You are viewing the MafiaScum.net Wiki. To play the game, visit the forum.

Mastin's Guide to Playing Well: Difference between revisions

From MafiaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(term replacement)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This guide was created on December 29th, 2010, in [http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15932 this thread] by [[Mastin]]. It was later revised, on January 4th, 2011, [http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2707177#p2707177 starting here]. And Mastin has warned he very well might revise it again to cut out repetitions.
{{Article
|Name=
|Type=Play
|Type2=Views
|Author=Mastin
}}
==History==
'''Original Publication: February 17, 2011 by [[Mastin]]'''


This guide was created on December 29th, 2010, in [https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15932 this thread] by [[Mastin]]. It was later revised, on January 4th, 2011, [https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=2707177#p2707177 starting here].


'''Last Revised: March 16, 2017 by [[Mastina]]'''


I’m not sure “Guide” is per se the best word I could use to describe what is written below this, but it certainly contains my opinion on matters we all have touched upon to some degree. This represents my second attempt at voicing said opinions clearly. These tips are meant to be mostly general, to give a more universal guide, rather than a game-by-game guide. If I am doing this correctly, it will improve your overall play and make you a better player than you were before. By the time you’re done reading, you should be able to better utilize your vote, be slightly more capable of forming a solid opinion, perhaps build a stronger investigation, better keep a case made effective, and generally, wall less often, learning to say more with less wording. All of these are almost-universally considered pro-town things, all of these things are problems I’ve seen in peoples’ play here and there, and all of them need to be better.
==Introduction==
 
These tips are meant to mostly be general, as a more universal guide, rather than game-by-game. My intention: improve your overall play, making you a better player than you were before. By the time you’re done reading, you should be able to better utilize your [[Vote|vote]], be more capable of forming a solid opinion, build a stronger investigation, better make cases, and generally, [[Wall|wall]] less often, learning to say more with less. While all considered [[Pro-town|pro-town]], these have use regardless of alignment.
 


==First Tip==
==First Tip==
 
In the current meta, most people don’t have a problem with people not voting at all. Theoretically, you can go the whole game without voting and get away with it. Similarly, [[Unvote|unvoting]] without revoting. Don’t! This shouldn’t be you. There’s almost never an acceptable reason to waste your vote in Not Voting, and here’s why.
In the current meta, most people don’t have a problem with people not voting at all. You can theoretically go the whole game without voting if you’ve got a meta for being a cautious player, and get away with it. This needs to change. No, I propose that not voting '''''should''''' become a scumtell. “But it’s not!” You shout. Of course not. It’s null. But it '''''should''''' be a scumtell. “But we’re cautious players! D: I don’t like carelessly tossing my vote out!” Some will cry. Well, even YOU should vote. Here’s why.
 
 
First of all, the classic vanilla townie flavor gives that the classic VT has only two weapons at their disposal: their voice, their ability to discuss things during the day and say what they believe…and their vote. Those things are your only assets as a VT. Your ability to think, and the conclusions you form from your thoughts. “Bah, semantics. That’s just some silly flavor. We don’t need to keep votes out there!”
 
 
Wrong. Why? Because votes are some of the strongest pieces of information available to the town. A vote is worth more than any number of words. It really is the town’s greatest weapon in achieving a lynch; if nobody voted, there’d be no lynch. A vote is required. “Sure, we all know that, but why must we always have a vote, Mastin?” Once again, a vote is the strongest statement you can make. People do bandwagon analysis for a reason. It is one of the best indicators of people’s stated opinions. (More on those later.)




The very act of not voting does give information, but not as much as it should. And as a pro-town player, the thing you need most is the best information. Votes really do work. Vote count analysis has caught scum more consistently than any other technique I’ve witnessed. It really does work, because no matter how hard the scum try to hide themselves, they’ll leave a trail behind, and no matter how hard they try to avoid being found out by the vote count (it is possible!), trends emerge eventually which are condemning to them. (Sometimes, it’s too late to find those trends, though…)
The classical [[Vanilla Townie]] [[Role PM]] states that they only have two weapons at their disposal: their voice, that being, an ability to discuss things during the day and say what they believe…and their vote. With those as your only assets, if you choose not to cast a vote, you choose to waste one of only two given universal weapons at your disposal.




You need that vote out there, because quite frankly, it is the most universal thing a player possesses. Even people with post-restrictions (eliminating the ability to discuss, or at least, the ability to discuss well) will have voting capabilities. There’s a darn-good reason for that, folks. It’s because voting really does convey more than anything else.
Votes are some of the strongest pieces of information available to the town. As the old expression goes, “A vote’s worth a thousand words”. No tool greater serves you in achieving an elimination; if nobody voted, there’d be [[No Elimination|no elimination]]. It is for good reason people do [[Vote Count]] Analysis; votes serve as the best indicators of people’s opinions. (More on those later.)




“But…I’m not sure of my reads!” Yeah, it happens. In fact, you’re far more likely to be doubtful than you are confident in them, especially if you’re a cautious player. Tough luck. You should '''''still''''' be voting. Why?
[[Voting patterns|Vote count analysis]] has caught scum more consistently than any other technique I’ve witnessed. It really does work, because no matter how hard the scum try to hide themselves, they’ll leave a trail behind, and no matter how hard they try to avoid being found out by the vote count (it is possible!), trends emerge eventually which are condemning to them.  


===“But…I’m not sure of my reads!”===
Sure! It happens. In fact, you’re far more likely to be doubtful than you are confident in them, especially if you’re a cautious player. You should '''''still''''' be voting. Why?


It’s well-known knowledge that the average scum ratio is 20-33%. If you think a player is more likely than that to be scum, you vote them. And trust me…if you have nobody you think is more likely to be scum—even if it’s by a fraction of a percent—then you’re probably not fit to be playing mafia at all, yet. Sure, some players might work by process of elimination, preferring to town-hunt. But even through town-hunting, you eliminate a section of the town from your possibilities to vote. That narrows down the pool, increasing your chances of hitting scum from 20-33% to a far greater number.


If there is so much as a ''single'' player who has >random chances of being scum in your mind, you should be voting them. 21% when scum make up 20%? Vote them. POE from townhunting eliminates names from the possible scum pool? Those left are >random chances of being scum; vote literally any of them.


For example, if you have twelve players alive and three scum, that’s 25%. Eliminate yourself, and that’s 3/11, 27%. If you determine someone else is town, that’s 3/10, making everyone else 30% likely to be scum. Add in a third name to the town reads, and you’re at 3/9, 33%. You can get two or three town reads (besides yourself) fairly easily. With that third, you’re now at 3/8, a whopping 37.5%--a full 17.5% improvement over your original odds. That’s worthy of voting, any of your remaining suspects, really. Even if you don’t have a clue who among the remaining eight is scum, you still have a far more decent chance of hitting scum than when it was 12 (okay, 11 minus self) players. So, throw the remaining eight in an RNG, for all I care; you need to vote one of them, even if you have no clue who among them is scum, simply due to how likely it is one of them is scum.


For example, if you’re town in a 10:3 [[Mini Game]], then each player you have to read has a 25% chance of being [[Mafia|mafia]]. Get three solid townreads, and now each player left is 33% likely, already an 8% improvement over random. Every additional player you can name as town bumps the odds of catching mafia in those you cannot up higher than that established base percentage.


“But Mastin! What if it’s too early in the game to be making a call like that?” People form opinions even in the RVS and RQS. There’s content in there to read. And I honestly believe in every playerslot’s first two to three posts, you have enough to theoretically determine all the scum in the game. It may not become evident until far later than the first 2-5 pages which those posts are in, but still, you can form opinions early on. And here’s news for you cautious players:
===“What if it’s too early?”===
There’s never a time too early to make a call like that. People form opinions even in the [[Random Voting Stage|RVS]] and [[Random Questioning Stage|RQS]] off of the content provided. I honestly believe in every playerslot’s first two to three posts, you have enough to theoretically determine all the [[Scum|scum]] in the game. Plus, it’s not like you’re locked into a vote/read forever--you can always change it at any time should you choose to. It doesn’t matter if you’re wrong. You can often gain more from being wrong than right, even! Simply put, there is no excuse not to vote.


===“You’re generalizing!”===
Sure! There will always be exceptions, and if I tried, I’d never be able to list them all. Generally, I still recommend using your vote barring these special circumstances. Some of the more common acceptable times to not cast a vote are included in here for convenience.


