Apathy. A weapon for Mafia only?

[OzyWho]

Apathy. The level of a person's or collective's willingness to change the direction of the game. How much they care enough.

(please correct me if I'm wrong since I had a hard time finding the official FM definition)

For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that's the official definition because it's what I want to hear your opinions about in this topic.

Apathy is a powerful and popular Mafia weapon to use, and it can be disguised in many different ways and forms in plain sight - most of which evolve around the idea of making the thread unreadable with circular arguments and all that.
But what I want to know, can Townies use it as a weapon? What do you think?

In the most recent S-FM game (Instant Mafia) @Stealthbomber16 's Apathy was increased to a maximum by me. It was done so by being toxic, yes, but let's not talk about that atm

It worked in that game because:

1. the nature of the setup
2. MM wasn't there
3. SB16 just happened to be a Mafia
4. if both Mafias were there - they could had easily made a case against me and Kira and say that I decreased SB16's morale and Kira claiming "SB16 has given up" - making us 2 look like a scum team.

If it was a regular setup, I would had been lynched D2 100% if SB16 wasn't Mafia.


So what's the verdict? Is it a viable Town Tactic ever?

[Efekannn02]

Just use it...
I dont know lol but im immune to that

[DJarJar]

as a tactic do you mean "trying to make other players become apathetic?". Because that's just toxic...

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I'll put it bluntly : Apathy sucks, it makes games not fun for ANY ALIGNMENT, and should never be used as a strategy. Lurking isn't apathy, it's picking rare moments to appear and direct the flow, defending yourself, pushing at a specific player, etc. (which is definetly a playstyle, and is arguably the best one at times), while apathy is nonparticipation. Apathy is not good, and encouraging apathy is extremely scummy at best, and really toxic and unenjoyable (to the point of it being very close, if not literally, griefing).

The definition you gave is indeed the right one, so it's not a definition issue. If you're being apathetic, that's on you, you might get lynched for it, you might get replaced for it, you might get punished for it, and most importantly, you're wasting everyone's time, effort, and fun, including your own. Encouraging others to be apathetic means making the game not fun. It's the ONLY WAY to make people not want to participate anymore, not caring anymore.


I don't even think this topic should have to be discussed, given the incredible amount of times "game quality" was involved in playstyle judgements and in toxic behavior. If you're making the game not fun, you're not being fun to play with, and you are being intentionally offensive.

In short : Being apathetic yourself sucks and will get you in trouble, and "encouraging" others to be apathetic will simply get you banned from FMs on a long term basis.


Note that I am not saying that this has happened before, but stating that it would be absolutely intolerable to promote apathy sensu stricto.

[Voss]

Mostly ditto-ing MM here.

I'd posit that when people play games, you should be looking for the everyone-is-having-fun-but-I-win win, not the everyone-hates-this-game-because-of-the-way-I-played win. And if you have to play a little bit suboptimally to so that everyone has fun, it's better in the long run. There have been numerous times when I've played deception/deduction type games IRL where I could have been an asshole and ensured my victory, (and sometimes I did), but if/when I did that, it was harder for me to convince people to play again with me.

I don't know if people have picked up on this, but I'll sometimes vote out people that are being uncooperative assholes in the hopes that they are scum.

but also, I think that Ozy had a different idea apathy than MM might have?

[Kenny]

I'll put it bluntly : Apathy sucks, it makes games not fun for ANY ALIGNMENT, and should never be used as a strategy. Lurking isn't apathy, it's picking rare moments to appear and direct the flow, defending yourself, pushing at a specific player, etc. (which is definetly a playstyle, and is arguably the best one at times), while apathy is nonparticipation. Apathy is not good, and encouraging apathy is extremely scummy at best, and really toxic and unenjoyable (to the point of it being very close, if not literally, griefing).

The definition you gave is indeed the right one, so it's not a definition issue. If you're being apathetic, that's on you, you might get lynched for it, you might get replaced for it, you might get punished for it, and most importantly, you're wasting everyone's time, effort, and fun, including your own. Encouraging others to be apathetic means making the game not fun. It's the ONLY WAY to make people not want to participate anymore, not caring anymore.


I don't even think this topic should have to be discussed, given the incredible amount of times "game quality" was involved in playstyle judgements and in toxic behavior. If you're making the game not fun, you're not being fun to play with, and you are being intentionally offensive.

In short : Being apathetic yourself sucks and will get you in trouble, and "encouraging" others to be apathetic will simply get you banned from FMs on a long term basis.


Note that I am not saying that this has happened before, but stating that it would be absolutely intolerable to promote apathy sensu stricto.

I want no one talking to MM. He's 'confirmed' scum. Don't kill him. It'd also be great for everyone to state that they will not be addressing MM.
Once again, please no one address MM. No quotes, no nothing. He's only contributing to wifom. I'm hoping he gets bored.

