Mastin's Guide to Playing Well

[Mastin]

NOTE:

Has been revised as a Second Draft, starting here. It's broken into five sections due to the length limit.
-Part Two.
-Part Three.
-Part Four.
-Part Five.

You can ignore the version in this post, because it's out-of-date. Please pay attention to the version linked above, instead.

Spoiler: First Draft

Sadly, this guide probably isn't what you're thinking of. I'm basically giving general tips I've observed from here and there which are meant to help improve your play. Hopefully, by the time you've read this guide, you'll be able to better utilize your vote, better form a solid opinion, keep an effective case after one has already been made, and learn how to wall less often. (All pro-town things, which'll hopefully improve your persuasion skills.)
(Note: Sorry if this isn't really formatted that well. The first draft was thrown together in about half an hour. Even with minor revisions, I'd say this hasn't taken me more than an hour and a half, maximum. I still think it's useful advice.)

---

First Tip

:

-If you’re more than (number of scum)/(number of town) % sure that a player is scum, vote for them. The number of scum is ~20-33%, and if the player in question has an even slightly more likely chance than that to be scum, you should vote for them. (If two people are tied for the greatest, look to why they're so suspicious. If it's off of gut, use logic to determine which is more likely. If it's on logic, use gut. If they're both equal using both logic and gut, flip a coin. )

Why?

Your vote is your greatest weapon. Far too many people are too cautious with their vote, when it’s the greatest tool the town has. Barring special circumstances, there are no reasons why

not

to vote, but there are plenty of reasons you

should

vote. (Special circumstances include special game mechanics like not being able to vote for someone twice, the target already being close to a lynch, etc. If none apply, why hold back? When there’s nothing to lose by voting for your target, you should darn-well vote for your target!)

This has also been discussed in this thread; I recommend you check it out for further reading.

Second Tip

:

-If you think someone’s scum, but aren’t certain (for the sake of giving it a percentage, let’s say this is about 34-75%), ask questions about them. Keep going, until they’ve either convinced you that they’re town, or you’ve convinced yourself that they’re scum.

*Under NO circumstances do you build a case against someone you’re not sure is scum! That’s

asking

for trouble. If you write a case against someone you’re not convinced is scum, it’s worthless: if YOU don’t fully believe it, how is anyone else supposed to?

*However, that said…It’s alright to gather a bunch of data on a person; for example, things like ISO reads and meta which are often used in a case can be gathered as information^. (Don’t worry about information instead of analysis. You’re gathering the information to form an opinion, to get analysis later on, so the tell doesn’t apply.)

When you’ve gathered all the information^, and look at it in a single location, you should be able to form an opinion from all of it. It shouldn’t be a case against a player, although the two do look similar at first glance. It’s meant to give you a better read on a player, just like questions are. It can also be used to check a person’s answers to your questions.

^"Gathered information" might be a bit of a misleading phrase. I'm not sure there's a word which accurately describes what I'm trying to convey. To my knowledge, we don't have any terminology for it.

Tip Three

:

-When you are convinced someone is scum (let’s say 80-94% sure)—at least, as much as you can be without role information—then you should make a case. However, there are a few key things to consider.

*A case is meant to convince

other players

that your vote is for scum. That’s the key difference between gathering information and a case: Information (at least, the example of gathering information above; as mentioned, it needs a name) is meant to form your own opinion, a case is meant to be your persuasion to get other thinking your target is scum. Not yourself. If you don’t believe your own case, you are doing it wrong. If you’re trying to convince yourself with the case—not other players—it shows. At best, it’s seen as town tunneling. At worst, it’s seen as scum trying to convince themselves that the player they’re voting is scum, not town.

*Don’t get into a lengthy debate over your case with who it’s against. Again, they do have the right to defend themselves…but if you’re convinced they’re scum, you shouldn’t debate it with them. You’re not going to convince your target that they’re scum, after all. So why bother? It clutters the thread, and more than likely, will make everyone ignore your points, no matter how valid they were.

If they post a defense which someone else agrees with, THEN you respond to that defense, and point out why it doesn’t hold. Otherwise, don’t even bother. Let the other people in the town look at what you say first. Don’t get into a quote war with your target. For all you know, the other townspeople will point out the flaw in your target’s defense. Unless they side with your target, you don’t need to post more. You’ve made your case. It’s there for all to see. Don’t allow for your target to hide it in a massive debate/war. Wall wars will kill credibility.