It doesn’t matter if you’re wrong. You can always change your opinion later, and your vote with it. Simply put, there is no excuse not to vote. Not because you townhunt better than you scumhunt. Not because you are a cautious player. Not because you’re indecisive; flip a coin if ya need to. :P
====[[Theme Game]] Mechanics====
If there’s a special [[Game Mechanics|mechanic]] attached to voting, caution in casting one vote is justified. An example of this done well were the various insanities in the Stars Aligned series of games, which featured multiple various mechanics restricting votes, e.g. being unable to vote the same player more than once.




Another [[Game Moderator|moderator]] who is notorious for vote manipulation mechanics is [[Varsoon]], where at times it could feasibly take as little as two votes with twenty alive for a player to be eliminated. In such instances, being cautious and aware of what could happen is always advisable.


===“You’re generalizing too much, Mastin!”===
====An [[Elimination|elimination]] is close====
Whenever the player you wish to vote (or are voting) is close to an elimination, it can sometimes be prudent to avoid having/keeping a vote on there, as to prevent an elimination from occurring before you are ready for the day to end.


To be fair, yes, I am. There will always be exceptions, and if I tried, I’d never be able to list them all. However, I will list a few, to give you a general idea of when it is acceptable to not vote.
====The game could end====
If you are in [[Eliminate-or-Lose|ELo]], or even MeLo, it goes without saying that you have every right to hold back on voting.


My goal is mainly to show you when people who aren’t voting…should be voting. This section is meant to show situations where it’s alright for them not to vote, or when people who’ve voted like this…shouldn’t have voted. (Warning: May be more subjective.)
If you’re in a theme game, it’s possible there is a special mechanic attached to voting. One of the more interesting voting mechanics I’ve seen were a good portion of the insanities, in Stars Aligned and its sequels, Stars Aligned II and Stars Aligned III. (Loved those games.) I don’t think any of those voting mechanics were new ideas, but to see them all possible in a single game certainly made them more interesting. One such mechanic is not being able to vote for the same person twice. (I’ve seen that one elsewhere, in at least one other game, though I do not remember where.) If you’re cursed with this mechanic, you better be darn-sure your vote is on scum, so it’s understandable if you choose not to vote very often. That’s a bit of an extreme, however. A far more common one is when someone is close to a lynch. (L-2 or so if you think someone will hammer, or if they’re already at L-1 and your vote would be the hammer.) Obviously, your vote on them would risk ending the day prematurely.
For additional information regarding the reasoning you should always vote, (except for when you shouldn’t) I would encourage you to read the thread which inspired this section of the guide, [http://mafiascum.net//forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15895 and it can be found here].


For additional information regarding the reasoning you should always vote, (except for when you shouldn’t) I would encourage you to read [https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15895 the thread which inspired this section of the guide].


===Footnote===
===Footnote===
 
The reliability of [[Vote Count]] Analysis may be debatable, however, I ''will'' say that—in my '''personal''' experience—it has been the technique which has served me most faithfully. Obviously, it doesn’t always work. Yet in spite of that, for me it is a given that it works more often than it does not.
Vote count analysis being the best scum catching technique may be debatable, so I probably shouldn’t say it with such authority that it is one of the best techniques out there. However, I '''''will''''' say that—in my ''personal experience''—it has been the technique which works the most consistently. Obviously—as I mentioned—it doesn’t always work. Perhaps the people doing it form an incorrect assumption, it’s possible the scum orchestrated their votes in such a way that no townsperson would be able to pick up a condemning pattern, maybe they lack information they desperately need…there are any number of ways it '''''can''''' go wrong, but in my experience, it works '''far''' more often than it does not.
 


==Second Tip==
==Second Tip==
You’re voting? Good. Now what? Further your contribution to the town, of course! How? Simple: you strengthen your read. You almost certainly aren’t immediately convinced someone is 100% scum ([[Confirmation Bias|which is good!]]). Far more likely is a weak—at best—read. This step is perhaps one of the largest parts of [[Scumhunting|scum hunting]]. It’s what I have deemed the '''Personal Investigation'''.


===Personal Investigation Defined===
A Personal Investigation is any investigation conducted by you, the person, the player. Everyone does it in some form, even the scum. (They want to find who to kill and who they can eliminate, which they accomplish by analyzing the information '''''they''''' have available. This is not too dissimilar to what a town player will do.)


Now that you’re voting, what to do to further your contribution to the town, I wonder? It’s really simple: you need to strengthen your read. You almost certainly aren’t immediately convinced someone is 100% scum. No, rather, you’re far more likely to have a weak—at best—read.


How do you further that read?
To go into what that definition actually means, it is loosely this:


 
You think someone is scum, or alternatively, have formed an opinion someone is town. Regardless, you deem it important enough to mention in-thread. Let’s assume your read is not significantly stronger than random. You want to draw attention to them. You vote them (scumread), or vote with them (townread), and express why you have that opinion. Note that you don’t have to explain the opinion in order to express it. Even a one-liner, even a question…anything, to make your statement on the subject. If asking “Why did you do that,  X?”, it tells people you find X worthy of scrutiny.
This is perhaps one of the largest parts of scum hunting. It’s what I have called the Personal Investigation.
 
 
===“What is a Personal Investigation?”===
 
It seems like it explains itself… :P
 
 
That said, I can understand if you don’t immediately grasp the concept. A Personal Investigation is any investigation conducted by you, the person, the player. Everyone does it, and it takes various forms. Even the scum do it (although they do it differently… :P)—they want to find who to kill, and who they can lynch, and they do that by analyzing the information '''''they''''' have available.
 
 
Town players do much the same. (Power roles even more so, with who to target.) That said, however, it’s one thing to have a name for a term. It’s another thing to accurately define said term.
 
 
For the purpose of this Guide, assume that Personal Investigation refers roughly to this:
 
You think someone is scum. (Alternatively, you have formed an opinion that someone is town, and you believe it is important enough to mention in-thread.) I hate to assign hard percentages to the concept, but because I figure you probably want some, let’s just say You’re more than 33% sure they’re scum, but not more than 80%.
 
You want to draw attention to them.
 
 
You vote them, (or support them if you think they’re town) and at this stage, you most likely explain why you have that opinion. Note that you don’t have to explain the opinion in order to express it. Even a one-liner, even a question…they’re your statements on a subject, even if they’re not fully visible. If you ask someone “Why did you do X?”, it’s not that hard to form the conclusion that you find X to be a questionable activity, something worthy of scrutiny, and almost always, at least slightly suspicious—yet you might not ever say you find X to be suspicious.




Line 93: Line 75:




Note that a Personal Investigation can be of any length, from one-liner to massive wall of text, but in general, they’re shorter. They’re most commonly just a single thought. For example, a vote can be a PI. So are Isolation Reads. And so is metagaming. You’re gathering up information from an investigation, and then stating your personal opinion on it. That’s really all there is to a Personal Investigation. You want the town to know you think that this player is scum, or occasionally, that this player is town. You see it as important enough information as to be worthy of posting. But there is one thing about PIs which I haven’t talked about:
These Personal Investigations ''can'' be of any length, from one-liner to massive wall of text, but in general, they’re reasonably short and to the point, commonly conveying a single thought. Interestingly enough, building off my first tip, a vote can be a Personal Investigation. So is doing an isolation read. So is [[Meta|metagaming]].




One of their main purposes I mentioned was to draw attention to a player. Yet the reason why isn’t exactly clear. In the case of a PI, you most likely want others to look at a player and (re-)evaluate them with your PI in mind. When they do, you’re looking for their opinion on the matter. Even the subject of your PI, you should want their view. After you receive feedback, you’ll have additional information. And guess what?
You’re gathering up information from an investigation, and then stating your personal opinion on it. That’s really all there is to a Personal Investigation. You want the town to know you think that this player is scum, or occasionally, that this player is town. You see it as important enough information as to be worthy of posting.  


These Personal Investigations serve to focus attention onto a player and cause others to (re-)evaluate them with your feedback in mind. When you do, you’re mainly looking for their reactions to what you have given. From their opinions, you will receive additional information. And that’s where your read will either be strengthened, or weakened.


With that additional information, your read will either be strengthened, or weakened. And from there, you will be capable of forming a more solid opinion on a matter, which is a good thing. While you might want others to follow you, because you think your vote is more likely to be on scum, a PI you post is mainly meant to get your view on things out there, because you’re not entirely confident in it—just more confident than the average. With the responses to your PI, you might get what you want—them convinced. Or you might be convinced yourself that your read is wrong. A PI is just an opinion, essentially, formed based off of the evidence you have seen. You should vote for who you want lynched, and in a PI, you’re probably hoping to have others agree with you, but the PI is not meant to specifically change another’s opinion on your target—merely, to get them to contribute their own, with yours in mind.