[Voss]

I want no one talking to MM. He's 'confirmed' scum. Don't kill him. It'd also be great for everyone to state that they will not be addressing MM.
Once again, please no one address MM. No quotes, no nothing. He's only contributing to wifom. I'm hoping he gets bored.

I think I said that in that one president's game.

Well, I know I didn't say "I hope he gets bored". but everything else, I think I did

[Voss]

Although the behavior is not excusable, I think the scenario is different with confirmed, outed scums that you don't need to work with to win the game.

[Kenny]

I think I said that in that one president's game.

Well, I know I didn't say "I hope he gets bored". but everything else, I think I did

You did say that, it's a quote with only the name replaced lol

[Kenny]

Imo definitely a valid tactic anyway for both sides even if just to discredit someone out of fear.

[Kenny]

Tho the correct way is to shitpost and to encourage shitposting, not to be toxic and drive people away

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Mostly ditto-ing MM here.

I'd posit that when people play games, you should be looking for the everyone-is-having-fun-but-I-win win, not the everyone-hates-this-game-because-of-the-way-I-played win. And if you have to play a little bit suboptimally to so that everyone has fun, it's better in the long run. There have been numerous times when I've played deception/deduction type games IRL where I could have been an asshole and ensured my victory, (and sometimes I did), but if/when I did that, it was harder for me to convince people to play again with me.

I don't know if people have picked up on this, but I'll sometimes vote out people that are being uncooperative assholes in the hopes that they are scum.

but also, I think that Ozy had a different idea apathy than MM might have?

On all but the last line : exactly. Sure, sometimes, the optimal play on the moment is to be an asshole scum and to completely destroy the game's activity with very borderline insults, murder of the active and "zen" players, etc., but it's just not fun, and not really rewarding either. And as Voss said, people won't want to play with you if you do that.

As for the potentially different definitions, I fully disagree. Ozy took the precaution of defining his terms before exposing his views, which is very important and wise. His definition is this : Apathy. The level of a person's or collective's willingness to change the direction of the game. How much they care enough.
I strongly doubt there is a definition misunderstanding here.

And if someone has doubts on my point of view or finds me extremist, feel free to take a look at how other sites handle those players. The most lenient ones will just see the majority of players hate people who have the aforementioned behavior, and the most strict ones will simply have them banned from their games, if not from their site. I'm obviously not going to give examples, though.

TL;DR : If you're being intentionally or at least consciously toxic and severly anti-fun, you're doing something wrong.

[Kenny]

You can also pretend that and be trying to get players desperate, which is arguably one of the best methods of gaining true and telling reactions out of someone.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I want no one talking to MM. He's 'confirmed' scum. Don't kill him. It'd also be great for everyone to state that they will not be addressing MM.
Once again, please no one address MM. No quotes, no nothing. He's only contributing to wifom. I'm hoping he gets bored.

lol

Although the behavior is not excusable, I think the scenario is different with confirmed, outed scums that you don't need to work with to win the game.

I was town in the President game, though... xD

I think you said that to Distorted, though, not to me (he was Theodore Roosevelt). But it wasn't really offensive. You weren't encouraging him to be apathetic for a strategy, you were encouraging others to not listen to the bunch of lies he was saying. That's different.

Imo definitely a valid tactic anyway for both sides even if just to discredit someone out of fear.

Valid? Depends on your definition. Yes, sometimes, it will give you a slight edge compared to other strategies. But it will never be good and fair play, and it will never be fun for anyone outside of yourself in the event you are sadistic.

Tho the correct way is to shitpost and to encourage shitposting, not to be toxic and drive people away

^ this strategy can work just as well as "strategy toxicity", with very similar effects, but without making people sad/hating you and all.


I will go on a very related topic and say that people ought to be careful with their words. Several people that I know of, among different sites, have been hurt by words of players. Not everyone is solid on their ego, self-esteem or similar. Attacking a player, a person instead of their slot is ALWAYS bad and should NEVER be done or be accepted as a correct strategy. Mafia is a social game. A game of lies, of deceit and of backstabbing, yes, but also and mostly a game of fun. If you're being anti-fun, you're not doing things right.
Plus, people tend to listen much less to people they hate or who are being rude to them than to people who are being nice and rational (as a general rule, of course, not an absolute, because only a Sith deals in absolutes ).

[Kenny]

I just fully disagree here on apathy not being a strong tool to use tbh. I'd feel like that'd be a huge handicap for me if I had to stop with that

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I just fully disagree here on apathy not being a strong tool to use tbh. I'd feel like that'd be a huge handicap for me if I had to stop with that

The issue here lies within a definition of the word apathy, though. Promoting inactivity or useless discussions is different from making people not want to play the game anymore.

