In my experience, “But what’s the Scum motivation?”, when it’s said, almost always has the meaning of “But Scum wouldn’t do that”.
The forbidden thread is up.
It’s called the Grey Havens. Don’t open it if you are alive in this game.
Anyway, heads up about that.
That’s not true.
When you ask “What’s the Scum motivation?” You’re trying to look at an action while imagining the player is Scum and attempting to forward the Scum cause.
Sometimes, it is difficult or impossible to discern Scum motivation. Sometimes, it’s possible.
It’s an oversimplification and an error to say it’s equivalent to “Scum wouldn’t do that.” In fact, it really has nothing to do with what Scum would or wouldn’t do.
In fact, I would say that encouraging Town to vote for all anti-Town play and not consider if it’s just poor play or if it’s Scum motivated is rather anti-Town.
It seems to me your playstyle is to find rules by which you can determine who is scummy and who isn’t. I’m reminded of your program. The problem with it is that the people you are trying to catch are actively trying to deceive you and are aware of your actions.
I think we would be better served to analyze potential motivations, poke and prod. Use our brains, and remain flexible as to what Scum and/or 3rd party players might be trying to do to us.
Here’s a counterexample to that from the previous game:
“Many players are playing in an anti town fashion, by simply keeping mum. There is very little information and discussion being generated.”
Outcome: A scum player is exposed defending an at risk scum buddy who’s case wouldn’t normally have stood out if the town was playing in a pro-town fashion. Two scum players are lynched as the by products of so called anti-town play.
That is a case where anti-town turned out to be anti-scum as well. Since there was two scum lynches extending the game (anti-scum) but there was an extreme lack of information to build further cases on resulting in a series of mislynches (anti-town).
Scum motivation can be ascribed to nearly anything at all, but proving that the motivation is actually scummy, compared to anything else is not as simple. And by requiring that players actually say why something might be scummy encourages two things:
- It encourages players think more critically about their own cases.
- It requires a greater burden in the making of cases. It is not simply enough to say “I think so and so is scummy because of this.” it must be said “I think so and so is scummy because of this action. And these are the pro-scum implications of those actions”.
Furthermore if you do not require that an action be shown to be scummy, then you are writing a license for shitty cases. The “scum wouldn’t want to stand out” is not a commentary on scum motivation, but a symptom of the “scum wouldn’t do that” mindset that needs to be taken out back and shot. I assure you that scum can, would, and will do whatever it takes to win, especially if they think that a town player thinks that a scum player wouldn’t do that. The Scum motivation test is only really useful in a positive manner, and has nothing to do with volition.
Even more: The Scum motivation test isn’t the be all and end all of finding scum by any means. But it is helpful, and expository, and increases the amount of bullshit that scum has to sling when making their cases. Therefore, it’s useful.
Except that all else being equal isn’t true. GiGo. There are more town players, and they are far less informed than the scum players are. So there is a greater opportunity for a town player to screw up and do something anti town without malicious intent (back to motivation). So in my experience, and in my opinion, Scum and Town are equally likely to do things which I would categorize as anti town.
@Ed, forgot to preview, but well said.
As far as a name claim goes. I’m ambivalent. Mahaloth is an experienced enough mod that if name implies alignment then scum have cover identities. A name claim also gives scum more information, which I’m against. Lastly, however, there might be a marginal benefit in tying scum to a particular false name claim, in that it might limit them in claiming powers later on that don’t match that name. I however an unconvinced that that benefit outweighs the possible risks.
Is recruitment a possibility in this game?
Quoth Red Skeezix:
[quote]
Furthermore if you do not require that an action be shown to be scummy, then you are writing a license for shitty cases.
[quote]
I do require that an action be shown to be scummy, because I require that it be shown to be anti-Town, and anti-Town is mathematically identical to Scummy.
Quoth special ed:
Of course I’m trying to find rules by which I can determine who’s Scummy and who isn’t. Isn’t everyone? “Look for the Scum motivation” is a rule for determining who’s Scummy. “Prod people and see how they respond” is a rule for determining who’s Scummy. And of course Scum are actively trying to deceive me and the other Town players… It wouldn’t be much of a game otherwise. That just means that any rules we come up with for finding Scum will necessarily be fallible. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to find such rules.
coding fixed
OK, I see the problem.
I will agree, something that hurts the Town benefits the Scum.
That said, you seem to be supporting a claim that Scum are more likely to engage in behaviors that are anti-Town.
