Mastina/Sandbox/Article

mastina

Played Games

Modded Games

Mafia Theory Work

Account Avatars

Mish Mash

Miscellaneous

Any article for the wiki currently a work in progress.

Mastin's Insane Tells: Re-Revisited

Introduction

One of my first contributions to mafia theory was Mastin's Insane Tells, a series of five tells (one of which I never wrote) that I used when I was relatively new to the site.

About a year after originally publishing the tells, I revisited the subject, providing updates on the four tells that I had originally published.

A full 6 years later, I've decided to come back to the tells and finally updated them. For this project, I skimmed through my past games under my original account, searching for usage of the word "tell" to see what kinds of tells I was most consistently applying, and crossreferencing them with the final article.

Here is what I eventually have come up with, along with finalized stances on the tells. You will note that, unlike the original article, there are more than five, as I found old "tells" I used yet never published which have been included in this version.

MiT 1: Confirmation

The last ones to confirm are more likely to be scum.

The origin of this tell can be traced back to an era when daytalk was virtually nonexistent. It predated even talk in quicktopics, yet alone, private topics: at the time the tell was developed, PMing scum partners was the norm. The idea was that scum would want to coordinate their actions for as much time as possible, to maximize the amount of time spent strategizing.

Modern Tell

Even at the time of this tell's creation, it was dubious at best. With the prominence of daytalk, along with the changed method of communication, any possible credibility the tell could have held has faded.

As a result, unlike most tells on this list, this tell holds no modern form. It can make a fun RVS vote, but that is it.

MiT 2: (Early) Wagoning

Scum, especially newbies, are more likely to bandwagon (especially early on).

This tell originated from seeing scum buddy town players with their votes, especially in the earlier stages of the game.

That early pattern of voting together, parroting the reasons of others, and early signs of grooming a player are what I locked onto.

Basically, when I saw mindless bandwagoning, especially when paired with a desire for a quicklynch, I attributed it to being a pro-scum move, as bandwagoning with little/no/poor/repeated reasoning is something easy for scum to do to blend in.

Old Sub-tells

Scum will lack scumreads early-on.

This is a subject that I tied to the bandwagoning tell, as a related concept: scum would not provide their own unique reasoning, giving little/no original thoughts and mirroring those of others if giving any at all.

Scum will hold back from sharing, especially early.

Similar to lacking scumreads early-on, the idea behind this was that scum would hold back from sharing thoughts and ideas, for fear of exposure thanks to not knowing what to say and have it be town.

Fast wagons are more likely to have scum.

The idea behind this one, similar to the others, is that when multiple votes would pile on quickly, it would usually be because scum wanted someone dead and wanted to avoid something that a slower wagon would reveal.

Modern Tells

Redefining Wagoning

The Butter Zone

Site meta is typically cyclical, but in general, I've found that the beginning of a wagon which goes through is not typically a zone scum stay (unless it's a scum lynch), because they tend not to want the responsibility of having been the primary pusher on someone who flips town.

More generally, scum are either in the middle or near the end. While near the end can (and does) happen, overall the more typical default is in the middle, the butter zone: not too early as to hold greater responsibility for the lynch, and not too late, as to be accused of bandwagoning. Somewhere between the 2-3rd votes furthest from both ends is where I most heavily look for scum on a town lynch.

This tell is of course, situational. On a scum lynch, the butter zone is where the TOWN players are most likely to be. It also depends on circumstances. (For instance, if they had little opportunity to move their vote and were an early voter, then their vote started as vanity, and as such, should be treated differently than if the wagon formed over a greater span of time.)

Attempting to Blend In

Scum, at the beginning of the game, do not know how to act naturally, and will attempt to hide it.

This originates from a simple enough concept: The scum are more informed than the town is. They know more than they should know. At the beginning of the game, it is incredibly hard to mask this extra knowledge. They don't know how to fluidly interact with others and have it be natural: their interactions are forced and stilted.

This is why analyzing the RVS can be useful: especially with the benefit of hindsight, attempts at early manipulation can stick out. Empty votes, lacking logical reasoning. No apparent reason for their vote. Having nothing original to contribute. An attempt to disappear into the background without actually doing anything to stick out.

These are traits I attribute to scum.

Being Evasive

Scum often attempt to disguise their bias by not giving a solid stance.

