafia for over five years can't fake reasons as scum? I choose not to give reasons. That does not mean none exist.If I cannot see any reasons, I am going to assume you don't have any.
You haven't been listening. I've been pushing Errant. I've been explaining my read on Errant.So explain why.
Scumslips are not superficial. They are driven by simple thought processes. If anything, scumslips are deeper than motivation. You just need to know where to look. BeBop did legitimately slip not-VT. This should be evident because someone with an actual VT role PM would, by virtue of looking at their own role PM, know what the VT role for the game is. (As I already explained.) I called it a scumslip because I made the assumption that BeBop was not a VT, but would be scum faking VT. BeBop being a power role, however, also explained the slip, rendering it a strong confirmation of BeBop's claim. Very, very useful information to have.You call my analysis superficial, but calling this a scumslip is even worse.
So you're saying something I do literally every game is NOT in fact null, that it IS in fact alignment indicative, in spite of the fact that I do it literally every single game?There is no proof that it is a null-read. Meta-reads are manipulable and therefore inherently unreliable.
Not mine. Reasons have always been optional. Reads are fundamental. The game does not work without reads (you'd literally be random lynching if not for getting reads); the game works without reasons. I rest my case.You even called reasons a luxury, which they are not from the town POV.
Because the new information "only slightly" (VERY debatable) changed them.Always Innocent wrote:Then you only slightly revise these reads to accommodate for new information.
Kind-of, yes. And? Point being?It seems as if your list of reads serves primarily as an overview for yourself so you can appear relatively consistent to the town.
Belief revision happens when there is reason to revise a thought. But there's a difference between being rational about a change and irrational. For instance, when it comes toBelief revision is necessary for the town to win.
Well, tough luck.Bebop wrote:I particularly don't like Ranger's habit of giving a read and then sometimes filling in reasons later as it gives ample opportunity to make stuff up to justify the read based on future information.
You are basing yourself on meta again. I don't bother with meta.In post 604, Ranger wrote:Something I do every game cannot, by definition, be scummy.Always Innocent wrote:But they are.
You said the game would not be challenging if every scum was obviously scum from the start. This is true, which is why we have to revise our beliefs all the time. You, however, stick to uninformed reads from the beginning, like Yakko being town and Errant being scum.What.You know you are going to have to revise it anyway, which you seem to be hesitant about, even though a lot has happened in the meantime.
Seriously, what.
Apparently it is affected by it. I have to admit that it was somewhat of a jerk move, but it seems to be working.You cannot lure out someone whose posting times are unaffected by your mafia time and are instead affectedby their own real life.
You should have. You look scummy now.No, I'm defending myself against the things which are explicitly BS. You know the things of yours I haven't defended?
Except that the listing was not BS.So, whathaveI defended myself against?
...Oh yeah. Exactly what I said I have! BS about my activity (null and also verifiable bysearching my posts site-wide), and BS about listing.
Makes sense if you are scum.I've zero intent of defending myself on other fronts.
Haha. Good one.Clearly you don't.You don't think I look for motivations?
If you did you wouldn't be voting me.
Crapping out lists is too easy. The only motivation I can see is that you are trying to appear town when you aren't.Motivations are an intricate part of listing. If you can't see motive behind lists, then you can't see motive at all, mate. Pure and simple.
Duh. Of course experienced scum will offer reasons, but doing so will put them in danger of contradicting themselves (without it being reasonable belief revision). It becomes harder and harder, the more reasons you give. This is why I insist that people offer reasons. If you are scum, better get ready to get scrutinized.And you think a person who has played mafia for over five years can't fake reasons as scum? I choose not to give reasons. That does not mean none exist.If I cannot see any reasons, I am going to assume you don't have any.
You should be voting for Wanderer, though.You haven't been listening. I've been pushing Errant. I've been explaining my read on Errant.So explain why.That is why Errant is a stronger scumread. You harp on me for not giving reasons, yet when I do, you pass over them as if they're nonexistent!
