Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[notquitethere]

(IIRC in mafiascum there's no daychat in their newbie setup).

That's correct. I played one beginner game there as scum and only got a night chat. We had enough time to pick targets and notify each other of our broadbrush strategy. In the end, we lost because the doctor successfully protected two different players in then claimed and scum were rooted out by process of elimination. A great example of fair scumplay and lacklustre town being carried to victory by a superlative doctor.

As an aside, their site-meta is completely different. They found hypothetical questions at the beginning of the game highly suspicious, whereas here they're the norm.

In Mafia and Masons it would unbalance the whole game by letting the mafia weed out the masons by process of elimination.

Definitely. Didn't all the mafia in the last Masons game die after targeting the exact same non-mason?

[notquitethere]

So in Supernatural 6, I managed to unwittingly find the entirety of the original scum team by the second day.

They revealed themselves by having the fewest number of people that they voted for. Also, again, the player that posted the most (in this case, Imp) wasn't scum.

The genuine scum-tell: only infrequently changing one's mind about targets.

In contrast, addressing everyone in the town on the first day is not a good town-tell: most of the scum in Supernatural 6 were good at talking to everyone, but plenty of the town weren't.

[Tiruin]

So in Supernatural 6, I managed to unwittingly find the entirety of the original scum team by the second day.

They revealed themselves by having the fewest number of people that they voted for. Also, again[!?], the player that posted the most (in this case, Imp) wasn't scum.

The genuine scum-tell: only infrequently changing one's mind about targets.

In contrast, addressing everyone in the town on the first day is not a good town-tell: most of the scum in Supernatural 6 were good at talking to everyone, but plenty of the town weren't.

I'm still skeptical because I see this as a generality rather than the creation or statement of a rule. >_>

[notquitethere]

I'm still skeptical because I see this as a generality rather than the creation or statement of a rule. >_>

What does that even mean Tiruin? I think you're just sore because the analysis successfully saw that you were scum 

[Tiruin]

I'm still skeptical because I see this as a generality rather than the creation or statement of a rule. >_>

What does that even mean Tiruin? I think you're just sore because the analysis successfully saw that you were scum 

Heey D:< I had a reason to tunnel then..mostly!
..Mmmhh, alright,  I may be a bit sore >_> But..hmhhh. Right. I do see the thinking behind the votes and how it proceeds. Really deep.
Though the theory you propose is really plausible. If one tries to game that kind of theorem, then their mode of throwing suspicion to the wind would be blatant--or everyone else would just really play bad.

Though I'd still not discount that as a rule yet. There are certain playstyles (..I think I was defensive about mine hence the skepticism?) which go against apparent voting and instead press on the person until a level of certainty presents itself.

[Imp]

So in Supernatural 6, I managed to unwittingly find the entirety of the original scum team by the second day.

They revealed themselves by having the fewest number of people that they voted for. Also, again, the player that posted the most (in this case, Imp) wasn't scum.

The genuine scum-tell: only infrequently changing one's mind about targets.

In contrast, addressing everyone in the town on the first day is not a good town-tell: most of the scum in Supernatural 6 were good at talking to everyone, but plenty of the town weren't.

... Note that Imp also was likely Scum by that metric - Imp only 'changed' targets -once- in that game, D1 and with deep reluctance.  I refused to make a target selection D2 until the end (and I was super unsure even then).  D3 I had an inspect tell me who to vote for (no changes there - but the Scum team could have saved Max from me if they'd decided to vote for you instead.... I would have bought it - heck they could have bought my fears of a charismatic cultist, which I didn't know what to call but believed you were, NQT....  We would have ridden that train perhaps to a D3 Scum win cause that was secretly lylo and they had my Town vote even if no other... only thing that might have blown it was me wondering Wait!  Why IS Max willing to vote for NQT.... Something IS wrong!)


But really, NQT, have you used this metric on any other games?  Especially any which you are not a part of?  Statistics and psychology... it's -really- hard to get an accurate reading of people who know what they are being read for.  Bias and all that.  Your insistence in 'trying it for the first time' in a game currently ongoing that you were discussing it in while simultaneously measuring...   

I was wondering why anyone who DID discuss it with you wasn't discussing that flaw.

[notquitethere]

This metric successfully marked out town players in Witches. It's generally better at pin-pointing town than it is scum. The thing is, as no one but me believes in this stuff, scum don't go out of their way to fool me by voting more players. The more you doubt my analysis, the more powerful it becomes!