If you find yourself disagreeing with my points on a strict meaning basis with the right definitions (the ones I use in my posts are the ones Ozy used when he created the thread, which makes them "right" here), then I guess you might have to re-think your playstyle, unless you are making the point that making people not care about the game anymore because they just don't like it when you turned it in X way is a perfectly legit way to play Mafia and doesn't affect the players in a negative way outside of the precise game you're playing...

...in which case I will say that it's opportunistic in the most negative meaning of the term. You don't do that in games, though, so I think it's just a definition misunderstanding here. Using people's inactivity is perfectly ok, but making them go inactive and most importantly apathetic is not, because it means you're being toxic. I think you're talking about the former, not the latter.

[Kenny]

The issue here lies within a definition of the word apathy, though. Promoting inactivity or useless discussions is different from making people not want to play the game anymore.

If you find yourself disagreeing with my points on a strict meaning basis with the right definitions (the ones I use in my posts are the ones Ozy used when he created the thread, which makes them "right" here), then I guess you might have to re-think your playstyle, unless you are making the point that making people not care about the game anymore because they just don't like it when you turned it in X way is a perfectly legit way to play Mafia and doesn't affect the players in a negative way outside of the precise game you're playing...

...in which case I will say that it's opportunistic in the most negative meaning of the term. You don't do that in games, though, so I think it's just a definition misunderstanding here. Using people's inactivity is perfectly ok, but making them go inactive and most importantly apathetic is not, because it means you're being toxic. I think you're talking about the former, not the latter.

Apathy. The level of a person's or collective's willingness to change the direction of the game. How much they care enough.

I don't think Ozy ever said this would be limited to inactivity

[OzyWho]

@Marshmallow Marshall
tbh, I think you misunderstood how "generating apathy" looks. Because im 99% sure I have seen you and Distorted do it as scum, and I have only seen 1 distorted scum game, 2 you scum games. Distorted by flooding the thread with accusations and scumpainting left and right, you by creating 99999999999 posts in 24 hours.

-engage with a player and meet all their logic with your own logic, and you gum the thread and make it impossible to follow
-see someone who loves to make wallposts and ask them 100 questions
-make random large ISO's of random people for no purpose but to flood the thread and look busy (now tell me you havent done this as Scum?)
-don't let shy townies be in the "driver seat" by being yourself (now tell me you havent dont this as Scum?)
-someone's leading the town? Kill them. Increase town's overall apathy.(now tell me you havent dont this as Scum?)[/I]
-townies policy lynch people who increase apathy, so it's fair game
-some townies gives arguments why he townreads someone else and he is a rational player? completel shutter his reasonins with logic. (now tell me you havent dont this as Scum?)[/I]
-by being in command of town, you can choose to ignore 1 player's posts, so they think noone is hearing them. (this is simply bad play and no town should be able to allow this to happen, so its fair game)
-flood the thread by discussing the same topic 10 different ways. Not in a shitpost kinda way.
-see someone spammy when irritated? irritate them!

-TELL ME YOU HAVEN'T INCREASED APATHY AS SCUM BY MAKING THE THREAD HARD TO READ. I call it BS if you do.

One of the best ways to spread apathy is to simply say the game is drowning in it already, then say you’ll combat it… then push for the status quo in a loud manner. People will often confuse “loud and active and rallying” for “decreasing apathy” when in truth you can actually increase apathy by forcing people to remain on the same path while being sly.

[Kenny]

I think you just increased apathy

[OzyWho]

take a look at how other sites handle those players Apathy.

Well.. you know. I learned that word from a tutorial/guide done by a MafiaUniverse's "Head Moderator", so there's that...
Yeah I'm very sure there's some misunderstanding here. Just not sure from/by whom.

I think you just increased apathy

It's unfortunate that I have a natural talent for it, in every area in my life.

Edit: @Kenny Are you on a Mafia Team with MM? Because you didn't point it out when MM was actively and shamelessly trying to increase Apathy on discussing Apathy in his opening post.

[OzyWho]

as a tactic do you mean "trying to make other players become apathetic?". Because that's just toxic...

No. In general it means increasing the amount of effort that people have to invest in the game if they wanted to change the direction of the game, thereby making them less willing. See - flooding the thread and thereby make it harder to follow the game.
Also killing the town leader increases the town overall apathy - towns overall willingness to change the direction of the game.
Also by being the town leader yourself, as Mafia, you also increase towns apathy, though then you would have explain later how you weren't killed yet.


Soo, anyway. I figured out the answer myself. Town can increase Mafias Apathy - by simply playing good. Have a strong town core and see Mafia getting demoralized.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

@Marshmallow Marshall
tbh, I think you misunderstood how "generating apathy" looks. Because im 99% sure I have seen you and Distorted do it as scum, and I have only seen 1 distorted scum game, 2 you scum games. Distorted by flooding the thread with accusations and scumpainting left and right, you by creating 99999999999 posts in 24 hours.

