Rising wrote:Excedrin wrote:I find that scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town as the game progresses because they explain away and fix their scummy behavior.
So if Papa comes up with a valid and sensible explanation, that would actually
reinforce
your opinion that he is scum?
It depends. This is a slightly confusing to answer because it's about the specific instance of Papa Zito and also future actions. I mean, is it a theory question or a specific "in this instance" question?
In theory, if someone's valid and sensible explanation made more sense if they're scum, then yea, maybe it would reinforce my opinion. Maybe that's a bad example, but the point is, I can think of situations where something like what you're objecting to could happen.
Rising wrote:
Setting up "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-traps isn't pro-town.
I think that others have explained this, I objected to the idea that scum can't be found based on an early post or that, upon finding something scummy, people shouldn't vote because of it and try to draw attention to it because it's early in the game.
Rising wrote:
I actually agree with Excedrin that "scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town", but you know what? So does regular townies. And this is just as rational and easily observed in the forums. Therefore, this isn't a reliable way to hunt scum.
Scum sometimes does something scummy early. Town sometimes does something scummy early. Both will gradually appear to be town. Conclusion, ignore early scumtells. Is that it?
Others have explained my post, but I'm not sure if anyone has said that I don't consider the pattern:
1. appear to be scum
2. later, appear to be town based on explanations and/or improved behavior
to be a scumtell, since as you said, both scum and town can follow that pattern. If I did think that was worth looking for, I wouldn't be voting based on it yet; page 3 doesn't really qualify as "later".
Also, I meant "fix" as in, lets say, X is accused of not scumhunting on day 1, then on day 2 they scumhunt more. They've fixed their anti-town behavior.
Rising wrote:So: If this theory is valid, then it can be very easily tested by looking at earlier games you've played as town and checking whether or not your first non-random vote (=your first vote for someone who did something scummy) has been for actual scum or just regular townies.
Who said anything about "first non-random vote"? There are more reasons to vote than solely because a scumtell was spotted, right?
An experiment to test this would be more like:
1. there's some early behavior that seems scummy (to someone? to a big chunk of the town? to a few players?)
2. the target of suspicion explains it away or improves their behavior
3. suspicion dies down
Then compare scum to town ratio or whatever. But really, what's the point? Scum hunting is subjective and situational and probably impossible to reduce to pure math.
Rising, what do you think about Papa Zito's
post #40?
Could you explain your vote for Dry-fit? Were there some stated reasons that I missed?
sigma wrote:
Anyone who says that they're sure that they've found scum on page 2 is lying -- or possibly scum trying to look like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player.
Early bus never happens?
Plum wrote:Or, explain, Excedrin, why the sarcasm indicates scumhood.
Sarcasm can be scummy in some cases, especially if it's used to dismiss a case against oneself. I'm not sure if I can justify anything beyond that.
Contrary to Kmd4390, I don't have a strong opinion that Papa Zito is scum (yet). I am looking forward to more from Kmd4390.
I'm not sure why sigma (and Rising?) assumed that Kmd4390's goal was to attract votes and lynch Papa Zito. I read it the same way that Dry-Fit did. Votes and justification in the early game are often not as solid as they are later on, I don't really have a problem with reading Kmd4390's initial vote and reason as that.