Don’t admit some of your points are no longer valid. Even if they aren’t valid, anymore, you admitting it will make it look like you no longer fully believe in your case. Admitting your argument is wrong is asking for the argument to be ignored. That said, don’t defend a point you think is no longer valid, either. That will make you seem like an illogical irrational person who ignores all the facts. The best response? Ignore it. (You were wrong about that particular point, sure, but the rest of your case is still valid. Most people, however, when they see, "alright, I was wrong about that point, but the rest of the case still hold true!" will shrug and just ignore all but the first four to six words^. )

^Interesting fact: "You're wrong! You're wrong! I'm right! This still applies! You're wrong! Okay, you're right here, but not elsewhere! You're wrong! You might think you defended yourself, but no, this is just like the others: incorrect!" One of these things is not like the others. Chances are, if you saw this in a quoting block, the one which is different stands out. Because it's different, it sticks out; admitting that your opponent is valid even if it's only once will add emphasis to that point, so people skimming the walls like they're likely to do will see "I was wrong, you were right" and assume that applies to pretty much the whole thing. It's psychological.

*Don’t be repetitive. If you’re debating the same points over and over again, your case becomes pretty much worthless. It might be alright if your original case is repetitive; some of us have trouble wording things in an organized fashion. (That said, do try to be as clear and concise as possible in your case. It might be hard, but the reward is often well worth the cost.)

…But if you continue repeating that point in other posts? It’ll be rather invalid to most people. Kindly point out your original point (preferably with a link—quotes take space, so only use if you’re quoting something short), and use a sentence or two to clarify why it is still valid.

…Not a paragraph or two. Conciseness is pro-town. (I know, from me, that’s kinda ironic, but it is. I have trouble achieving it, but I know it to be true.)

To sum this section of the guide up…don’t wall. At least, not often. If your original case is long, that's fine. If you continue to create long posts, that's not. Walling will kill your case, making the whole thread harder to read. If you follow my advice, there'll most likely only be two walls: yours, and your target's defense. That's not so bad. Pages of walls? That IS.

---

And there's my fairly brief guide to hopefully improving your play. Use your votes, use a few different ways to create a solid opinion, and then--when you have formed said opinion--keeping it clear, to maximize its power.

[Vi]

Tip #1: Until someone convinces me otherwise, I will maintain that percent-based scumhunting/opinions is made of scientific-sounding bullshit. :pennteller:

Tip #2: So don't build a case, except you should build something that looks and sounds a lot like a case...

Vote: Mastin

(L-5)
You're basically saying "Find why you think this person looks suspicious. Make it a discussion."

Tip #3: Disagree with never agreeing that your points aren't "valid" (or convincing). If you keep pushing it, people will start noticing that you're pushing crap, and then they either start questioning you or simply ignoring you. You're more than welcome to pare your argument down to exactly what sticks out as evil/sinister from there; conciseness helps here.

[Mastin]

Tip #2: So don't build a case, except you should build something that looks and sounds a lot like a case...

No, it's not a case. It's something which ON THE SURFACE looks like a case. The key difference being that in a case, you're trying to CONVINCE OTHERS that your target is scum. In this, the 'case' is getting a better read on a player. It's you gathering all the information together, to try and form an opinion on whether they're scum or town. It's what you do BEFORE you build the case, but it itself is not a case. Ack, I need a word for it, 'cause this barely makes sense to me. >_<

You're basically saying "Find why you think this person looks suspicious. Make it a discussion."

OR, find why you think this person isn't suspicious. Bring it up with the rest of the town and see their opinions on it, and form your own conclusions based off of what you find. THEN you'll know whether they're suspicious or not, in theory, anyway. (It's hard to explain what I mean. I can give you examples of this--ISO-reads and metagaming are both examples of this process; they're not cases, but they often resemble cases.)

Tip #3: Disagree with never agreeing that your points aren't "valid" (or convincing). If you keep pushing it, people will start noticing that you're pushing crap, and then they either start questioning you or simply ignoring you.

I address that with this:

That said, don’t defend a point

you think is no longer valid

, either.