-engage with a player and meet all their logic with your own logic, and you gum the thread and make it impossible to follow
-see someone who loves to make wallposts and ask them 100 questions
-make random large ISO's of random people for no purpose but to flood the thread and look busy (now tell me you havent done this as Scum?)
-don't let shy townies be in the "driver seat" by being yourself (now tell me you havent dont this as Scum?)
-someone's leading the town? Kill them. Increase town's overall apathy.(now tell me you havent dont this as Scum?)[/I]
-townies policy lynch people who increase apathy, so it's fair game
-some townies gives arguments why he townreads someone else and he is a rational player? completel shutter his reasonins with logic. (now tell me you havent dont this as Scum?)[/I]
-by being in command of town, you can choose to ignore 1 player's posts, so they think noone is hearing them. (this is simply bad play and no town should be able to allow this to happen, so its fair game)
-flood the thread by discussing the same topic 10 different ways. Not in a shitpost kinda way.
-see someone spammy when irritated? irritate them!

-TELL ME YOU HAVEN'T INCREASED APATHY AS SCUM BY MAKING THE THREAD HARD TO READ. I call it BS if you do.

Ah. Your points are not about the very definition you gave at the start of your thread, though... Most of the points here, if not all, are about sidetracking the thread. People are not apathetic, they don't lack willingness to make the game move: they just aren't going in the right way, so the game doesn't actually move correctly, but the townies don't know about it.

Distorted's post (I assume the quote at the bottom of your post is from him, it really looks like it) also takes that definition of apathy.


Now that you clarified this, what I see that is now the point of the thread can be discussed : is apathy, AKA sidetracking in this case, a good tool to use as town? The answer is: Generally, no. But there are arguably some times when you can actually use it to your advantage, in my opinion. The list isn't big, though.

- When you're being pushed to lynch and that it's best for town if you survive (self-preservation theory)
- When you want to bait scums into encouraging a scummy behavior ("encouraging apathy/sidetracking") in a scummy way

That's mostly it, I think. So generally, town should fight apathy, not get into it or encourage it, but it can arguably be pro-town to do it for a bit, which means less than a full game day. More than that is purely and simply anti-town.

P.S. irritating people to cause spam can be toxic, it depends on how you irritate the player; be careful not to fall in what was discussed in the previous posts!

[Marshmallow Marshall]

No. In general it means increasing the amount of effort that people have to invest in the game if they wanted to change the direction of the game, thereby making them less willing. See - flooding the thread and thereby make it harder to follow the game.
Also killing the town leader increases the town overall apathy - towns overall willingness to change the direction of the game.
Also by being the town leader yourself, as Mafia, you also increase towns apathy, though then you would have explain later how you weren't killed yet.


Soo, anyway. I figured out the answer myself. Town can increase Mafias Apathy - by simply playing good. Have a strong town core and see Mafia getting demoralized.

Apathetic Mafia is crappy Mafia. They should never become apathetic. If they do, they deserve to lose more than town deserves to win, honestly. However, if Town plays well, Mafia will lose power to change game in their favor, which is not apathy, but simply game advantage.


Also, about my last posts : I do not pretend to have the ultimate knowledge of the universe or of the game of Mafia, and am obviously still open to critics and all. I however think it's appropriated to put my views as "truths" here.

[OzyWho]

Distorted's post (I assume the quote at the bottom of your post is from him, it really looks like it) also takes that definition of apathy.

You see something smart and think "Distorted"
Here is the actual source: https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums...LambdaDelta%29

---

- When you're being pushed to lynch and that it's best for town if you survive (self-preservation theory)
- When you want to bait scums into encouraging a scummy behavior ("encouraging apathy/sidetracking") in a scummy way

That 2nd one, tell more!

---

P.S. irritating people to cause spam can be toxic, it depends on how you irritate the player; be careful not to fall in what was discussed in the previous posts!

I swear you were born a grandfather...

---

I disagree that sidetracking and apathy are the same. You sidetrack them so much that their energy drops low and their apathy increases because of that - is how I see it.

[Frinckles]

If you wanted to cross reference a post from another site and discuss it here, I think it would have been nice to link it in the OP.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

You see something smart and think "Distorted"
Here is the actual source: https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums...LambdaDelta%29

---

That 2nd one, tell more!

---

I swear you were born a grandfather...

---

I disagree that sidetracking and apathy are the same. You sidetrack them so much that their energy drops low and their apathy increases because of that - is how I see it.

... lol well, it could have been him.


You can make a very fallacious reasoning in a calculated way to see who will get into it, and most importantly, HOW they get into it. If they seem to not notice the fallacy at all and that it's plausible for the player to not notice it (they are not extremely skilled in logics for example), they might be town, and you'll have to show them how your reasoning was intentioanlly wrong, and the pro-town character of your play.