With a more solid opinion formed, you have a better foothold on the game, in a position where you hopefully have something strong enough where you can push. If not, continue cycling through new Personal Investigations until you do. (A personal investigation is testing the hypothesis formed from your opinion, so it can and will be shown wrong just as often as right.) At that time, you can switch gears. While a Personal Investigation ''can'' convince others, its purpose is instead to force others to contribute, so the next step is in getting people to follow you. This will be defined in the third tip.


When you give a PI, you give your opinion to the rest of the town, while seeking to strengthen or weaken that read for yourself. Though reasons can—and often are—given, they are not required.
===Using This Concept===
====Know The Doubt Zone====
You know it. The zone where you have a read but lack confidence in it. This is where the Personal Investigation is done. If you’re past this stage, then it’s no longer necessary to ask those questions, do that meta research, and gather information to analyze. Instead, your focus will be on presenting your findings.


====Avoid Making Cases====
Cases are what you do ''after'' the Personal Investigation. A case which you do not believe in fully is a disaster waiting to unwind. If YOU’RE not convinced in your read, how is somebody else supposed to be? And trust me, it shows. In the best-case scenario, you’re thought of as doubtful town, who is trying to convince themselves that their read is not wrong. In other words, you look like you’re suffering from [[Confirmation Bias|confirmation bias]], tunnel visioning your target. In the worst-case scenario, you’re thought of as scum, trying to justify a vote on someone you know is town. Neither is desirable.


Now that we have Personal Investigation defined, and I have given some examples to better show what a PI is, let’s see how this applies to my tip.


Instead, when doubtful, stick to Personal Investigations. Certain formats of Personal Investigations ''resemble'' cases, but the difference between the two is that a Personal Investigation is meant to figure something out; a case is meant to convince others you have figured something out. A case is for after a conclusion is reached; A Personal Investigation is done prior to the conclusion.


===How To Use This Concept===
====Take your time====
-When you’re in the doubt zone (which for the sake of including a rough estimate for the percentage has been given as 34-79%), you need to do PIs. You need to do things like ask questions, do meta reads, gather information on the player and analyze it, stuff like that. You need to keep this up, until you’ve been convinced they’re town, or you’re convinced they’re scum.
No need to rush if you don’t need to. However long it takes to get through your Personal Investigations is however long it takes. All in the name of getting a stronger read. If you accomplish that, it’s worth the wait. Strong reads don’t magically appear; it’s something which happens on its own, naturally.
 
 
-However, you should not create a Case on them. (Cases will be defined in Tip # 3.) A case which you do not believe in fully is a disaster waiting to unwind. If you’re not convinced in your read, a case really is worthless: if YOU aren’t convinced, how is somebody else supposed to be? And trust me, it shows. Cases before being convinced are trouble. In the best-case scenario, you’re thought of as doubtful town, who are trying to convince themselves that their read is not wrong. In other words, you look like you’re suffering from confirmation bias, and are tunnel visioning on your target. In the worst-case scenario, you’re thought of as scum, trying to justify a vote on someone you know is town. You obviously don’t want either of these. (Well…presumably. :P)
 
 
Instead, stick to doing PIs. Certain formats of PIs do resemble cases, but there is always a clear difference between the two. Gather all the information you want to, analyze it, and form conclusions from it. Take your time in getting a stronger read. You can’t rush a strong read; it’s just something which should happen on its own, eventually.
Making a premature case just doesn’t work.
 


==Third Tip==
==Third Tip==
So you’ve formed a solid opinion. As sure as you’re going to get in your read. Now you just have to do something ''with'' that read. You’re convinced you’re right…so the next step is in convincing '''''others''''' that you are right. Therein enters creating a case. We all have our own ideas of what that means. Here’s mine.


Right, so you’ve formed a solid opinion. In fact, you’re pretty much convinced in your read on a player. Congratulations! You’ve got a strong read to work with! (For the sake of percentages, we’ll say this is 80-94% sure of your read. Keep in mind, I hate giving this a solid percentage and this is just an estimate for the sake of having a number. A simpler way of saying it is that you’re as sure as you can be without role-based information backing you up.) Now what to do with it?
===Definition of Case===
 
A succinct summary would be “an attempt to convince others that your stance, above all others, is correct”, and therefore, something to follow. Inherent in that definition is a need to believe what you are saying to be true. A case tends to work best by being focused on a specific set of players you want to draw attention to. While this is similar to a Personal Investigation the goal (and therefore intention) is different.
Well, you can continue to post your Personal Investigations. “But…nobody’s following me! They aren’t convinced I’m right!” Well, then, that’s a problem, isn’t it?
 
 
Let’s fix that. The next step after a Personal Investigation is a Case. Oh, looks like we’ll need to define that, won’t we?
 
 
===Definition of 'Case'===
 
(Needed because there was a great deal of confusion on what I meant, originally.) My initial definition of “Case” was quite simple: “Whenever you try to convince someone else that '''''your opinion'''''--above all others--is right.” This met with some mixed reviews, and I feel it is due to me not having defined it well enough. You see, it’s a lot more complicated than that, even though that sentence sums it up fairly well.
 
 
For something to qualify as a case—to me—it needs to be in that range, that you’re convinced your right. If you aren’t convinced you’re correct, and try to convince others you are…well, then, it’s not going to work that well, is it?
 
 
Now, obviously—as with the Personal Investigations—in a case, you want to draw attention to a player. However, in a case, you want to do so even '''''more''''' than a Personal Investigation. The key difference between the PI and a Case is the motivation behind drawing attention to a player.
 
 
In a PI, you’re simply stating your opinion on a player. Cases are different. You '''''are''''' stating an opinion on them, sure, but this goes beyond that. No, rather, <u>you are trying to convince the rest of the town that your opinion is correct</u>, and (almost certainly) want them to follow. That really is the core of a Case: “I’m right!” While an explanation—as with PIs—is not required, unlike PIs—where explanations are not as common—a case almost universally '''''will''''' have explanations, even though they aren’t required. Of course, the simplest reason for why is that it makes a better, well, case. People tend to be a bit skeptical of another’s opinion if they state it without backing it up. If there is evidence helping them prove their point, as long as it seems logical enough, it’ll work far better.
 
 
To make a case, you need to go beyond simply stating your opinion on your target’s alignment. (Normally, why you believe they are scum.) When you are making a case, you’re not just stating something casually, to give your current opinion—you are trying to get others to follow you. Most of the time, this is you, wanting your target '''''dead''''', hung. You more commonly will make cases to lynch someone.
(However, it is not unheard of to make cases against the lynching of someone, defending them as being strongly town.)
 
You can’t lynch them by yourself, though! (Unless you happen to be a Vigilante. The lynch just happens at night, instead. :P) For that, you need others. You want people to follow you.
 
 
===How To Gain Followers===
We all know what a case is, though others’ definition of it might be a bit broader than what mine is. A case is still giving your opinion, but you are trying to convince others. It goes beyond making a statement; it is trying to make others follow the opinion you lay out. While explanations are not required to make a case, almost every convincing case will use them, because if you don’t explain your case, it’s probably not going to do its job: get others to believe what you do.
Cases ask for others to agree with you and state why, or disagree with you and explain why.
 


…Which brings me to the point of Tip # 3. When you make a case, clarity is a necessity. You’re trying to convince '''''other players''''' that you are correct, not yourself. It might make perfect sense in '''''your''''' head, sure—now, it’s your job to make it make sense for others as well.


The attitude behind a case is, “I’m right, and here’s why!” Unlike Personal Investigations, no case works well without an explanation. People tend to be a bit skeptical of another’s opinion if they state it without backing it up. If there is evidence helping them prove their point, as long as it seems logical enough, it’ll work far better.


You want your case to be persuasive. Persuading the town is what makes a case, a case. All that said about a case, however, you might be under the mistaken impression that after all that hard work, you shouldn’t change your opinion at all. Heavens, no! Cases are stereotypically known to be longer, sure, simply due to the effort put in to convincing the town of your target’s alignment. (Note that not all cases need be long, nor take a lot of time. Some can be nice and short. Conciseness is a key factor in the best cases, actually, but most are longer.)


To make a case, you need to go beyond simply stating the conclusion of your work. (Normally, why you believe a player is scum.) Instead of just your opinion, you’re showing the fruits of your labor: all the questions, research, and investigation you have done, laid out for everyone to see, in an effort to convince them you know what you’re talking about.


