Mini 1805 [C'est fini!]

[Robbnva]

What if I said crab and creature were both town and that we should push on derek and mario who haven't had pressure yet.

I would be ok pressuring mario also but until I get what I want from crab, I don't really want to change my vote.

[Infinity 324]

@Smith You're saying you're faking being annoyed on purpose to get reactions?

I think how easy it is to fake emotion really depends on the player

Also I've read at least 1 other town and 1 other scum game of creature, and this is not his scum game. He was more careful and a lot less proactive in his scum game, but in the town game he was basically like this but posted less.

[Smithereens]

@Rob, you explain the point well, however it simply becomes more clear that you've recognised the fact that the evidence against Creature is empirical, and the evidence against Crab is conditional. Putting your vote against a player for not giving good reasoning does not motivate that player to give better reasons. That fundamental study on human behviour is why the death penalty has been abolished in so many countries: The threat of punishment does not change behaviour.

The only useful place for a vote is to kill scum, and atm you're hoping it will do things that it clearly isn't going to do by pursuing a side show to Creature.

@Infinity, I don't fake annoyance, this is simply how I talk, and IRL I don't feel annoyed at all since I understand perfectly why people would disagree with me.

[Infinity 324]

Yeah but if it's how you talk that's a lot different from trying to fake it.

Smith, I don't agree that it's always necessarily better to put your vote on who's more likely to be scum. Even if lurkers won't do what you want them to do under pressure, they will probably react in a certain way, and that lets you get more information on them.

[Dragon of the West]

If Rob's town, then he isn't too concerned about the town win con, and he clearly shows it. Otherwise he's scum.

like this part right here can no way come from a rational thinking townie.

I am playing against my win condition because I think it is better to pressure people instead of limiting the search to 1/2 people especially when we have a bunch of inactive people, people doing jack shit, and even lurkers?

the fact that you want to stay focused on creature/egg and ignore everyone else actually worries me if you are town. it shows you are close minded and town should not be close minded, they should be open minded.

Concern about our wincon is shown when a player get's excited about a discovery of scum they have just made, or concern about other players backflipping on their reads for shit reasons.

It doesn't matter what you believe about open-mindedness when I'm actually claiming that your apathy towards Creature (which you're construing as 'open-mindedness') is actually a scum tell.

I find this to be blatantly wrong. I think as long as you're willing to go back to the initial scumread, there's nothing harmful about pushing different wagons just to get reads and reactions from people early. Especially when those extra conversations and reactions are exactly what glean useful information after a flip and as the game goes on. Once everyone has had their say or you feel like you've gathered as much info as possible you can always go back onto that initial read. If he backs down from the creature wagon when it reforms without good reason, THAT'S when it appeas scummy to me

[Infinity 324]

^^

[Robbnva]

@Rob, you explain the point well, however it simply becomes more clear that you've recognised the fact that the evidence against Creature is empirical, and the evidence against Crab is conditional. Putting your vote against a player for not giving good reasoning does not motivate that player to give better reasons. That fundamental study on human behviour is why the death penalty has been abolished in so many countries: The threat of punishment does not change behaviour.

The only useful place for a vote is to kill scum, and atm you're hoping it will do things that it clearly isn't going to do by pursuing a side show to Creature.

thanks for bringing up facts about the death penalty... that's totally going to change my mind...

The only useful place for a vote is to kill scum? That is factually incorrect.

Votes are often used for pressure, pressuring players is a good way to not only determine their alignment, but also later for vote count analysis.

Please refrain from telling me how to use my vote and also refrain from trying to teach me incorrect mafia theory.

Thank you

[Dragon of the West]

@Robb don't you think it would be helpful to pressure creature more to try and make him crack?

As a person that was on that wagon, I didn't see us getting more useful information at that moment(especially with, at the time, 3 lurkers/inactives). I personally plan to go back to that wagon but I don't think we would get Creature to somehow "crack"

[Robbnva]

and smith, please respond to post 748 please

[Robbnva]

I don't think we would get Creature to somehow "crack"

at least not anymore than he already has.

[Smithereens]

@Rob, I'm worried about your vote Rob because your vote stands out for being incongruent with arguments that you levied at Creature to accuse him of being scum. The other players don't stand out at all in terms of their votes. Also, be patient with your requests for replies. As you can see you're not the only one.

@Infinity, don't get tied up over the fact that I am or aren't faking my annoyance, I might end up getting annoyed. Lurking from experience does not actually happen despite how many people think it does.

@Dragon, Incorrect. The point is that a townie doesn't play in that fashion, because it involves a detachment of concern from finding scum. Yes, theoretically it is good play. Town don't do this 'good play,' because it actually doesn't reflect a straight forward pursuit of the town win con. It's more how an emotionless robot would play the game, or a scum with no interest in helping the town. Also, this is what I meant by saying you need to be watched. You're a spectator who is throwing opinions at material other people are saying and not attempting to contribute yourself. We don't need a commentator in a mafia game.