However - and that's where it gets interesting - you will often have a scum agree with you when it's very unlikely for them to ACTUALLY believe your thing. You then let them dig their own grave by pushing a logical fallacy that you know of exactly, which allows you to completely destroy it in a case you make later. When you manage to do that, it's very effective, very fun, and very rewarding. Just be careful not to catch townies with that.


Lol what? Why do you say that I was born a grandfather


I didn't say they were the same; on the contrary, I said that the definition of apathy you gave didn't fit with the examples you gave, and that the examples fit with sidetracking, not with apathy.

If you really have your energy dropping low because your game is sidetracked by scum, you're doing something super wrong, seriously. That's just straight up bad play, and while it does exist, it's nothing to make a theory on since good players will just not "drop their morale" because of sidetracking; they will try to combat it instead.


Also, Frinckles is right, it would've been nice to see the guide first :P

[OzyWho]

I didn't say they were the same; on the contrary, I said that the definition of apathy you gave didn't fit with the examples you gave, and that the examples fit with sidetracking, not with apathy.

If the Mafias intentions are to sidetrack town, they will sidetrack town. If the Mafias intentions are to increase town's apathy, sidetracking should be just one of many tools. Same action can have multiple intentions, It's my fault for never being clear enough. Though I didn't know the word before you have taught it

If you were Mafia and your intentions were to decrease the Towns willingness to change the games direction - how would you go about doing that? And same if you were Town and wanted to decrease Mafias?

---

You can make a very fallacious reasoning in a calculated way to see who will get into it, and most importantly, HOW they get into it. If they seem to not notice the fallacy at all and that it's plausible for the player to not notice it (they are not extremely skilled in logics for example), they might be town, and you'll have to show them how your reasoning was intentioanlly wrong, and the pro-town character of your play.

However - and that's where it gets interesting - you will often have a scum agree with you when it's very unlikely for them to ACTUALLY believe your thing. You then let them dig their own grave by pushing a logical fallacy that you know of exactly, which allows you to completely destroy it in a case you make later. When you manage to do that, it's very effective, very fun, and very rewarding. Just be careful not to catch townies with that.

Ok, this has nothing to do with Apathy. But still I'm curious about it.

Exactly
Why should Town trust that it's not Mafias doing?

---

Lol what? Why do you say that I was born a grandfather

Your mentor attitude reminds me of some elders in movies

---

If you really have your energy dropping low because your game is sidetracked by scum, you're doing something super wrong, seriously. That's just straight up bad play

I see this as you're arguing against the laws of physics. If I have more work to go through, then I will naturally have to spend more energy. I can't just decide to ignore half the arguments made in a thread because I suspect someone is, as you say, sidetracking me.

[OzyWho]

Also, Frinckles is right, it would've been nice to see the guide first :P

Regarding what Frinckles said, it was never actually my intention to "cross reference a post from another site and discuss it here".

Why "it would've been nice to see the guide first"?

[Frinckles]

Regarding what Frinckles said, it was never actually my intention to "cross reference a post from another site and discuss it here".

Why "it would've been nice to see the guide first"?

Well because that's exactly what you're doing. You're evaluating a concept outlined on another website and applying it in a different aspect while asking for our opinions. For anyone curious, here is the relevant part (credit to Newcomb)

Spoiler : Status Quo & Apathy :

This leads us to our next topic: Status Quo and Apathy. We mentioned Status Quo in the beginner section, but let’s define its use here. Status Quo refers not to the obvious state of the game or the individual reads of any players in it, but rather to the collective unconscious of the game and where its opinions lay. In essence, what the town would do if every player simply voted without any new information gained and without new interactions changing their views. Status Quo is an overview of the state of the town as a whole.

Similarly, we can define apathy in the way that the town as a whole is unwilling or unable to escape from its current status quo. Apathy isn’t a positive or negative connotative in this fashion, though often used negatively. Apathy levels are simply the amount at which nothing will change in the game. If Apathy is at 100 percent, then the game will play out its course exactly as planned from the prior day and as predicted. If it’s at 0, the result may still be the same, but the ability to PREDICT that result, AND the amount of CHANGE IN THE STATUS QUO (even if the lynch didn’t) is measured here.

So what do these have to do with scum? Everything really. What people don’t realize is that scum completely control the pace of the game, and so, in essence: Scum set the baseline for the Status Quo and Apathy level of the game. What is meant by this is that because scum know the correct answers and because scum have the night kill, if the Status Quo does not benefit scum, they can simply kill someone that will cause a major shift in the game’s understanding. If it does benefit them, they can kill obvious kills that will lead to the same conclusions.