But just because you put all that work in doesn’t mean you’re forbidden to change your mind. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and you need to admit it. Because part of a case is still similar to a PI. Remember how a Case is also supposed to draw attention to a player?
Persuasion is what a case is about. It's the artform of selling your narrative to your target audience, stringing them along to show what you want them to see, so as to have them act as you wish them to.


Well, then, it figures that a case is '''''also''''' supposed to draw in opinions, too. You want to convince others that you’re right, but you also want them to comment on your findings, to either further solidify them, or bring them into doubt.
===Gaining Followers===
A good case is no mere statement of opinion; a good case demands others follow your lead, which requires sufficient explanation of your stance. You’re asking for others to agree with you, or at the very least demand to know why they disagree with you. As a result, clarity is a necessity. You’re trying to convince ''other players'' that you are correct, not yourself. It might make perfect sense in '''''your''''' head, sure—now, it’s your job to figure out a way for it making sense to everyone else.




Cases ask for others to agree with you and state why, or disagree with you and explain why. While you have a strong read already, you need to make a case because sometimes, things change. You might have your read weakened (and if so, need to admit it), or it could be strengthened even further.
Also essential is presentation. One key aspect of most good cases is that they will recognize alternative viewpoints, and then explain why these perspectives should be doubted, in favor of your own. This is a nifty trick which helps demonstrate you lack [[Confirmation Bias|confirmation bias]], and are willing to change your stance.




In other words, just because you make a case doesn’t mean you need to tunnel. You should—no, I think a better word is '''''need'''''—to remain open to input: you might have overlooked something which makes your case invalid.
In fact, you probably will be doing so. The process of Personal Investigations to cases is not a one-time deal; it is a continuous loop, where you cycle through them one after another. Still, for as long as you hold your read to strongly be true, you will want others to [[Sheeping|sheep]] your read, and your case needs to acknowledge this; be firm in that you ''do'' want what you’re doing to be taken seriously.
If you no longer believe your case, you need to say as much to prevent confusion should you no longer be available to clarify.




====Watch Out For Your Weakness!====
While you want to acknowledge the alternative possibilities and you want to spend some time letting your intentions be known, to write the best case, you need to maintain focus, and not lose sight of your objective. You’re trying to eliminate someone, or stop someone from being eliminated. Make sure what you are writing actually puts forward the proof necessary to further this goal.
All that said, however, you need to be careful. I’ve seen plenty of times where someone still fully believed their case, but their responses gave off the '''''illusion''''' that they were doubting their cases and were no longer as convinced. This is unfortunately a part of human nature, I believe. Psychologically, if we see, “Alright, I was wrong about that specific point, but the rest of the case still stands!”, I tend to think we mostly filter out all but the first 4-8 words. :P




“But what can we do?!?”
On that note, the best cases are often not incredibly long walls. They’re actually relatively short. Keep things succinct and as to the point as possible. You’re presenting the absolute best, strongest points for why you hold your belief, and this requires you not include every possible detail which '''''could''''' be meaningful. Use only what was really convincing ''to you''.




Well, obviously, it’s a bad idea to defend an idea you no longer believe in. Don’t try that; it’ll make you look like an illogical, irrational fool who is to be ignored. Okay, so '''''some''''' players might like that, but not the kind who actually want to be listened to. :P
Your case will, if written well, draw opinions. You may still end up talking yourself out of your read after making the case, but this is no reason to fear making the case in the first place. Your read will strengthen, or your read will weaken. It will happen, especially after feedback. So write it without fear of what will happen later if you’re wrong, and ''especially'' without fear of people saying you’re wrong. (The whole idea of the case is to prove you're not!)




But if you can’t admit that point is no longer valid, what do you do?
So while your case may not be absolute, it still will be firm. Always be open to input, but always be willing to stick to your guns. That is how you will get others to listen to your words. On a related note, whenever you no longer believe in a case you have written, make it abundantly clear this is the case and specify exactly where you stand; leave no room for ambiguity or confusion on your stance. Full reversal, half reversal, down to null, weakened read but still existing, whatever. Doing so will help maintain the integrity of your future cases, such that they are always held at the appropriate level of value for the case given.


====Filter Carefully!====
I cannot stress enough the need for this. Don’t put forward points that aren’t absolutely true; if you do, then your entire push will be easily [[Straw Man|strawmanned]]: if we see “Alright, I was wrong about that specific point, but the rest of the case still stands!”, no matter how true that statement may be (and often it is quite true!), it’s too late. Your audience saw your flawed point, and so will now ignore your valid points. It leaves you in the position where either you have to admit you were wrong on something (giving the illusion of doubt), or where your continued defense of a bad point is…well, bad.


Well, I have a theory on that. It sounds a lot worse than it really is: quite frankly…ignore it. “WHAT?!? B-But…that’s wrong on so many levels, I don’t even have the words to describe it!”


Patience. It makes more sense than you might think, especially when you attach “…within reason” at the end. :P
Should you mistakenly make a flawed point, you are not defenseless against an accusation, however. It is still possible to push your case while acknowledging an imperfection. One of my tactics is to ignore the bad point (flat-out not acknowledge you made it), and instead continue to press the ''other'' points, which '''''are''''' still valid, yet got written off. I only ignore these within reason, though.




Simply put—especially in a longer case—a single invalid point probably isn’t that important to the overall case. Someone will almost certainly point out how it’s wrong, but just because they do so doesn’t mean you are obliged to respond. Because it’s almost certainly a small point, more like a technicality than anything else, it isn’t likely to be brought up more than once, so there’s not really a point in responding to it. You were wrong about a point, okay, but the rest of the case is still most likely valid, so you don’t need to admit a small point is wrong when the greater whole is right. (That said, however, please look above to my advice: if you '''''are''''' convinced that your case was wrong—or, at least, have it thrown into serious doubt—you need to make it clear. One point out of ten being invalid is a huge difference from seven points out of ten being invalid, after all.)
What I need to emphasize here above all else is that—especially in a longer case—a single invalidated point isn't important to the overall picture presented. You do not want to fall into the trap of responding to what you think is ''wrong'' in your case. Instead, you want to continue pressing what you think is '''''right'''''. So if someone points out one flawed part of your case and ignores the rest, repost the case without the flawed part and demand they address it by pointing out (rather justifiably) they have not.




That said, this won’t always work. If more than one or two people bring up the invalid point as being ignored, you’ll probably be forced to address it. With this guide in mind, however, you can accurately describe why you chose to ignore that point, and if you present it well enough, they’ll likely understand why you chose not to address the point which was wrong.
(That said, please take my advice: if you '''''are''''' convinced that your case was wrong—or, at least, have it thrown into serious doubt—you need to make it clear. One point out of ten being invalid is a huge difference from seven points out of ten being invalid, after all.)




====Footnotes for Followers and Weaknesses====
This strategy won’t always work. Sometimes, it’s impossible to ignore your invalid point, and you’ll be forced to address it. But you can still use this time to explain why you have done so, why you are pushing the points which weren’t invalidated, and why they are more important than the single point which was. In other words, at all times, ''you'' want to be the one in control of how your case is handled. Not the players who could be scum. And with that focus, they’re more likely to understand your decision to not address the point which was wrong.


====Followers/Weaknesses Footnotes====
Footnotes cover the theory of the "doubt illusion" and "ignore it".
Footnotes cover the theory of the "doubt illusion" and "ignore it".


*'''Exploring Doubt'''
*'''Exploring Doubt'''


To further explain this theory, I really do believe we do this, even if it is subconscious. Quite frankly, if we see signs of doubt in someone—no matter how small—then we are going to doubt them. It’s like an idea—once planted, it’s contagious, spreading like a disease. (Inception was an awesome movie, by the way.)
I believe that, on some subconscious level, if we see signs of doubt in someone—no matter how small—then we are going to doubt them. It’s like an idea—once planted, it’s contagious, spreading like a disease. A small point which they admit is wrong will eventually grow in your mind to make you think they’re completely wrong. And if you think they’re wrong, you’ll ignore them. In a sense, this is a variation of the [[7for7]] fallacy, in that if we see ''one'' wrong point, we think '''''all''''' the points are wrong.
A small point which they admit is wrong will eventually grow in your mind to make you think they’re completely wrong. And if you think they’re wrong, you’ll ignore them. (To some extent, this can apply to the [[7for7]] fallacy, and even moreso it's inversion as something across meta--if you know someone's been wrong in previous games, you do not trust them in future games as much.)
 