[Dragon of the West]

Disappointed that you refuse to see reason, I'll lay it out in syllogism then.

1) A scum case based on behavioural differences between games is valid insofar as it remains consistent
2) It is not consistent
C) It is not valid.

>You are diverting attention away from a scum lynch because your reasons to vote creature far, far outweigh your reasons to vote Crab, yet you insist it is better to be voting Crab.
>

I haven't talked about Creature as if he was about to be lynched

. However it is quite obvious that a wagon requires votes in order for a lynch to occur, and you are most certainly going to stick with Crab until he is lynched, at the cost of Creature surviving into the night.
>Crab hasn't said anything AI. Please re-check your reads
>Creature isn't going to get close to a lynch because people like you are voting on crap wagons. Now you're saying that you'll vote creature if he gets close to a lynch, but conveniently ignore the fact that that can't happen if people are going to vote randomly.

You also need to stop thinking that I'm town reading Crab.

Reason. A player who is uninformed is likely to stick to a person who they've discovered is scum with a high degree of confidence. Moving off it simply shows how little profundity the discovery actually made on the player. If Rob's town, then he isn't too concerned about the town win con, and he clearly shows it. Otherwise he's scum.

you are just talking out of your ass at this point.

Confirmation bias cannot be beaten, end of story. Townies should be showing all the flaws that an uninformed player should exhibit, including over confidence in a read that they believe confirms the guilt of another player. You however dropped this tangible and highly convincing case against Creature in favour of poking a far less suspicious player for a reason that I've already demonstrated is absolutely not AI.

I

'd say you panicked when it appeared that Creature was about to get lynched

, and now you're trying to get pressure off him.

what in God's fucking name do you call this then

[Dragon of the West]

Disappointed that you refuse to see reason, I'll lay it out in syllogism then.

1) A scum case based on behavioural differences between games is valid insofar as it remains consistent
2) It is not consistent
C) It is not valid.

>You are diverting attention away from a scum lynch because your reasons to vote creature far, far outweigh your reasons to vote Crab, yet you insist it is better to be voting Crab.
>

I haven't talked about Creature as if he was about to be lynched[

/b]. However it is quite obvious that a wagon requires votes in order for a lynch to occur, and you are most certainly going to stick with Crab until he is lynched, at the cost of Creature surviving into the night.
>Crab hasn't said anything AI. Please re-check your reads
>Creature isn't going to get close to a lynch because people like you are voting on crap wagons. Now you're saying that you'll vote creature if he gets close to a lynch, but conveniently ignore the fact that that can't happen if people are going to vote randomly.

You also need to stop thinking that I'm town reading Crab.

Reason. A player who is uninformed is likely to stick to a person who they've discovered is scum with a high degree of confidence. Moving off it simply shows how little profundity the discovery actually made on the player. If Rob's town, then he isn't too concerned about the town win con, and he clearly shows it. Otherwise he's scum.

you are just talking out of your ass at this point.

Confirmation bias cannot be beaten, end of story. Townies should be showing all the flaws that an uninformed player should exhibit, including over confidence in a read that they believe confirms the guilt of another player. You however dropped this tangible and highly convincing case against Creature in favour of poking a far less suspicious player for a reason that I've already demonstrated is absolutely not AI.

[b

]I'd say you panicked when it appeared that Creature was about to get lynched

[/b], and now you're trying to get pressure off him.

what in God's fucking name do you call this then

[Robbnva]

ok fine, be worried about my vote.

p.edit -

[Smithereens]

@Rob, you explain the point well, however it simply becomes more clear that you've recognised the fact that the evidence against Creature is empirical, and the evidence against Crab is conditional. Putting your vote against a player for not giving good reasoning does not motivate that player to give better reasons. That fundamental study on human behviour is why the death penalty has been abolished in so many countries: The threat of punishment does not change behaviour.

The only useful place for a vote is to kill scum, and atm you're hoping it will do things that it clearly isn't going to do by pursuing a side show to Creature.

thanks for bringing up facts about the death penalty... that's totally going to change my mind...

The only useful place for a vote is to kill scum? That is factually incorrect.

Votes are often used for pressure, pressuring players is a good way to not only determine their alignment, but also later for vote count analysis.

Please refrain from telling me how to use my vote and also refrain from trying to teach me incorrect mafia theory.

Thank you

Is it really a surprise that this site's meta and long held traditions are wrong? MS has a widespread belief that scum act in clearly defined ways and it's wrong as well. you're buying one of these theories which I explained was wrong before. I assume you agree with me because you didn't reply to it.