Deeper than motivation? I thought motivation was the most important.Scumslips are not superficial. They are driven by simple thought processes. If anything, scumslips are deeper than motivation.You just need to know where to look. BeBop did legitimately slip not-VT. This should be evident because someone with an actual VT role PM would, by virtue of looking at their own role PM, know what the VT role for the game is. (As I already explained.) I called it a scumslip because I made the assumption that BeBop was not a VT, but would be scum faking VT. BeBop being a power role, however, also explained the slip, rendering it a strong confirmation of BeBop's claim. Very, very useful information to have.You call my analysis superficial, but calling this a scumslip is even worse.
Meta is manipulable. Unreliable. I look at the game at hand. Makes it impossible for you to hide behind your meta. No-one plays exactly the same as previous games.So you're saying something I do literally every game is NOT in fact null, that it IS in fact alignment indicative, in spite of the fact that I do it literally every single game?
Dude.
"Well, it is my playstyle that I always act like scum, even when I am town. Why are you holding me responsible for that?!"There's meta that's "stuff you do as town, and stuff you do as scum".
Then there's meta that'sthis is my freakin playstyle you douche.
Except that reasons give rise to reads. If I offer 3 reasons why you are scum, then I am implicitly scumreading you. However, I cannot derive reasons from your reads alone. Therefore reasons are superior to reads.Not mine. Reasons have always been optional. Reads are fundamental. The game does not work without reads (you'd literally be random lynching if not for getting reads); the game works without reasons. I rest my case.
I come from a site with aAlways Innocent wrote:Again, what's up with Yakko and Dom?
Check your chronologies. 71: my first mention of PC as scum. 87 PC votes me erroneously believing I'm a newbie. (I'm not.) Hops off at 216. I vote in 277.One of the first people to suspect Ranger was Phantom. It is most likely no coincidence that both Ranger and Wanderer jumped on that wagon.
A science, eh? Well, if it is aIn post 609, Ranger wrote:I come from a site with aAlways Innocent wrote:Again, what's up with Yakko and Dom?reallyheavy focus on the RVS.
When in doubt, return to the RVS.
We do it every game.
It works pretty well, and we've got the art of RVS down to practically a science.
I do not really believe in RVS tells, but I guess I do not know the science.When you see a post, you see: "oh, it's the RVS, probably doesn't mean much". When I see a post, I see: "Nice!" Because on this site, players tend to not know how to RVS properly. They reveal their alignments surprisingly often, and nobody even realizes it. I'm not always right, not even close, but I use the technique with confidence. Just ask former victims of it like Errant. (Oh, wait! Errant isn't acknowledging that!)
Here's an idea.Always Innocent wrote:In this game, Dom is acting scummy. But having more information on him would be nice.
Yeah, and Errant wasn't! (Well, this game anyway!) And I got not one, not two, but THREE (atAlways Innocent wrote:You said the game would not be challenging if every scum was obviously scum from the start.
And you've revealed you're not reading my posts given Errant was, explicitly, a townread.You, however, stick to uninformed reads from the beginning, like Yakko being town and Errant being scum.
How fond of the wiki are you? Actually, I'm pretty sure it's not just our wiki that has it, it'sApparently it is affected by it.
Exactly my point! :PExcept that the listing was not BS.
Right, because ignoring all attacks on me which draws suspicion totally makes sense.Makes sense if you are scum.
Then you have fundamentally failed to grasp what motive actually is.The only motivation I can see is that you are trying to appear town when you aren't.
My weaker scumread?You should be voting for Wanderer, though.
Something can be deeper and still not be more important. :PI thought motivation was the most important.
My record says otherwise. (Nightkills, post-game compliments, etc.)"Well, it is my playstyle that I always act like scum, even when I am town. Why are you holding me responsible for that?!"
Calling a person scum for something they always do, and calling into questionAlso, I am not a douche.
Only to 50% of the mafia-playing population.Except that reasons give rise to reads.
Yes you can. It requires looking into motivation.However, I cannot derive reasons from your reads alone.
Of course I do. You think I make these things up?Always Innocent wrote:A science, eh? Well, if it is a science, then you should know the reasons.
Sort of, anyway. The latter takes precedence over the former: people have different styles of play, none are better than the other by default, though the ones which do not recognize other styles are often inferior.This is me acting like the way town players should.