 
This also has to do with emphasis. If there’s something unusual, we tend to pick up on it on some level. If nine points are defending, and one point is admitting you’re wrong, the one point about admitting you’re wrong is going to stick out—if not at a conscious level, then at a subconscious level. It’s different, in some way, and we pick up on it. Because we notice it more than the rest of the case due to the emphasis on it, it also sticks in our brains longer. Especially if—like with most cases—a person is skimming the response. Immediately, the words “I was wrong” will stick out, whereas the words, “no, you’re wrong!” will still blend in. It’s just how the human mind works. Trust me, I’ve seen it. I’ve been guilty of it.
I’ve also seen the inversion. Since I was wrong more often than I was right, since I was a bad player more often than I was a good one, the moments I was right are what stick out to me when I remember my past games.




It’s complicated to wrap your head around, I know. I have a hard time explaining it, but just trust me on this. I know it’s true, even if you do not. No matter how aware we are of it, it’ll still influence us somewhat, and we can’t really stop it.
Emphasis also plays a part; we tend to see what sticks out as unusual with great ease. If nine points are maintaining a stance and one point is admitting a stance is wrong, which sticks out? Even if not on a conscious level, the answer is obvious. It’s different, in some way, and we know it. And because we notice it more, we think of it more. It sticks with us longer, especially if we’re skimming. So immediately, the words “I was wrong” will stick out, whereas the words, “no, you’re wrong!” won’t.  




*'''Exploring Admitting You're Wrong'''
*'''Exploring Admitting You're Wrong'''


In an ideal world, you should be able to publicly accept you’re wrong. It happens to everyone. By probability alone, you’re more likely wrong than correct. Everyone SHOULD know this, and that even pro-town players will be wrong every once and a while. ([[Burden of Proficiency]] is a fallacy.) And you definitely SHOULD do it mentally. Yet it runs against the human brain’s wiring to think this way.


In ways, this is basically a worse version of the above. In an ideal world, you should be able to publicly accept you’re wrong. I mean, you will be, quite often. By probability alone, you’re more likely to be wrong than correct. Everyone SHOULD know this, and that even normal pro-town players will be wrong every once and a while. And you definitely SHOULD do it mentally. But again, I just don’t think the human brain reacts well when they see those words. I’ve seen plenty of people conclude that wrong-->scum, or wrong before-->wrong currently. Therefore, I am not convinced admitting you are wrong is the correct play even close to a majority of the time.
===Back To Cases…===
 
Let’s deal with responding to them!


===Back On Topic...===


Sorry for the distracting footnotes, but I can't think of a better way to format them.
There is something vital you need to remember when you make a case: someone out there is not going to agree with you. In fact, there’s likely going to be at least one person who strongly disagrees with you. Unless you’re making a case against the player who most strongly objects (you obviously aren’t going to convince them that they are scum, after all), it’s your job to convince them that you’re right.  


====Oh, and speaking of responding to your case…====


There is something quite vital you need to remember when you make a case: someone out there is not going to agree with you. In fact, there’s likely going to be at least one person who strongly disagrees with you. Unless you’re making a case against the player who most strongly objects (you obviously aren’t going to convince them that they are scum, after all. :P), it’s your job to convince them that you’re right. But that said, this is only one or two people (most likely) who disagree with you (with one of them possibly being your lynch target)—you have to see the bigger picture, here, and deal with the whole town, not just a few of the more vocal players.
But keep the bigger picture in mind. One or two people disagree (especially an elimination target of a case)—that’s a given. Your job isn’t to convince them. Your job isn’t to convince the ''whole'' town. Your job is to convince the ''necessary number'' of town players. So if you have a few vocal opponents, you shouldn’t focus on them, as much as you do the rest of the players.




To sum it up in one sentence: don’t get into a lengthy debate with your opposition, especially if it’s your lynch target. They have the right to defend their viewpoint, but if you’re sure of your read, you shouldn’t enter a giant Wall War with them. It rarely ends well, I can tell you. It clutters the thread, and when you both so strongly and avidly defend your stances, will most likely not convince the other. What the Wall War '''''will''''' do, however, is cause the rest of the town not involved in the debate to ignore you. No matter how valid your points are, they’re worthless if, say, the town thinks it’s a town-on-town argument.
Don’t get into a lengthy debate with your opposition, especially if it’s your elimination target. They have the right to defend their viewpoint, but if you’re sure of your read, you shouldn’t enter a giant [[Wall]] War with them. It rarely ends well, generating much noise, leads to players skipping the argument, and often assuming "town versus town".  




===Effectively, Limit Your Length!===
It clutters the thread, and when both you and them are so strongly defending your stances, most likely doing so is a waste of time in terms of convincing them. It will alienate the rest of the town not involved in the debate, effectively killing your case and nullifying whatever use it would have had.


Pretty much the only time you need to continue such a debate is when someone else actually states they agree with the opposition’s viewpoint. (Actually, probably only when multiple people agree with your opponent’s flawed defense.) When that happens, you definitely need to respond, but that’s one of the very few situations where it is necessary. You don’t want a Wall War keeping the town from reading. Let everyone read your original argument, first. When enough people have done so, then you can consider responding (especially if you see people siding with your opposition), but a surprising amount of times, it’s not necessary. If you make a solid enough case, your opposition’s counter won’t be believed by the majority of the town. Heck, if you let other townspeople look at both your case and your opposition, then they might even do your work for you and point out the flaws in your opposition’s argument for you. That doesn’t happen if you immediately respond.
===Limit Your Length!===
The only time to continue a debate like the above is when you really ''do'' need the extra allies: too many players are stating they agree with the opposition’s viewpoint. At that point, it would be best to resume the engagement and point out the flawed defense your case came up against, but it should ONLY be at this point where your case would otherwise fail.




Particularly if your opposition is scum, what they want is for your original argument to become lost in a massive wall of text war, which everyone skips. You don’t want the town to be lost if you’re still convinced of your points. (Again, if you’re doubting yourself, make that clear in-thread. If you still believe your case, it need not be said; that is implied already.) You want them to be able to follow along with your train of thought; you want them to see the evidence for themselves. You’ve given them your evidence, there for all to see—the last thing you want is it to become inseparable from a wall war after it. It really will kill your credibility.
Let everyone read your original argument. When enough people have done so, then you can consider responding (especially if you see people siding with your opposition), but a surprising amount of times, it’s not necessary. If you make a solid enough case, your opposition’s counter won’t be believed by the majority of the town. Heck, if you let other townspeople look at both your case and your opposition, they might even do your work for you and point out the flaws in your opposition’s argument for you. That doesn’t happen if you immediately respond.




Basically, this could’ve been summed up with two words: Don’t Wall. :P (Well, at least, not often.) But me being me, I needed to explain that concept better, and now I have. It’s alright to have an occasional Wall; I’d say two or three are actually quite healthy for a game, really. So, if you make a long case, that’s perfectly fine. If the walls continue, that’s not. Following my advice will hopefully limit the amount of walls to just a few. Not so bad. Pages of Walls? Did you know that even '''''I''''' skip them when they get too numerous? That says something: It’s really, really bad. :P
Particularly if your opposition is scum, what they want is for your original argument to become lost in a massive sea of text, which everyone skips. You don’t want the town to be lost if you’re still convinced your points hold true. You want them to be able to follow along with your train of thought; you want them to see the evidence for themselves—the last thing you want is for it to become inseparable from a wall war after it. It will kill your credibility.




In short: Don’t Wallpost. One or two is okay; an initial case comprised of a wall won’t do too much to diminish readability. After that, cut it short. Even '''''I''''' skip them when they get too numerous. That says something!


====Footnotes====
====Footnotes====
 
There obviously are exceptions to the case I used (where the people debating have 0% chance of convincing the other), but in my personal experience, they are few and far between; in the vast majority, neither side will yield, because either 1—it’s impossible (you can’t convince someone that they, themselves, are scum),
There obviously are exceptions to the case I used (where the people debating have 0% chance of convincing the other), but in my personal experience, they are far and few between; in the vast majority, neither side will yield, because either 1—it’s impossible (you can’t convince someone that they, themselves, are scum),


Or 2—because neither side makes an argument the other sees as convincing enough.
Or 2—because neither side makes an argument the other sees as convincing enough.
Line 252: Line 198:
The former is far worse than the latter, for the record; this guide was meant to essentially stop the former as completely as possible. The latter is trickier. If you are in this situation—on either side—you might want to step back for a minute and re-evaluate the situation, see why your opponent is opposing you, why they are convinced differently than you are. If you understand their viewpoint (and after review, still disagree with it), you can better manipulate it to your side.
The former is far worse than the latter, for the record; this guide was meant to essentially stop the former as completely as possible. The latter is trickier. If you are in this situation—on either side—you might want to step back for a minute and re-evaluate the situation, see why your opponent is opposing you, why they are convinced differently than you are. If you understand their viewpoint (and after review, still disagree with it), you can better manipulate it to your side.