Basically, holding back on others.

This is something you might think is playstyle-based, right? For instance, I can provide an entire readslist in a large when not every player has posted; I can call posts as being town/scum and not explain myself. So if I do those even as town, what am I describing?

I'm describing thought processes. Even when I do those things, I have an established thought process behind my actions. I ommit the explanation, but I am capable of giving an explanation, of showing my train of thought, about how I reached those things. This is something that can be seen even without me being explicit.

I demonstrate my thoughts, without actually giving them. Because I am showing without telling. I try to get others to pick up on what I have seen, and this is something that I deliberately try to do as town.

As scum, instead of trying to give that reasoning to others, I am deliberately trying to keep it from others. This is the difference between town and scum. As scum, I will give my stances just as I will as town, but instead of trying to let players guess why I hold those stances, I try to keep them from doing so.

To put it another way, as town I may appear opaque but I am transparently so: I am trying to let people in and see my thoughts even when I don't actually give them.

As scum I may give the illusion of transparency, but I am deliberately keeping my true thoughts opaque with the intention of not letting others know I hold an advantage over them.

And this is the process I am describing.

Wagon Speed

Analyze the circumstances behind the wagon and the players who hopped on: do they look town or scum?

Wagon speed is only circumstantially a scumtell. If the wagon has a suspicious drive behind it, be it names on it or the timing of the wagon, it may be more likely to contain scum.

Buddying: Analyzed

Look at the motive driving the buddying.

That is, ask yourself the following question:

"What is it this buddying was meant to accomplish?"

Two players agreeing with each other, for instance, is not buddying. It is them recognizing mutually-held stances with an interest in working together. That is actually potentially the start of a townbloc. Players who might be "honorary masons": reading each other strongly as town, and who have the desire to work together to lynch scum.

In contrast, real buddying is where one side holds the aim of manipulating another to gain their trust. Instead of being natural, it is artificially forced. Even if the buddying is successful and the player is fooled, there will still be the difference between it and a natural partnership, thanks to how the bod was formed. The tell is for spotting the difference between the two.

MiT 3: Augmentation

If arguments are being augmented, town; if arguments are being contradicted, scum.

Put another way, inconsistency was seen as a scumtell, with consistency as a towntell. Backtracking held an obvious scum motivation, with it making sense for town to get their facts straight.

The flaw in the tell was that town don't put effort into actively remembering what they have said, whereas scum are afraid of being caught, leading to the initial impression the tell is absolutely backwards. This is not the case, but the modern tell takes a new approach.

Modern Tell

Scum fear change.

Scum are afraid to change their stances. They will try to keep things consistent, and put deliberate artificial effort into maintaining their stances. The pattern behind their posts will be maintained no matter what. And in this effort to maintain their stance, it becomes clear their lack of change is hollow and empty.

Town players, in contrast, will spew out whatever they please. In this freedom to behave how they want, they maintain a fair level of consistency, simply because by being honest and speaking their truthful opinion, their stances show an obvious progression which is easy to track. With no lying involved, this natural progression is something which often requires no explanation.

A town player may clarify a stance which wasn't clear. A town player will have stances which contradict. But those contradictions will be entirely reasonable, logical contradictions where the change was easy to understand and follow.

Scum players, on the other hand, when they make contradictions, will actively focus on trying to fix it: it will read as if a slip, and be a crack in their web of lies: instead of their contradiction being a result of not thinking, it is a result of not thinking enough.

Basically, the difference is that scum, when they slip up and post a contradiction, will have a broken flow to their posting;

Town, when they have a seemingly-contradictory argument, have a flow where you can easily see their progression, augmenting their stances and showing a natural evolution.

No, Really!

Scum really fear change.

Scum will have ridiculously forced changes in their reads, because changing reads in a natural, fluid, organic way is incredibly difficult for them to do. They keep reads well past their expiration date, showing a lack of logical progression.

MiT 4: Joking

Writing off apparently-serious content as a joke is a scumtell.

It should be noted that I never wrote the original fourth tell so I'm not positive this was it; there are at least one or two alternative tells on this list which could have been the missing tell, but I believe this is the tell I failed to write originally, as it was one of the ones I most strongly believed. The basic tell?

