Do influential people always provide better arguments?

[F-16_Fighting_Falcon]

A couple of things I observed about well-known people on the site:

When someone that is well-known posts arguments for the lynch of a player, it almost always goes through whereas if a relatively unknown player does it, it takes a lot more time to push through the lynch. This usually doesn't even matter what their alignments are and whether or not they are leading mislynches.

To give a few examples of what I am talking about:

1) Consider this game Hunterxhunterx mafia where Nachomamma8 pushes a lynch on Amethyst Kitty. The lynch instantly goes through despite it being a mislynch while during the same game at the same time, there were a ton of people who wanted to lynch Magua (also town) but there is no headway.

2) In the same game, Vi pushes a lynch on Gammagooey without providing any reasoning whatsoever. I scanned Vi's ISO to see where he provided a reason for lynching but he never does. He just says that Gammagooey is scum, posts links to songs on youtube and it just

happens

.

3) A third example, this time Tierce starts pushing a lynch on TwoUpstandingGentlemen and despite the fact that everyone previously had different views on who the scum were and that TUG was town (ergo the reasoning used was flawed), the mislynch still goes through.

4) A fourth example is in Stratego mafia where a bunch of us were trying to lynch MagnaOfIllusion (scum) for a long time, yet not enough votes are gathered. However, RedCoyote makes one post saying that Charter (town) is scum and Charter is instantly lynched.

So, the common element in all 4 examples was an influential player who was on the site for a long time pushes through a lynch and it happens. So, my question is does influence cause people to believe that the arguments coming from the player are in fact better than standard arguments? Or are the arguments presented by influential players always better and it is not just the perception? Also, what about times when players present no arguments at all and lead the lynch almost by magic (see example 2)? Do any of you think "player X is making the argument therefore it must be accurate?"

For my part, I often tend to read the arguments of experienced players to follow their reasoning while following the arguments of newer players primarily for determining their affiliation as opposed to sheeping them so experience does matter. But what if you are not an experienced/influential player? How do you produce arguments that people will follow? Is it necessary to be very well known on the site before enough people will agree with your reasoning that a lynch would go through?

[F-16_Fighting_Falcon]

I'm out of time for the morning, but I'd like to add that good players are the ones who can get people to join wagons. So one label feeds into another, feeding back into the first one. So, a player who is noteworthy for (among other things) their ability to get people on wagons should be the type of person who can get people on wagons. :leadership:

Do you think it is the sort of skill that can be learned or is it largely something that you either have or you don't?

[F-16_Fighting_Falcon]

I think a lot of it comes down to charisma, which is hard to "learn", at least for certain people. It can certainly be something you improve upon, I feel i've gotten much better as it as I've gone on. I don't think I was ever terrible at getting who I wanted lynched, but I certainly think I've gotten better at it.

So, it ultimately comes down to the ability to write well? Because by "charisma" here, we're talking about written communication. So, the better writers end up being more persuasive players.

[F-16_Fighting_Falcon]

Out of curiosity, Faraday, Vi, do you ever get lynched as town? It seems to me that some players get lynched a disproportionate number of times whereas others almost never do no matter the circumstances - no doubt owing in part to charisma.

[F-16_Fighting_Falcon]

Oh yes, I have had my moments on this site.
They were multiple times i was so correct with who is mafia in a game yet my reasons were ignored and those lnches wont passes through, mostly never.

I completely agree that a player influence is pretty high on this site... its more like a site META. you have an expereinced player in the game.. Just sheep him.... its the kind of behaviour most players displaying anand letting town loose game.

You have a good point but I don't think it is as simple as you make it out to be. Some players are good with ascertaining motivations of others and figuring out who the scum are. Some players are skilled at making convincing cases and pushing for lynches. If you find that you are often correct in your suspicions but that those players weren't lynched, it means that they were more skilled at presenting good cases than you, while you are more skilled than the other townies in deducing the motivations of players in the game.

For example if you were right about player M being mafia, and Townie T thinks that townie X is mafia and pushes a lynch successfully, it is clear that T is better than you at pushing cases and you are better than T at scumhunting. The best scumhunters aren't necessarily the most persuasive players. You are expecting someone who is worse scumhunter but a better case-pusher to have the same scumhunting ability as you while you don't seem to be able to match their persuasive ability.