*Effectively, TextWall Overdoses are perhaps one of the worst game-killers out there. I can collect a series of quotes from hundreds of people who'd agree, and yet, EVERYONE does them from time to time. Well, almost, anyway. Why? Because they don't know how NOT to. They try, but they fall into a wall eventually. As mentioned, not necessarily bad in small doses; can be (and often is) good. Continuing, not so much.
*Effectively, TextWall Overdoses are perhaps one of the worst game-killers out there. I can collect a series of quotes from hundreds of people who'd agree, and yet, EVERYONE does them from time to time. Why? Because they don't know how NOT to. They try, but they fall into a wall eventually.
 
 
==="You Said This Already!"===
Another related concept is repetition. If you’re like me and have trouble with words, chances are, you’ll repeat yourself like I do. Alright, in the original case, that might be okay to do. Heck, it can be good for unity and/or emphasis. I’ve even seen some people bring up a point multiple times humorously, as a semi-joke. You’ll want to be as clear and concise as possible in your original case, but it’s alright if there are some flaws, like little repetitions here and there. Key words: “in the original case”. If you continue pushing that point in later posts, it becomes next-to-worthless.
 


Again, it’s a psychological thing. People tend to not be amused by the same show twice, and even if they are, '''''very''''' few of them get better each time they’re watched. No, most become more boring, more dull, as they are watched over and over again. If you watch your favorite movie every day, it’s probably not going to remain your favorite movie for very long.
===Avoid Repetition===
Repetition can, if used appropriately, be useful for emphasis and to reinforce a point. If used intentionally, it can create a narrative, often an entertaining one and almost always a powerful argument. The unity of repetition is a good tool. However, the key phrase there is "if used intentionally", and ''most'' repetition is not done intentionally.




The same applies to arguments. More than that, people will think you’re trying to manipulate them with the logic, “if you say it enough times, it '''''must''''' be true!” (I know I never do, and I seriously doubt anyone else actually tries. But, hey, people think that, for some reason, and there's no stopping it.) In my experience, when people think you’re trying to do that, to make them think something is true by stating it over and over again, they react rather poorly. If you '''''must''''' repeat something, bring in some new points to make it more valid, give it a new perspective, try to expand the idea, instead of repeating the same old junk.
As much as possible, avoid accidental redundancy in words. If you’re like me, chances are this will be difficult to do. However, it is still possible to take some basic precautions. Clarity and conciseness in the original case can greatly help diminish the odds of repetition, but the real trick is whenever you respond to something, not to keep saying the same thing using slightly different wording unless you are specifically asked to do so. (E.g. they want you to reword the point so they can better understand it.)




Otherwise, your argument becomes invalid to most people, no matter how strong it used to be. That said, just because someone says something you’ve defended against before doesn’t mean you should ignore them. And asking them to look for your defense against that very argument tends to make them do quite the opposite.
It is generally recommended to avoid repetition mainly because repetition will lead to many negative connotations: it will lead people to assume you have far fewer valid points than you do, because you keep on repeating the same ones. It will lead people to think you are using the logic of “if you say it enough times, it '''''must''''' be true!” even though you (presumably) are not. It also tires people out, exhausting them.




If someone brings up something which you’ve already explained in full, kindly link them to the post where you mentioned it, or maybe quote it if it’s fairly short. This saves them the trouble of finding it, while defending against their point in a concise matter. You can explain to them that point again in summary if it’s a bit long, or maybe you need to explain why it’s still valid when they might question it. That can be done in a sentence or two, and they’ll be satisfied.
If it is absolutely necessary to repeat something, try to add to what you said: flesh it out more and make it not ''just'' a rehash of what you said before. It might not always be possible to spontaneously bring new points up (especially if you were already rather thorough), but it doesn't take much to put your point in a new light, without it being repetitive. New perspective, with an expanded idea.




You don’t need to do a paragraph or two. You already did that earlier. You don’t need to do it again! Conciseness really '''''is''''' pro-town, believe it or not. I know, I know, coming from me (and with the length of this guide), that advice is highly ironic, but it’s true! It really is. While I personally might have trouble achieving it, you should try your hardest to achieve it.  
If someone says something you defended against earlier, you can quote the defense and say it still applies. The burden then rests on ''them'' to show why it doesn’t, not on you. You should in fact quote the defense (or maybe link to the post if the post it is in is short enough); telling them to go look it up will rarely have them do so. But you don’t need to (and ''shouldn’t'') retype what you already have. It’s a waste of time and effort. When they inevitably come back with questions on the point, THEN you address them.


Conciseness is pro-town. If you can achieve it in your cases, you will go far.


==Wrap-Up==
==Wrap-Up==


I know, this is quite the long read, but I really do think if I’ve done my job correctly that this advice will help you. I really do hope that when I post this revised (no longer so brief, unfortunately) guide, that it’ll help someone, somewhere, play a better game.
I know, this is quite the long read, but I really do think if I’ve done my job correctly that this advice will help you. I hope that when I post this revised (no longer so brief, unfortunately) guide, that it’ll help someone, somewhere, play a better game.




Line 289: Line 232:
May you limit Walls! :P
May you limit Walls! :P


[[Category: Theory]]
[[Category:MastinMD]]

Latest revision as of 01:11, 3 April 2022

Type:
Author:

History

Original Publication: February 17, 2011 by Mastin

This guide was created on December 29th, 2010, in this thread by Mastin. It was later revised, on January 4th, 2011, starting here.

Last Revised: March 16, 2017 by Mastina

Introduction

These tips are meant to mostly be general, as a more universal guide, rather than game-by-game. My intention: improve your overall play, making you a better player than you were before. By the time you’re done reading, you should be able to better utilize your vote, be more capable of forming a solid opinion, build a stronger investigation, better make cases, and generally, wall less often, learning to say more with less. While all considered pro-town, these have use regardless of alignment.

First Tip

In the current meta, most people don’t have a problem with people not voting at all. Theoretically, you can go the whole game without voting and get away with it. Similarly, unvoting without revoting. Don’t! This shouldn’t be you. There’s almost never an acceptable reason to waste your vote in Not Voting, and here’s why.


The classical Vanilla Townie Role PM states that they only have two weapons at their disposal: their voice, that being, an ability to discuss things during the day and say what they believe…and their vote. With those as your only assets, if you choose not to cast a vote, you choose to waste one of only two given universal weapons at your disposal.


Votes are some of the strongest pieces of information available to the town. As the old expression goes, “A vote’s worth a thousand words”. No tool greater serves you in achieving an elimination; if nobody voted, there’d be no elimination. It is for good reason people do Vote Count Analysis; votes serve as the best indicators of people’s opinions. (More on those later.)


Vote count analysis has caught scum more consistently than any other technique I’ve witnessed. It really does work, because no matter how hard the scum try to hide themselves, they’ll leave a trail behind, and no matter how hard they try to avoid being found out by the vote count (it is possible!), trends emerge eventually which are condemning to them.

“But…I’m not sure of my reads!”

Sure! It happens. In fact, you’re far more likely to be doubtful than you are confident in them, especially if you’re a cautious player. You should still be voting. Why?


If there is so much as a single player who has >random chances of being scum in your mind, you should be voting them. 21% when scum make up 20%? Vote them. POE from townhunting eliminates names from the possible scum pool? Those left are >random chances of being scum; vote literally any of them.


For example, if you’re town in a 10:3 Mini Game, then each player you have to read has a 25% chance of being mafia. Get three solid townreads, and now each player left is 33% likely, already an 8% improvement over random. Every additional player you can name as town bumps the odds of catching mafia in those you cannot up higher than that established base percentage.

“What if it’s too early?”

There’s never a time too early to make a call like that. People form opinions even in the RVS and RQS off of the content provided. I honestly believe in every playerslot’s first two to three posts, you have enough to theoretically determine all the scum in the game. Plus, it’s not like you’re locked into a vote/read forever--you can always change it at any time should you choose to. It doesn’t matter if you’re wrong. You can often gain more from being wrong than right, even! Simply put, there is no excuse not to vote.

