Shin Megami Tensei: The Devil Inside Mafia - Page 51

On February 18 2016 11:32 nooniansoong wrote:
scumlist
ticktock
GB
scott
breshke
rsoul

On February 18 2016 12:14 nooniansoong wrote:

Probably Scott. I'm a believer in shooting inactive people.

On February 18 2016 12:59 Trfel wrote:
The Shining:

Can you please explain your scumread on Tumblewood again? Like, why did you initially read him as mafia?

I've looked through your filter and I'm still having trouble understanding this, sorry. I'm not seeing what your argument is.

On February 18 2016 05:24 Eden1892 wrote:
Lets lynch Shining.

Give me time to analyze the power role shenanigans. Don't try to resolve that without me. ESP since we might get more info about those shenanigans with the nightkill

On February 17 2016 17:20 Eden1892 wrote:
Don't like Shining's reads now that I bothered to read the larger post.

Not with the conclusions -- nobody is screaming lock-scum to me either -- but it felt like he came to null/null-ish conclusions about several players despite posting enough info to come to a firmer conclusion.

Like comparing his reads to mine, since we both ended up not having a lot of clear suspects, I make it clear what I find suspicious or not suspicious about people, and what I find validating or not validating about people. People don't do scummy and townie things, or at least, I don't think they have yet in this game. Look at this...



Basically, he lists a lot of reasons to like Tictock. He likes Tictock's town reads, and maybe only has real issues with how Tictock came to the GB read. But then he says that because Tictock doesn't have clear scumreads, that Tictock is a scum lean? I don't get how a guy can be considered to be pretty townie based off of having a lot of reasonable townreads, but then can end up being net-scummy due to not having clear scumreads.

It'd seem to me that you would conclude that the unclear scum reads is a big red flag, mafia can just make up reasons to townread people (especially if you agree with those reads and think the people being townread are actually town, then they're just saying correct things which is easy to do), and so the townreads don't mean anything and he's clear scum.

Or, you would say that the townreads are a great reason to townread him early, because they make sense and show that he's engaged with the game. At that point, it would be more reasonable to assume that a relative lack of scumreads is the byproduct of an early game without anybody doing anything obviously suspicious, and is NAI.

But surely you can't just say both things and call it virtually a wash (slight scum lean)? If either of them didn't matter you would conclude the other one is important and read Tictock accordingly. If both didn't matter then you would just not have a read. And they're not really constructed in a way that you can think both do matter -- since both of them are good reasons to read someone a certain way, and both lead to divergent conclusions, it stands to reason that one of them is wrong and thus shouldn't matter, and that, coming to this realization, you would review the player and decide which one matters.

I felt several of his reads that conclude null/null-ish have similar issues: he describes various behaviors by the player that look like they would be alignment-indicative, but they conclude opposite things, so instead of digging into the players in more depth and detail to resolve the divergent conclusions, he just calls them "null" overall even though they shouldn't be null. He's cited enough behaviors to come to some conclusion about a player, but then manages not to do so.

Coupled with the posting style -- few, longer posts, with minimal proactive interaction -- I'm actually inclined to think this guy could be a good lynch.