Drafterman's guide to spotting mafia

Author: drafterman ,

Posts

Total: 11
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,659
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Typical Mafia behaviors:

  1. Voting for a person who already has a vote. (Bandwagoning)
  2. Voting for a person who doesn't already have a vote. (Vote splitting)
  3. Agreeing with a townie. (Buddying)
  4. Disagreeing with a townie. (Anti-Town)
  5. Agreeing with a mafioso. (Pro-Scum)
  6. Disagreeing with a mafioso. (Manufactured arguing)
  7. Posting too much. (Spamming)
  8. Posting too little. (Lurking)
  9. Going with the results. (Sheeping)
  10. Not going with the results. (Generating Confusion)
  11. Acting like you've acted before as Town (Hiding your scum tells)
  12. Not acting like you've acted before as Town (Change in behavior = change in affiliation)
  13. Acting like you've acted before as Mafia (Scumtell)
  14. Not acting live you've acted before as Scum (Hiding your scum tells again)
  15. Playing too good (Insider knowledge)
  16. Playing too bad ("He's better than this")
  17. Playing just average (Trying to stay below people's radar)
  18. Being CC'd (CC)
  19. Not being CC'd (Mafia given fake claims)
  20. Voting Town (Forcing mislynches)
  21. Voting Scum (Bussing)
  22. VTNL (Not contributing)
  23. Claiming too early (Too eager to seem like Town)
  24. Claiming too late (Trying to avoid CC)
  25. Being Mafia in a previous game (You're always Mafia)
  26. Not being Mafia in a previous game (You're due to be mafia)
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,626
3
3
5
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
5
Typical town behaviors:

1. Existin- Nevermind, your existence also is scummy. Moving you to my scum pile. 

Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,626
3
3
5
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
5
In all seriousness, some of these are just goofy reads (albeit common), and others need to be taken with a grain of salt. I think it all depends on context really (obviously) but some of these can be a valid way to read someone. There isn't really any textbook way to read someone though, and sometimes you have a gut feeling on someone, and trying to explain it in words doesn't really make a good enough argument to get others to lynch that person, and in this game, trying to push a lynch requires debate skills, and the ability to convince others of a point. And for every scumtell you might pick up on, there's an equal chance that it's a town tell to someone else.

It really is an interesting game, and a lot of it comes down to learning the people you play with by playing with them repeatedly.

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,237
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
The ontological argument for _______ being scum. Just fill in the blank with a random name for 100% accurate scumhunting.

  • It is possible for a maximum _______ scum to exist.
  • If a maximum _______ scum possibly exists then it exists in some possible mafia game.
  • If a maximum _______ scum exists in some possible mafia game then it exists in all possible mafia games.
  • If a maximum _______ scum exists in all possible mafia games then they exist in this mafia game.
  • If a maximum _______ scum exists in this mafia game then _______ is scum.

#OPstrats
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,237
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
There isn't really any textbook way to read someone though, and sometimes you have a gut feeling on someone, and trying to explain it in words doesn't really make a good enough argument to get others to lynch that person, and in this game, trying to push a lynch requires debate skills, and the ability to convince others of a point. 

It really does come down to this though. Unless role claims are involved the best reads tend to be gut reads and "I have a gut feeling" is rarely very convincing so townies are forced to make stuff up to convince others, otherwise no lynch happens.

I could easily find examples of myself being guilty of both 23 and 24 as scum for example despite these being contradictory. I know that is the whole point of the thread, so I guess my point is just that I agree lol.
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,626
3
3
5
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
5
agree 100% DD
Zaradi
Zaradi's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 705
2
3
7
Zaradi's avatar
Zaradi
2
3
7
Now all we need is for someone to take this guide literally and we're all set for a good time.
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,648
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @drafterman
Suprise we are all scum
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,659
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @SupaDudz
We are all scum on this glorious day.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,237
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Ragnar
Thanks to recent field testing the ontalogical argument for _____ being scum now has an official 100% success rate.

I see a bright future for this flawless argument, which should probably be given a shorter name now. Henceforth it shall be refered to as the "Ontalogical Argument For Finding Scum" (OA-FFS for short, can be further shortened to 'the FFS argument' in emergencies).
David
David's avatar
Debates: 83
Posts: 1,203
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
The Kalaam Cosmological Argument for ____ to be scum

1. If the town began to exist, then the town has a cause
2. The town began to exist
3. Therefore, the town has a cause
4. Consequently, the cause of the town must be a scum who is _______)

The Moral Argument for ____ to be scum

1. If objective moral facts exist, then ____ is scum
2. Objective moral facts exist
3. Therefore, ____ is scum

The Prime Mover Argument

1, Whatever is in motion is moved by another
2. There exists mafia in motion
3, There cannot be an infinite regression of moved beings
4. Therefore, there must be a first mover, a prime mafia member who is obviously ________

The Teleological Argument

1. Natural entities either tend toward ends or they do not.
2. If natural entities tend toward ends, then they are best explained by a person.
3. Natural entities tend toward ends.
4. Therefore, natural entities are best explained by a person.