“You’re generalizing!”

Sure! There will always be exceptions, and if I tried, I’d never be able to list them all. Generally, I still recommend using your vote barring these special circumstances. Some of the more common acceptable times to not cast a vote are included in here for convenience.

Theme Game Mechanics

If there’s a special mechanic attached to voting, caution in casting one vote is justified. An example of this done well were the various insanities in the Stars Aligned series of games, which featured multiple various mechanics restricting votes, e.g. being unable to vote the same player more than once.


Another moderator who is notorious for vote manipulation mechanics is Varsoon, where at times it could feasibly take as little as two votes with twenty alive for a player to be eliminated. In such instances, being cautious and aware of what could happen is always advisable.

An elimination is close

Whenever the player you wish to vote (or are voting) is close to an elimination, it can sometimes be prudent to avoid having/keeping a vote on there, as to prevent an elimination from occurring before you are ready for the day to end.

The game could end

If you are in ELo, or even MeLo, it goes without saying that you have every right to hold back on voting.


For additional information regarding the reasoning you should always vote, (except for when you shouldn’t) I would encourage you to read the thread which inspired this section of the guide.

Footnote

The reliability of Vote Count Analysis may be debatable, however, I will say that—in my personal experience—it has been the technique which has served me most faithfully. Obviously, it doesn’t always work. Yet in spite of that, for me it is a given that it works more often than it does not.

Second Tip

You’re voting? Good. Now what? Further your contribution to the town, of course! How? Simple: you strengthen your read. You almost certainly aren’t immediately convinced someone is 100% scum (which is good!). Far more likely is a weak—at best—read. This step is perhaps one of the largest parts of scum hunting. It’s what I have deemed the Personal Investigation.

Personal Investigation Defined

A Personal Investigation is any investigation conducted by you, the person, the player. Everyone does it in some form, even the scum. (They want to find who to kill and who they can eliminate, which they accomplish by analyzing the information they have available. This is not too dissimilar to what a town player will do.)


To go into what that definition actually means, it is loosely this:

You think someone is scum, or alternatively, have formed an opinion someone is town. Regardless, you deem it important enough to mention in-thread. Let’s assume your read is not significantly stronger than random. You want to draw attention to them. You vote them (scumread), or vote with them (townread), and express why you have that opinion. Note that you don’t have to explain the opinion in order to express it. Even a one-liner, even a question…anything, to make your statement on the subject. If asking “Why did you do that, X?”, it tells people you find X worthy of scrutiny.


Essentially, any Personal Investigation you decide to post is meant to draw attention to that player, and express your opinion on them, be it that they’re town, or that they’re scum. The latter is more likely than the former. (You tend not to need to want to draw attention to a player you think is town, though there are situations where you will.)


These Personal Investigations can be of any length, from one-liner to massive wall of text, but in general, they’re reasonably short and to the point, commonly conveying a single thought. Interestingly enough, building off my first tip, a vote can be a Personal Investigation. So is doing an isolation read. So is metagaming.


You’re gathering up information from an investigation, and then stating your personal opinion on it. That’s really all there is to a Personal Investigation. You want the town to know you think that this player is scum, or occasionally, that this player is town. You see it as important enough information as to be worthy of posting.

These Personal Investigations serve to focus attention onto a player and cause others to (re-)evaluate them with your feedback in mind. When you do, you’re mainly looking for their reactions to what you have given. From their opinions, you will receive additional information. And that’s where your read will either be strengthened, or weakened.


With a more solid opinion formed, you have a better foothold on the game, in a position where you hopefully have something strong enough where you can push. If not, continue cycling through new Personal Investigations until you do. (A personal investigation is testing the hypothesis formed from your opinion, so it can and will be shown wrong just as often as right.) At that time, you can switch gears. While a Personal Investigation can convince others, its purpose is instead to force others to contribute, so the next step is in getting people to follow you. This will be defined in the third tip.

Using This Concept

Know The Doubt Zone

You know it. The zone where you have a read but lack confidence in it. This is where the Personal Investigation is done. If you’re past this stage, then it’s no longer necessary to ask those questions, do that meta research, and gather information to analyze. Instead, your focus will be on presenting your findings.

Avoid Making Cases

Cases are what you do after the Personal Investigation. A case which you do not believe in fully is a disaster waiting to unwind. If YOU’RE not convinced in your read, how is somebody else supposed to be? And trust me, it shows. In the best-case scenario, you’re thought of as doubtful town, who is trying to convince themselves that their read is not wrong. In other words, you look like you’re suffering from confirmation bias, tunnel visioning your target. In the worst-case scenario, you’re thought of as scum, trying to justify a vote on someone you know is town. Neither is desirable.


Instead, when doubtful, stick to Personal Investigations. Certain formats of Personal Investigations resemble cases, but the difference between the two is that a Personal Investigation is meant to figure something out; a case is meant to convince others you have figured something out. A case is for after a conclusion is reached; A Personal Investigation is done prior to the conclusion.

Take your time

No need to rush if you don’t need to. However long it takes to get through your Personal Investigations is however long it takes. All in the name of getting a stronger read. If you accomplish that, it’s worth the wait. Strong reads don’t magically appear; it’s something which happens on its own, naturally.

Third Tip

So you’ve formed a solid opinion. As sure as you’re going to get in your read. Now you just have to do something with that read. You’re convinced you’re right…so the next step is in convincing others that you are right. Therein enters creating a case. We all have our own ideas of what that means. Here’s mine.

Definition of Case

A succinct summary would be “an attempt to convince others that your stance, above all others, is correct”, and therefore, something to follow. Inherent in that definition is a need to believe what you are saying to be true. A case tends to work best by being focused on a specific set of players you want to draw attention to. While this is similar to a Personal Investigation the goal (and therefore intention) is different.


The attitude behind a case is, “I’m right, and here’s why!” Unlike Personal Investigations, no case works well without an explanation. People tend to be a bit skeptical of another’s opinion if they state it without backing it up. If there is evidence helping them prove their point, as long as it seems logical enough, it’ll work far better.


To make a case, you need to go beyond simply stating the conclusion of your work. (Normally, why you believe a player is scum.) Instead of just your opinion, you’re showing the fruits of your labor: all the questions, research, and investigation you have done, laid out for everyone to see, in an effort to convince them you know what you’re talking about.

Persuasion is what a case is about. It's the artform of selling your narrative to your target audience, stringing them along to show what you want them to see, so as to have them act as you wish them to.

Gaining Followers

A good case is no mere statement of opinion; a good case demands others follow your lead, which requires sufficient explanation of your stance. You’re asking for others to agree with you, or at the very least demand to know why they disagree with you. As a result, clarity is a necessity. You’re trying to convince other players that you are correct, not yourself. It might make perfect sense in your head, sure—now, it’s your job to figure out a way for it making sense to everyone else.


Also essential is presentation. One key aspect of most good cases is that they will recognize alternative viewpoints, and then explain why these perspectives should be doubted, in favor of your own. This is a nifty trick which helps demonstrate you lack confirmation bias, and are willing to change your stance.


In fact, you probably will be doing so. The process of Personal Investigations to cases is not a one-time deal; it is a continuous loop, where you cycle through them one after another. Still, for as long as you hold your read to strongly be true, you will want others to sheep your read, and your case needs to acknowledge this; be firm in that you do want what you’re doing to be taken seriously.


While you want to acknowledge the alternative possibilities and you want to spend some time letting your intentions be known, to write the best case, you need to maintain focus, and not lose sight of your objective. You’re trying to eliminate someone, or stop someone from being eliminated. Make sure what you are writing actually puts forward the proof necessary to further this goal.


On that note, the best cases are often not incredibly long walls. They’re actually relatively short. Keep things succinct and as to the point as possible. You’re presenting the absolute best, strongest points for why you hold your belief, and this requires you not include every possible detail which could be meaningful. Use only what was really convincing to you.


Your case will, if written well, draw opinions. You may still end up talking yourself out of your read after making the case, but this is no reason to fear making the case in the first place. Your read will strengthen, or your read will weaken. It will happen, especially after feedback. So write it without fear of what will happen later if you’re wrong, and especially without fear of people saying you’re wrong. (The whole idea of the case is to prove you're not!)


So while your case may not be absolute, it still will be firm. Always be open to input, but always be willing to stick to your guns. That is how you will get others to listen to your words. On a related note, whenever you no longer believe in a case you have written, make it abundantly clear this is the case and specify exactly where you stand; leave no room for ambiguity or confusion on your stance. Full reversal, half reversal, down to null, weakened read but still existing, whatever. Doing so will help maintain the integrity of your future cases, such that they are always held at the appropriate level of value for the case given.