Because this level of analysis is first order, this means the town is completely capable of understanding this is happening to them and they do. Literally, the paranoia that a universally town read player may be scum hiding deep within the folds of town is nothing other than town shaking the status quo. And as town has more numbers than you, they are the ones who truly hold the keys to the ability to DEFINE the status quo, if not the ability scum have to set its baseline.

So where does that leave us as scum? What can we do to use the Status Quo and Apathy as weapons in the game? Let’s look at the obvious one first, Apathy.

Apathy as a weapon in Mafia is well known for its… unsavoury response. Townies don’t like when scum players make other people care less about the game. In my mind, if you’re not breaking the rules of the game, it’s fair game. Townies have a right to kill players who are bad or increase apathy, right? So we have a right to induce it and dare them to. How does scum increase levels of apathy? Firstly, if apathy is the ability for town to change the status quo of the game over the next day, removing the players who will make the most impact on that status quo is a good way. Not just players who have already made their impact; no, the most beneficial kills are the ones where the player has given the incorrect opinion and then dies JUST before they would change it. There’s an art to killing a player the night before they were going to reverse their reads and catch scum, but you get a sense for it the more you play.

Be on the lookout for anyone who is a bit on the fence, or seems disaffected with the direction of the town. Especially if they’re a competent and dangerous player. This is where your connections with players will come in handy, because when you get the sense a player is shifting out from your control, or that the connection is changing its identity, it may be time to let that fish loose. The benefit of performing this is that you can use their last wishes to your advantage keeping status quo where you want it, but also that you’re reducing the number of players who would have fought to make people reconsider.

Additionally, another method to use is simply to demotivate the town. If you have someone who is in firm command of the town, manipulating them (or just being that person yourself) will give you the ability to quash the rebellious spirit of the townies until they comply. If a townie thinks they aren’t being heard, often their response is to attack the one who is suppressing them. If they can’t do that because of the power dynamic or town reads or whatever, they become DEPRESSED. They think no one will listen to them and they stop TRYING. NOTHING IS EASIER TO BEAT THAN A TOWN WHO DOESN’T CARE. It’s essentially the art of war. Fighting is good, winning without striking a blow is better.

Finally you can increase apathy by making the thread hard to read. This should be made clear: Don’t deliberately make the thread a $#@!post zone and call it scumplay. Don’t insult people and make them not wanna play anymore and call it scum play. (People will get mad, insults will get thrown… if you make someone wanna quit that way you’ve got bigger problems and you should apologize. I know I’ve done it, I’ve been that angry and I’ve regretted it every time.) No, the method described here is an inundation of INFORMATION. Flood the town with posts that discuss the same things again and again, not by spamming, simply by having the same conversation 10 different ways. Encourage a spammy poster to go on a deep dive where they post 20 long wall posts about every interaction in the game that NO ONE WANTS TO READ. Townies are susceptible to the concept that they feel they need good reasons to kill someone, and don’t consider “is overloading information instead of analysis” to be a good one. People call it a policy lynch and then $#@! goes wild. Until townies are willing to lynch people who do this kind of play (and sometimes you convince townies to do it for you even) doing this is the punishment that townies get for not wanting to lynch policies/information overloads. Feel no shame in doing this. If it makes a player not want to read the thread, guess what they will do? They’ll default to their start of day reads and just go with those instead of reading 20 pages of nonsense that makes their eyes cross.

So if apathy is driven up when the status quo is good for scum, obviously scum benefit. And if the status quo doesn’t benefit scum? Scum can use night kills and proper day play to let town hang themselves… then drive them into their graves.

In summary, and I’ll make this point abundantly clear: Until the town decides that combating apathy by treating those who spread it as scummy is something they will do, use apathy to your advantage without any shame. It is the single best way to control the actions of the town en masse.

One of the best ways to spread apathy is to simply say the game is drowning in it already, then say you’ll combat it… then push for the status quo in a loud manner. People will often confuse “loud and active and rallying” for “decreasing apathy” when in truth you can actually increase apathy by forcing people to remain on the same path while being sly.

The entire article is an interesting read but as MM pointed out, there are ways to combat apathy either on an individual level or on a collective level and this guide fails to recognize that. It's not an all-encompassing strategy because apathy begins at a personal level and it has little effect on a player who is aware of this.

MM's play during La Cosa Nostra is a good example of this: Despite being attacked by multiple people for almost 200 hours, he stayed calm and tried his best to lead the town to a victory.

Now something I don't see being brought up (related to La Cosa Nosta & Apathy) is how setups and their status quo effect the game;

When we arrived on day four Rumox was clearly frustrated. He had listed every single possible scenario and none of them except an extremely unlikely one resulted in a town victory. We were stuck in a 2v1v3 and the gridlock of the situation was tiring. So then, Rumox switched his mindset from that of a losing town member to a kingmaker and he got significantly more involved. He knew Town couldn't win, but he figured he could (with some help) change the game-state from a Mafia win to an SK win. Though he didn't succeed: It threatened to completely screw up everything the Mafia had planned out. Kingmaker situations are not ideal in any capacity but I thought this was relevant.