[webadict]

This metric successfully marked out town players in Witches. It's generally better at pin-pointing town than it is scum. The thing is, as no one but me believes in this stuff, scum don't go out of their way to fool me by voting more players. The more you doubt my analysis, the more powerful it becomes!

That's because you're going about this the wrong way. Take several games and compare the vote changing according to the common player. Games in which a player is scum should be compared to games where the player is town. This will show a direct effect from the player themselves.

[Imp]

This metric successfully marked out town players in Witches. It's generally better at pin-pointing town than it is scum. The thing is, as no one but me believes in this stuff, scum don't go out of their way to fool me by voting more players. The more you doubt my analysis, the more powerful it becomes!

That's because you're going about this the wrong way. Take several games and compare the vote changing according to the common player. Games in which a player is scum should be compared to games where the player is town. This will show a direct effect from the player themselves.

Erm, yeah.

I was trying to say that you're likely to be calling me Scum a lot, if we play together again, because.... I vote like you say Scum does when I am Town.  Or.  Not.  I guess.  But you only have two finished games (well, one, but I'm done in two) to rate my voting behavior in.  And I bet if I try to change to fit your metric, be me Town or Scum.... I'm going to look like I'm not playing 'normal', again, no matter if I'm doing it because I'm Scum or Town - because my motivation (Don't kill me guys!) is going to be the same as Scum or Town.

edited to add:

Oh yeah, and watch out for any mistakes, at least in analysis.  When you called me out for having only voted for one player D1 in S6 - I'd actually voted for 2.

Part of why I 'failed to believe' much about your analysis S6 was -because- it radically failed to match my understanding of my playstyle.  You were calling sure Scum for something I just do.

[notquitethere]

Wuba

That's because you're going about this the wrong way. Take several games and compare the vote changing according to the common player. Games in which a player is scum should be compared to games where the player is town. This will show a direct effect from the player themselves.

Not a bad suggestion. Be pretty damn time consuming, but eventually, I'l have a large stock of games to compare just from records made from games I've played in.

Still I don't see why all the skepticism: it worked infallibly in the last game despite scum players knowing I was looking for it.

Imp

I was trying to say that you're likely to be calling me Scum a lot, if we play together again, because.... I vote like you say Scum does when I am Town. Or. Not. I guess. But you only have two finished games (well, one, but I'm done in two) to rate my voting behavior in. And I bet if I try to change to fit your metric, be me Town or Scum.... I'm going to look like I'm not playing 'normal', again, no matter if I'm doing it because I'm Scum or Town - because my motivation (Don't kill me guys!) is going to be the same as Scum or Town.

edited to add:

Oh yeah, and watch out for any mistakes, at least in analysis. When you called me out for having only voted for one player D1 in S6 - I'd actually voted for 2.

Part of why I 'failed to believe' much about your analysis S6 was -because- it radically failed to match my understanding of my playstyle. You were calling sure Scum for something I just do.

I noticed the mistake in my count and amended in my next analytics post, so you shouldn't have been on the same line as Tiruin and much later in the game the difference became even more apparent. Despite your worries to the contrary, you appeared very town by this measure.

[webadict]

Wuba

That's because you're going about this the wrong way. Take several games and compare the vote changing according to the common player. Games in which a player is scum should be compared to games where the player is town. This will show a direct effect from the player themselves.

Not a bad suggestion. Be pretty damn time consuming, but eventually, I'l have a large stock of games to compare just from records made from games I've played in.

Still I don't see why all the skepticism: it worked infallibly in the last game despite scum players knowing I was looking for it.

I'm not skeptical of it. I think you're right on this one. I'm just saying that your using your evidence in the wrong way. To convince people, you'd want to use a similar baseline.

[notquitethere]

You're absolutely correct that I've been generally lousy at convincing people.

[Toaster]

Also, to quote something I've heard several times, you can be completely 100% right about the scum team and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you can't convince anyone else.

[Superblackcat]

Any statistics as to 'lurkers' and how often they are scum?

Not meaning little amounts of post, meaning outright not there. like Not QUITE there.

[Leafsnail]

If a player really isn't posting at all that almost always means they can't play or don't have the motivation to play.  There was a mafiascum thread a while ago about this, and IIRC there's a slight bias towards town players dropping out since most people find playing town less interesting.