The use of votes for pressure does not give the results that people believe it does. You think voting someone makes them act pro-town? No. Furthermore, this is counter-productive to our aims. We want the scum to act more scummy and the townies to act more townies. Voting a suspected scum to make them act more townie is going to screw the town over and you don't need me to tell you that.

[Dragon of the West]

@Robb don't you think it would be helpful to pressure creature more to try and make him crack?

I have already seen enough of creature though. His 180 for weird reasons, his "lies" (put that in quotes since some people don't consider it a lie ), and his weird attempts at deflection makes me think there is no way he is town. I honestly don't think I can pressure him anymore than he has already been pressured.

Do you think pressuring him might convince other people more though?

PEdit: Makes sense

I think both of you are town and we approach this game in very different ways so that's where the conflict is coming from

This is extremely fair. Although the more smithereens goes on, the less I'm inclined to believe what they say

[Smithereens]

I don't pay attention to my posts Dragon, if you read on you'll see that's why I lean town on Rob. He doesn't do it either. However, someone is wrong on the internet and it's my destiny to correct them.

[Robbnva]

Right, so my error was in believing that you were driving for a Crab lynch at the expense of a creature lynch. That sits better with me, dw.

I also find it odd that you accuse me again of trying to divert attention from creature when you already acknowledged you understood what I was doing when you made this post.

p.edit - I pay attention to my own posts

[Infinity 324]

The use of votes for pressure does not give the results that people believe it does. You think voting someone makes them act pro-town? No. Furthermore, this is counter-productive to our aims. We want the scum to act more scummy and the townies to act more townies. Voting a suspected scum to make them act more townie is going to screw the town over and you don't need me to tell you that.

Disagree with this because pro-town =/= towny and scum don't always act more towny under pressure.

The purpose of voting, other than trying to get a lynch, is very generally to try to get someone to act differently. When you see how someone reacts in different situations, you can see whether their actions overall fit a town or scum narrative better and thus determine their alignment better.

[Dragon of the West]

@Rob, you explain the point well, however it simply becomes more clear that you've recognised the fact that the evidence against Creature is empirical, and the evidence against Crab is conditional. Putting your vote against a player for not giving good reasoning does not motivate that player to give better reasons. That fundamental study on human behviour is why the death penalty has been abolished in so many countries: The threat of punishment does not change behaviour.

The only useful place for a vote is to kill scum, and atm you're hoping it will do things that it clearly isn't going to do by pursuing a side show to Creature.

@Infinity, I don't fake annoyance, this is simply how I talk, and IRL I don't feel annoyed at all since I understand perfectly why people would disagree with me.

Lol there's a difference between a criminal doing a crime that may face the death penalty and a person playing mafia who, if town, still wants to win(you can win even if you get mislynched) and mostly doesn't want to get mislynched. If they are town, they should try to give every good piece of evidence they can and defend themselves. Their flip then dictates what you make of the evidence they give you. Even if you aren't lynching that person, the pressure and the threat of it should motivate them to give you more so they don't get lynched. the logical fallacy you just used is called false analogy, just so you know

[Smithereens]

@Rob, that post means that I was worried you were after a Crab lynch. If you read my posts after that point again, you'll see that I don't work from that assumption. Instead I'm arguing that we're all ignoring the elephant in the room.

@Infinity, please re-read your post. You basically restate my position by saying they act different in way that can fit a town or scum narrative.

@Dragon, the fundamental theory is that people, all humans everywhere, overestimate the effects the the threat of punishment conveys. That extends to mafia games as well. The threat of punishment will not produce the results you believe it does.

[Smithereens]

FFS this is a false analogy: Peeling a banana is like ripping the skin off a person, therefore it is wrong to peel a banana. However let's not get sidetracked, I'm surprised you're taking issue with trivial points.

[Dragon of the West]

I don't pay attention to my posts Dragon, if you read on you'll see that's why I lean town on Rob. He doesn't do it either. However, someone is wrong on the internet and it's my destiny to correct them.

Sorry if i ever comment, quote, or say something that's already been talked about. the way i catch up is usually work my way from the last post i saw, if i see something i want to point out or respond to i quote it and respond on the spot out of fear that i'll forget what i had to say or miss it when i go back to make all my comments. it's also helps me make my read as the game happens and keep everything in order in my head rather than see everything as a big jumble

[Smithereens]

I take it you're perpetually catching up and never expect to actually catch up then?

[Dragon of the West]

FFS this is a false analogy: Peeling a banana is like ripping the skin off a person, therefore it is wrong to peel a banana. However let's not get sidetracked, I'm surprised you're taking issue with trivial points.

that's just like this analogy: Death penalty is a punishment like being lynched. threatening death penalty doesn't change the way people act so it doesn't work. threatening to lynch people to get them to change the way they act won't work