The main point I'm getting at is: You're in control of how much you post, who you want to argue with, the quality of arguments you entertain, how you pace yourself and how you react to each situation.

-------------------------

Anyway, that is all literally off topic. The question here was: So what's the verdict? Is it a viable Town Tactic ever?

..Well probably not. Imagine if Light was the last Mafia and everyone was chanting "we kill Frinckles today and Light tomorrow." Sure -- I can see Light getting a bit demoralized, but what does that do to negatively impact his ability to play the game? He doesn't have scum-hunt or town-read because he knows both of those things. He just needs to be seen as a town member and pick a kill each night while the game winds closer to a win. The article even points out that 'scum completely control[s] the pace of the game' -- you can't influence how scum feels directly because you don't know who scum is.

And hey, sometimes being apathetic about the game-state can make you easier to townread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Well because that's exactly what you're doing. You're evaluating a concept outlined on another website and applying it in a different aspect while asking for our opinions. For anyone curious, here is the relevant part (credit to Newcomb)

Spoiler : Status Quo & Apathy :

This leads us to our next topic: Status Quo and Apathy. We mentioned Status Quo in the beginner section, but let’s define its use here. Status Quo refers not to the obvious state of the game or the individual reads of any players in it, but rather to the collective unconscious of the game and where its opinions lay. In essence, what the town would do if every player simply voted without any new information gained and without new interactions changing their views. Status Quo is an overview of the state of the town as a whole.

Similarly, we can define apathy in the way that the town as a whole is unwilling or unable to escape from its current status quo. Apathy isn’t a positive or negative connotative in this fashion, though often used negatively. Apathy levels are simply the amount at which nothing will change in the game. If Apathy is at 100 percent, then the game will play out its course exactly as planned from the prior day and as predicted. If it’s at 0, the result may still be the same, but the ability to PREDICT that result, AND the amount of CHANGE IN THE STATUS QUO (even if the lynch didn’t) is measured here.

So what do these have to do with scum? Everything really. What people don’t realize is that scum completely control the pace of the game, and so, in essence: Scum set the baseline for the Status Quo and Apathy level of the game. What is meant by this is that because scum know the correct answers and because scum have the night kill, if the Status Quo does not benefit scum, they can simply kill someone that will cause a major shift in the game’s understanding. If it does benefit them, they can kill obvious kills that will lead to the same conclusions.

Because this level of analysis is first order, this means the town is completely capable of understanding this is happening to them and they do. Literally, the paranoia that a universally town read player may be scum hiding deep within the folds of town is nothing other than town shaking the status quo. And as town has more numbers than you, they are the ones who truly hold the keys to the ability to DEFINE the status quo, if not the ability scum have to set its baseline.

So where does that leave us as scum? What can we do to use the Status Quo and Apathy as weapons in the game? Let’s look at the obvious one first, Apathy.

Apathy as a weapon in Mafia is well known for its… unsavoury response. Townies don’t like when scum players make other people care less about the game. In my mind, if you’re not breaking the rules of the game, it’s fair game. Townies have a right to kill players who are bad or increase apathy, right? So we have a right to induce it and dare them to. How does scum increase levels of apathy? Firstly, if apathy is the ability for town to change the status quo of the game over the next day, removing the players who will make the most impact on that status quo is a good way. Not just players who have already made their impact; no, the most beneficial kills are the ones where the player has given the incorrect opinion and then dies JUST before they would change it. There’s an art to killing a player the night before they were going to reverse their reads and catch scum, but you get a sense for it the more you play.

Be on the lookout for anyone who is a bit on the fence, or seems disaffected with the direction of the town. Especially if they’re a competent and dangerous player. This is where your connections with players will come in handy, because when you get the sense a player is shifting out from your control, or that the connection is changing its identity, it may be time to let that fish loose. The benefit of performing this is that you can use their last wishes to your advantage keeping status quo where you want it, but also that you’re reducing the number of players who would have fought to make people reconsider.

Additionally, another method to use is simply to demotivate the town. If you have someone who is in firm command of the town, manipulating them (or just being that person yourself) will give you the ability to quash the rebellious spirit of the townies until they comply. If a townie thinks they aren’t being heard, often their response is to attack the one who is suppressing them. If they can’t do that because of the power dynamic or town reads or whatever, they become DEPRESSED. They think no one will listen to them and they stop TRYING. NOTHING IS EASIER TO BEAT THAN A TOWN WHO DOESN’T CARE. It’s essentially the art of war. Fighting is good, winning without striking a blow is better.