Your style of play is not mine. That does not make yours superior. If you can't recognize that, in fact, it makes yours by definition inferior.
Yes.In post 612, Ranger wrote:Of course I do. You think I make these things up?Always Innocent wrote:A science, eh? Well, if it is a science, then you should know the reasons.
Which is why meta sucks ass.Granted the reasons aren't rock-solid, but RVS content contains readable material. One reason I don't often share though is that I like keeping the secret: it seems to work, yet if I shared it with everyone, it probably wouldn't. At least not nearly as blatantly.
Let's discuss your reasons for not sharing one by one:There's many reasons not to share reasons for reads: the effort involved, the information I gain bynotsharing (for instance, by seeing howother people treat my reads), keeping the trade secret, intimidating the scum if I'm even remotely accurate, refining my reads if it turns out I'm not (yes, giving no reasons on my lists can help me refine my reads!), and many more.
It has nothing to do with my play style. It is just a factual statement. I base my play style on facts.Your style of play is not mine. That does not make yours superior. If you can't recognize that, in fact, it makes yours by definition inferior.
I am not you.Always Innocent wrote:Giving a reason for someone requires less effort and is more valuable than giving reads on everyone, especially that early in the game.
My experience says otherwise. I can quote past scum topics if you don't believe me.Scum generally aren't intimidated by reads without reasons.
And I do this. Subtly, but I do this. It does not go unnoticed.Especially if they rationally revise their beliefs to accommodate for new facts and information.
Do you remember that 66% figure I quoted at the beginning of the game? There's a reason I said that. I do exactly that: close in on scum. Yes. With lists. You do not need reasons to do this. You simply need to be rational.A rational townie will eventually close in on the scum.
But it's not easier, either.Refining reads isn't harder when you have given reasons before
What time zone are you in?5. Many more. Let's hear about it.
Uh-huh. And you're either blind or a hypocrite if you can't turn this around and see it from my side.Always Innocent wrote:It has nothing to do with my play style. It is just a factual statement. I base my play style on facts.
For clarity: that's waking up at 6 AM onLet me give you a hint: I woke up, by my local time, at 6:00 AM in the morning. How good are you at math? I won't give you which of the four continental timezones I live in, but I don't need to. Eastern, it's 7 AM. Central, 6 AM. Mountain, 5 AM. Pacific, 4 AM
I am talking about rational scum.In post 616, Ranger wrote:My experience says otherwise. I can quote past scum topics if you don't believe me.
So, hesitant.And I do this. Subtly, but I do this. It does not go unnoticed.
Rational play implies having reasons, even when you do not share them. However, not sharing them is objectively bad play.Do you remember that 66% figure I quoted at the beginning of the game? There's a reason I said that. I do exactly that: close in on scum. Yes. With lists. You do not need reasons to do this. You simply need to be rational.
I would rather have that you provide reasons for lists than providing reasons for not giving reasons.But it's not easier, either.
In contrast, refining reads when you list is easier. There's a reason I do it, after all.
GMT+1What time zone are you in?
You are not required to spend most of your time on this game. It would have been easier if you had just provided reasons from the start. We could have avoided all this talk about the meta-game.I'll tell you where I live: inside America. Let me give you a hint: I woke up, by my local time, at 6:00 AM in the morning. How good are you at math? I won't give you which of the four continental timezones I live in, but I don't need to. Eastern, it's 7 AM. Central, 6 AM. Mountain, 5 AM. Pacific, 4 AM. Again, that is me getting up at 6 AM, and it being somewhere between 4-8 AM now. Somewhere either near, at, or exceeding 24 hours awake.
Most of it spent on this game.
I'm in no mood to elaborate. I'm far overdue for bed.
In post 522, AlwaysInnocent wrote:Yakko might very well be scum, but he is harder to read, so I would not prioritize him over Wanderer.
In post 523, AlwaysInnocent wrote:Expressing "surprise" at NKs is often a scumtell, especially when it is completely without substance. Ending your sentence with "hmm" makes it seem like you are deeply thinking about it, but in the end you say nothing worthwhile. Phantom was right to suspect you.
SoTheDominatorbecomes red.