I contend that taking that stance without duly considering the situation and potential motivations seems to be like trying to play mafia by hard rules.
I also contend that it’s probably more likely to generate false positives without looking for motivation. Looking for motivation is one way to try to eliminate the false positives.
What you’ve proposed is labeling everything that’s anti-Town as Scummy.
Sometimes anti-Town is just anti-Town.
So, tell me, how is it that you do intend to identify all the false positives from the truly scummy behavior? Or is it enough for you to just call it all Scummy?
Chronos: On the off-chance that the win condition didn’t follow the same format from previous games and/or wasn’t also given to Scum in their role PMs, can you explain why it’s pro-town to reveal it now? Since, by revealing it, you conclusively destroy any possibility that special ed’s handshake would be effective?
It was definitely an anti-Town move until more information was generated.
However, was it Scummy?
:eek:
Quoth special ed:
The same way anyone ever identifies the false positives from their methods of Scum-hunting: By sometimes getting it wrong and mislynching someone. Consider that last game, everyone was convinced that I was Scummy, because they saw Scum motivation in what I was saying. “Look for the Scum motivation” gave a false positive, and folks ultimately learned that it was a false positive from the mod-reveal when I died.
And I did not destroy any possibility that special ed’s handshake would be effective; I increased the chance. For the handshake to be effective, it had to be taken from a part of the message that Scum could not easily guess. By pointing out that part of the message could be easily guessed, I was helping other players to construct more usable handshakes.
A better question would be why special ed pointed out that his PM did not contain a win condition piece, thereby either identifying him as a liar or me as a non-vanilla right off the bat. An even better question would be why he even asked me about my win condition section in the first place if he didn’t have reason to believe I had one.
Wow, at least people are talking this time!
Chronos, FWIW, last game I voted for you primarily because of your predecessor’s actions. The funny thing, though, is that when you randomly threw out a name as a sample role name, you threw out MY NAME. Total coincidence, but it seemed fishy at the time.
Besides Special Ed lying or Chronos lying, there’s a third possibility that seems obvious to me.
This is the first Mafia game I’ve played in quite a while, so I have a question for **Chronos **and special ed, who I gather are frequent participants here…
Are you guys always this verbose?
Confirming.
I won’t be active for 30 hours or so thanks to some RL stuff. I might be able to read, but not post.
Lying about what? And, I can think of a fourth option.
Either Special Ed is lying or Chronos is lying.
Both are lying.
Both are telling the truth.
So, care to be less cryptic? I thought we were mostly discussing scum hunting strategy anyway. How could we be lying? I mean, I understand how he’s wrong, but he’s not lying.
I generally am.
Though, I fear if more people espouse Chronos’ strategy, I’ll be lynched because it does seem to be a lynch the loud strategy since they are the ones more likely to do more anti-Town things.
and, finally before I take my paint fume addled brain to bed.
So, let me see if I’m am correctly summarizing your stratgey.
- Find people doing anti-Town things.
- Vote for them.
- Look at the vote record and death reveals.
ow, how would the vote record reveal anything if everyone were just voting for the anti-Town stuff?
or…were you implying, try to look at the vote record and surmise who might have been busing a fellow Scum, who might have been protecting a fellow Scum, who might have been casting a one off vote…you know…looking for the Scum motivations in the voting record. Because, otherwise, all we’ll have is people voting for anti-Town things, right?
I was responding to Chronos’s post immediately before mine.
The question is who, if anyone, is lying about the existence or lack thereof of a win condition section in their PM. The third obvious answer is that Chronos and Special Ed are operating on different definitions of what a win condition section is.
Looks like the ball is already rolling in this game!
Confirming I got my role PM.
At work so only done a quick read-through:
- Looks like we don’t get a public role PM since **Mahaloth **posted since **Ed **asked for it. So that probably means scum has reasonable covers and the handshake idea doesn’t seem too useful in that light
- That goes also for a mass claim. In the last game by Mahaloth all scum were had scummy roles names (but they had three cover roles for three scum) and town power roles were tied to good character names but some good lead character were also vanilla.
So based on that I lean against a mass claim (because it might force a hobbit, Gandalf, etc to claim or false claim as town) but a lynch of a claimed lesser role seems more save (less chance to be a town power while bit more likely to be a cover role). The last might not be true if the cover roles in Harry Potter were lead characters - I don’t think so but I don’t know HP enough to say that for sure.