Finally you can increase apathy by making the thread hard to read. This should be made clear: Don’t deliberately make the thread a $#@!post zone and call it scumplay. Don’t insult people and make them not wanna play anymore and call it scum play. (People will get mad, insults will get thrown… if you make someone wanna quit that way you’ve got bigger problems and you should apologize. I know I’ve done it, I’ve been that angry and I’ve regretted it every time.) No, the method described here is an inundation of INFORMATION. Flood the town with posts that discuss the same things again and again, not by spamming, simply by having the same conversation 10 different ways. Encourage a spammy poster to go on a deep dive where they post 20 long wall posts about every interaction in the game that NO ONE WANTS TO READ. Townies are susceptible to the concept that they feel they need good reasons to kill someone, and don’t consider “is overloading information instead of analysis” to be a good one. People call it a policy lynch and then $#@! goes wild. Until townies are willing to lynch people who do this kind of play (and sometimes you convince townies to do it for you even) doing this is the punishment that townies get for not wanting to lynch policies/information overloads. Feel no shame in doing this. If it makes a player not want to read the thread, guess what they will do? They’ll default to their start of day reads and just go with those instead of reading 20 pages of nonsense that makes their eyes cross.

So if apathy is driven up when the status quo is good for scum, obviously scum benefit. And if the status quo doesn’t benefit scum? Scum can use night kills and proper day play to let town hang themselves… then drive them into their graves.

In summary, and I’ll make this point abundantly clear: Until the town decides that combating apathy by treating those who spread it as scummy is something they will do, use apathy to your advantage without any shame. It is the single best way to control the actions of the town en masse.

One of the best ways to spread apathy is to simply say the game is drowning in it already, then say you’ll combat it… then push for the status quo in a loud manner. People will often confuse “loud and active and rallying” for “decreasing apathy” when in truth you can actually increase apathy by forcing people to remain on the same path while being sly.

The entire article is an interesting read but as MM pointed out, there are ways to combat apathy either on an individual level or on a collective level and this guide fails to recognize that. It's not an all-encompassing strategy because apathy begins at a personal level and it has little effect on a player who is aware of this.

MM's play during La Cosa Nostra is a good example of this: Despite being attacked by multiple people for almost 200 hours, he stayed calm and tried his best to lead the town to a victory.

Now something I don't see being brought up (related to La Cosa Nosta & Apathy) is how setups and their status quo effect the game;

When we arrived on day four Rumox was clearly frustrated. He had listed every single possible scenario and none of them except an extremely unlikely one resulted in a town victory. We were stuck in a 2v1v3 and the gridlock of the situation was tiring. So then, Rumox switched his mindset from that of a losing town member to a kingmaker and he got significantly more involved. He knew Town couldn't win, but he figured he could (with some help) change the game-state from a Mafia win to an SK win. Though he didn't succeed: It threatened to completely screw up everything the Mafia had planned out. Kingmaker situations are not ideal in any capacity but I thought this was relevant.

The main point I'm getting at is: You're in control of how much you post, who you want to argue with, the quality of arguments you entertain, how you pace yourself and how you react to each situation.

-------------------------

Anyway, that is all literally off topic. The question here was: So what's the verdict? Is it a viable Town Tactic ever?

..Well probably not. Imagine if Light was the last Mafia and everyone was chanting "we kill Frinckles today and Light tomorrow." Sure -- I can see Light getting a bit demoralized, but what does that do to negatively impact his ability to play the game? He doesn't have scum-hunt or town-read because he knows both of those things. He just needs to be seen as a town member and pick a kill each night while the game winds closer to a win. The article even points out that 'scum completely control[s] the pace of the game' -- you can't influence how scum feels directly because you don't know who scum is.

And hey, sometimes being apathetic about the game-state can make you easier to townread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

First paragraph : Exactly. You decide of your activity and involvement (minus IRL constraints but that's another story), and if you decide to put little effort in the game when you could put a lot, well... that's on you, and it could be considered bad play to some extent.
Frinckles is also right that we've been off-topic for the most part lol, so let's go back on topic!

Second paragraph : Town doesn't make scums apathetic, unless you consider "limiting their choices" as a form of apathy creation. It all comes down to the scums' approach of activity and apathy, their personal playstyle and all.

That being said, I still think my points about self-preservation and scum-hunting are valid, so I disagree that town should never create sidetracking situations. It just needs to be very rarely used, and most importantly, for a short period of time. If it lasts a full day, it lasts too long.

Apathy sensu stricto is very bad for town, though.

~~

As for your question "Why should town trust it's not Mafia's doing?", @OzyWho , it's all about intent. The whole game is about intent. If you get pro-town conclusions out of the play, then it's towny. I'm not saying it will get you a confirmed town status, but I'm saying it will help town getting information. Of course, scums can use that too to look towny to some extent, but that's the whole point of the game of Mafia ^^