A player could make a ridiculously scummy post, and then, when people react negatively to it, call it a joke. I also referred to it as the EmpTyger tell, for the most famous instance of exactly this happening: EmpTyger claiming his real role as a joke when he was scum, albeit on April 1st.

Modern Tell

Joking/gambiting with no transparancy indicates scum backpedaling.

I should clarify that this tell isn't so much a strong tell (it might be 55/45), so much as it is a "no duh" recommendation to town players everywhere and telling them what they need to be aware of.

Basically, though, when a person is joking about something which is easily seen as game content, it should be clearly shown as such from the outset. There should be no room for doubt. It should be openly, clearly, obviously what you were aiming for.

Similarly, when a town player runs a gambit, they should do so with a crystal-clear idea of exactly what they wanted to accomplish by doing so. This should be easily discerned after the gambit has been executed and require very little explanation, yet having some anyway. Laying out your thought process behind the gambit and what you aimed to achieve by invoking it are essential.

Otherwise, what you were doing looks like scum who were pulling a stunt, got called out on it, and lied by saying it was something it wasn't. (A joke, a gambit, whatever.) If it looks like a lie, it probably is a lie, and thus an attempt at backpedaling.

MiT 5: Caution/Recklessness

Caution is a scumtell; recklessness is a towntell.

The basis behind this tell is really simple: the idea that scum are concerned with their image, whereas town are not. A town player holds no fear of their actions being called scummy, because they know their alignment to be town, and thus, their motives to be such.

A scum player, knowing they are scum, is going to be actively conscious of how they appear, fearing suspicion, and thus, they will play conservatively.

However, the tell as literally written failed to take into account playstyle, and thus, required an update.

Modern Tell

Scum fear being caught.

Originally, I stated that scum are more likely to revise their thoughts, whereas town are more likely to post a "rough draft", as it were, but even this isn't true: more accurately, it would be to say that scum, in general, put an active effort into maintaining their image. They are concerned with how they look, and will take time to try and mold how they appear.

Town, on the other hand, hold no such fear. They are not going to bother to hold back and do what they think looks right; instead, they are going to do whatever they feel IS right.

MiT 5.5: Gambling

Scum know when they are wrong, and fear being caught being wrong.

This was the essence behind my original gambling tell, and I still feel it holds true: scum know when they are right or wrong. When bussing, they will push with a greater level of confidence than normal. When pushing town, they will avoid responsibility for it in any possible way.

In contrast, town do not know when they are wrong, and are willing to take risks. They will bet on outcomes which are uncertain, because they aren't concerned about being wrong. As the uninformed party, everything they do COULD be wrong, something they inherently instinctively know, so they act anyway.

MiT 6: Voting Pattern(s)

This is a multiple-part tell, which I will break down.

1. Not voting primary suspect is a scumtell.
   If a player is avoiding voting their largest scumread, it is probably a sign they are scum.
2. Willingness to vote someone but not doing so is a scumtell.
   A form of actions not matching words, when a person says they are willing to vote, but does not actually do so, chances are they are scum holding back.
3. Bandwagoning instead of voting a suspicion is a scumtell.
   This one holds roots in the simple "actions not matching words": it is easy for scum to hide by avoiding placing their money where their mouth is, and also sets them up for future days when the player they are voting flips, since they have cast their suspicion already.
4. Lynching a player you don't think is scum is a scumtell.
   Basically, the idea is that a player who seriously, genuinely pushes for a policy lynch would be more likely to be scum, since a policy lynch is not scumhunting: it is eliminating a player they know to be town, giving scum a kill, rather than eliminating a player who could be scum.
5. Holding off on voting/fear of commitment is a scumtell.
   Essentially, this is when a player hesitates to lock into something. A town player knows that what they do can always change; a scum player feels that all changes they make are dangerously final. As a result, scum have that hesitancy.
6. Calling a player scum consistently, yet voting a different player, is a scumtell.
   This one is rather strong on its own and needs virtually no explanation: if someone calls a player scum, yet is always voting for a different player, chances are that someone is scum.
7. Voting a player for playstyle reasons rather than scumhunting is a scumtell.
   Basically, if someone knows a player to do things regardless of alignment yet votes them anyway, that is probably a good indication they are scum.

These were all individual tells, even though they are very largely redundant. This is what I came up with for streamlined, expanded, refined tells.