Filter Carefully!

I cannot stress enough the need for this. Don’t put forward points that aren’t absolutely true; if you do, then your entire push will be easily strawmanned: if we see “Alright, I was wrong about that specific point, but the rest of the case still stands!”, no matter how true that statement may be (and often it is quite true!), it’s too late. Your audience saw your flawed point, and so will now ignore your valid points. It leaves you in the position where either you have to admit you were wrong on something (giving the illusion of doubt), or where your continued defense of a bad point is…well, bad.


Should you mistakenly make a flawed point, you are not defenseless against an accusation, however. It is still possible to push your case while acknowledging an imperfection. One of my tactics is to ignore the bad point (flat-out not acknowledge you made it), and instead continue to press the other points, which are still valid, yet got written off. I only ignore these within reason, though.


What I need to emphasize here above all else is that—especially in a longer case—a single invalidated point isn't important to the overall picture presented. You do not want to fall into the trap of responding to what you think is wrong in your case. Instead, you want to continue pressing what you think is right. So if someone points out one flawed part of your case and ignores the rest, repost the case without the flawed part and demand they address it by pointing out (rather justifiably) they have not.


(That said, please take my advice: if you are convinced that your case was wrong—or, at least, have it thrown into serious doubt—you need to make it clear. One point out of ten being invalid is a huge difference from seven points out of ten being invalid, after all.)


This strategy won’t always work. Sometimes, it’s impossible to ignore your invalid point, and you’ll be forced to address it. But you can still use this time to explain why you have done so, why you are pushing the points which weren’t invalidated, and why they are more important than the single point which was. In other words, at all times, you want to be the one in control of how your case is handled. Not the players who could be scum. And with that focus, they’re more likely to understand your decision to not address the point which was wrong.

Followers/Weaknesses Footnotes

Footnotes cover the theory of the "doubt illusion" and "ignore it".

  • Exploring Doubt

I believe that, on some subconscious level, if we see signs of doubt in someone—no matter how small—then we are going to doubt them. It’s like an idea—once planted, it’s contagious, spreading like a disease. A small point which they admit is wrong will eventually grow in your mind to make you think they’re completely wrong. And if you think they’re wrong, you’ll ignore them. In a sense, this is a variation of the 7for7 fallacy, in that if we see one wrong point, we think all the points are wrong.


Emphasis also plays a part; we tend to see what sticks out as unusual with great ease. If nine points are maintaining a stance and one point is admitting a stance is wrong, which sticks out? Even if not on a conscious level, the answer is obvious. It’s different, in some way, and we know it. And because we notice it more, we think of it more. It sticks with us longer, especially if we’re skimming. So immediately, the words “I was wrong” will stick out, whereas the words, “no, you’re wrong!” won’t.


  • Exploring Admitting You're Wrong

In an ideal world, you should be able to publicly accept you’re wrong. It happens to everyone. By probability alone, you’re more likely wrong than correct. Everyone SHOULD know this, and that even pro-town players will be wrong every once and a while. (Burden of Proficiency is a fallacy.) And you definitely SHOULD do it mentally. Yet it runs against the human brain’s wiring to think this way.

Back To Cases…

Let’s deal with responding to them!


There is something vital you need to remember when you make a case: someone out there is not going to agree with you. In fact, there’s likely going to be at least one person who strongly disagrees with you. Unless you’re making a case against the player who most strongly objects (you obviously aren’t going to convince them that they are scum, after all), it’s your job to convince them that you’re right.


But keep the bigger picture in mind. One or two people disagree (especially an elimination target of a case)—that’s a given. Your job isn’t to convince them. Your job isn’t to convince the whole town. Your job is to convince the necessary number of town players. So if you have a few vocal opponents, you shouldn’t focus on them, as much as you do the rest of the players.


Don’t get into a lengthy debate with your opposition, especially if it’s your elimination target. They have the right to defend their viewpoint, but if you’re sure of your read, you shouldn’t enter a giant Wall War with them. It rarely ends well, generating much noise, leads to players skipping the argument, and often assuming "town versus town".


It clutters the thread, and when both you and them are so strongly defending your stances, most likely doing so is a waste of time in terms of convincing them. It will alienate the rest of the town not involved in the debate, effectively killing your case and nullifying whatever use it would have had.

Limit Your Length!

The only time to continue a debate like the above is when you really do need the extra allies: too many players are stating they agree with the opposition’s viewpoint. At that point, it would be best to resume the engagement and point out the flawed defense your case came up against, but it should ONLY be at this point where your case would otherwise fail.


Let everyone read your original argument. When enough people have done so, then you can consider responding (especially if you see people siding with your opposition), but a surprising amount of times, it’s not necessary. If you make a solid enough case, your opposition’s counter won’t be believed by the majority of the town. Heck, if you let other townspeople look at both your case and your opposition, they might even do your work for you and point out the flaws in your opposition’s argument for you. That doesn’t happen if you immediately respond.


Particularly if your opposition is scum, what they want is for your original argument to become lost in a massive sea of text, which everyone skips. You don’t want the town to be lost if you’re still convinced your points hold true. You want them to be able to follow along with your train of thought; you want them to see the evidence for themselves—the last thing you want is for it to become inseparable from a wall war after it. It will kill your credibility.


In short: Don’t Wallpost. One or two is okay; an initial case comprised of a wall won’t do too much to diminish readability. After that, cut it short. Even I skip them when they get too numerous. That says something!

Footnotes

There obviously are exceptions to the case I used (where the people debating have 0% chance of convincing the other), but in my personal experience, they are few and far between; in the vast majority, neither side will yield, because either 1—it’s impossible (you can’t convince someone that they, themselves, are scum),

Or 2—because neither side makes an argument the other sees as convincing enough.


The former is far worse than the latter, for the record; this guide was meant to essentially stop the former as completely as possible. The latter is trickier. If you are in this situation—on either side—you might want to step back for a minute and re-evaluate the situation, see why your opponent is opposing you, why they are convinced differently than you are. If you understand their viewpoint (and after review, still disagree with it), you can better manipulate it to your side.

  • Effectively, TextWall Overdoses are perhaps one of the worst game-killers out there. I can collect a series of quotes from hundreds of people who'd agree, and yet, EVERYONE does them from time to time. Why? Because they don't know how NOT to. They try, but they fall into a wall eventually.

Avoid Repetition

Repetition can, if used appropriately, be useful for emphasis and to reinforce a point. If used intentionally, it can create a narrative, often an entertaining one and almost always a powerful argument. The unity of repetition is a good tool. However, the key phrase there is "if used intentionally", and most repetition is not done intentionally.


As much as possible, avoid accidental redundancy in words. If you’re like me, chances are this will be difficult to do. However, it is still possible to take some basic precautions. Clarity and conciseness in the original case can greatly help diminish the odds of repetition, but the real trick is whenever you respond to something, not to keep saying the same thing using slightly different wording unless you are specifically asked to do so. (E.g. they want you to reword the point so they can better understand it.)


It is generally recommended to avoid repetition mainly because repetition will lead to many negative connotations: it will lead people to assume you have far fewer valid points than you do, because you keep on repeating the same ones. It will lead people to think you are using the logic of “if you say it enough times, it must be true!” even though you (presumably) are not. It also tires people out, exhausting them.


If it is absolutely necessary to repeat something, try to add to what you said: flesh it out more and make it not just a rehash of what you said before. It might not always be possible to spontaneously bring new points up (especially if you were already rather thorough), but it doesn't take much to put your point in a new light, without it being repetitive. New perspective, with an expanded idea.


If someone says something you defended against earlier, you can quote the defense and say it still applies. The burden then rests on them to show why it doesn’t, not on you. You should in fact quote the defense (or maybe link to the post if the post it is in is short enough); telling them to go look it up will rarely have them do so. But you don’t need to (and shouldn’t) retype what you already have. It’s a waste of time and effort. When they inevitably come back with questions on the point, THEN you address them.

Conciseness is pro-town. If you can achieve it in your cases, you will go far.

Wrap-Up

I know, this is quite the long read, but I really do think if I’ve done my job correctly that this advice will help you. I hope that when I post this revised (no longer so brief, unfortunately) guide, that it’ll help someone, somewhere, play a better game.


May your votes be meaningful!

May your Personal Investigations be useful to everyone!

May you create a good solid case!

And most importantly of all…

May you limit Walls! :P