i'm saying u have to look at the actions of players and ask whether they make sense as coming from town. basically one of the fundamental aspects of the game - "is this person lying or do they really believe what they are saying?". you have to ask whether what people are doingIn post 380, Coral wrote:Oh yes, I was interested in hearing what you had to say about that, thank you!! I guess I'm not sure on the difference, exactly. Are you saying that it's better to look for town motivation than scum motivation?
I can believe both of your actions could come from town, or have town motivation. You're both good at being believable town. That's why I townread you both all game. I don't have any trouble convincing myself that any individual post from either of you could come from town. That's why I took the approach that I did, and looked for what could be motivated by being scum.
makes sense
. the thing about your approach is that it assumes scum *will be doing a certain thing* and that is purely a guess, it has no foundation in anything concrete. scum can take any number of approaches to a situation, they can play optimally or unoptimally, there is rarely a concrete example of "scum would play things this way" because the entire goal as scum is subverting peoples expectations and what people expect is variable so you cant assume something like "scum would have been trying to push a ML here", for instance. maybe they wanted to keep their hands clean, maybe they didn't feel there was a good case to push. you don't know the answer. trying to guess at what exactly scum were plotting is a fool's errand. (i have a similar issue with wagonomics and vca type reasoning - they rely on a lot of unfounded assumptions about how scum will be playing)