That will make you seem like an illogical irrational person who ignores all the facts.

The best response? Ignore it.

My advice isn't to push BS. My advice isn't to admit that it's invalid, either. Both are detrimental. The best response is--in my opinion--to ignore it, for as long as you can, until another option would be less detrimental. (Most likely, admiting it's no longer valid. Many times, you don't have to say it's no longer valid, and it hurts your case to admit it, so just don't, until it is necessary--a good portion of the time, it won't be.)

...Uh, does that make more sense? I suck at explaining things. >_<

[SensFan]

It doesn't make you more credible by any stretch if you randomly start ignoring everything anyone says that invalidates a small part of your argument. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "If you're a claimed Tracker, (b) no longer applies. (a), (c)-(f) still apply and still make you Scum."

[Mastin]

It's a psychological, thing, Sens. As I mentioned, I feel like that it's something we simply do, most likely without thinking about it. Sure, you can say something's invalid, but all the rest still applies. I've often seen people (unintentionally) filter that to be "something's invalid", ignoring "but all the rest still applies". I don't know WHY exactly this happens, but it does.

[SensFan]

On the same token, if you make a case of (a)-(f) on someone, and then start ignoring their best rebuttals, I'm probably going to give your case much less credit than I otherwise would.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I don't really agree with any of this. I mean, point 1 is trivial; assuming you know you're town, everyone else in the game is already more likely then (number of people in the game/number of scum) to be scum, so you should be voting for someone most of the time.

You also seem to be drawing a hard line between "either you're making a case, or you're just questioning someone", and that's foolish. If you think someone is 50% likely to be scum, then you should be questioning them to figure out their alignment, and you should be drawing attention to them and getting other people to look at them (IE: making a case). On the other hand, even if you're pretty sure that the guy you're voting for is scum, you NEED to always keep an open mind and listen to what they have to say, and you need to be willing to change your mind if they bring up good points.

Basically, your advice is "If you're suspicious of a person X%, then ask questions but don't make a case; if you're suspicious Y%, then make a case but don't ask questions, debate, or re-think your idea" and I think both of those things are wrong. Whenever you're attacking someone, you should usually both be trying to get a read on them and trying to get other people to vote for them at the same time (and increasing pressure on them, which is basically both at once). Now, your focus might be different, and that's ok, but you must never just close your mind and stop listening, that's just bad play.

[Mastin]

On the same token, if you make a case of (a)-(f) on someone, and then start ignoring their best rebuttals, I'm probably going to give your case much less credit than I otherwise would.

That's not the objective. If they respond well, then you'll probably need to respond...
...But should not do so immediately. That'd create the quote war which we all know clutters the thread like no other, and pretty much guarantees you're ignored. Responding only to what you have to, and doing so at a later time, in theory should help cut down on wall posting.

We all know about the problem. I think I've described it fairly well. Someone makes a case, player defends, possibly counter-attacks. Player attacks again, reemphasizing points to "make sure they're not forgotten" (it really has the opposite effect), player defends, player attacks, soon, you have a massive wall war which nobody reads, and your case has been rendered completely useless despite all the hard work you put into it and all the points still valid.

The idea of the selective responding is to cut out all the junk. When most people think they're reinforcing their argument by responding to every response...their actually significantly weakening it. By reinforcing only the points which REALLY need reinforcement, the case remains stronger than it otherwise would be.

Ghah. This makes so much sense in my head, and I'm convinced that the problem isn't that my idea is wrong, just that I really, REALLY suck at conveying it. (Funny, how many things make a lot more sense in my head. I, uh, really suck with words. >_<) Can you understand what I'm trying to get at with this? :/

I mean, point 1 is trivial; assuming you know you're town, everyone else in the game is already more likely then (number of people in the game/number of scum) to be scum, so you should be voting for someone most of the time.

And yet, an alarming amount of players...don't. They SHOULD use their vote, but they often don't. Hence, why it's a point.

You also seem to be drawing a hard line between "either you're making a case, or you're just questioning someone", and that's foolish.

Huh? I didn't get that at all. I presented two ways you can get a read on someone: inquiries, and the-term-I-really-need-a-word-for-which-vaguely-resembles-a-case-but-clearly-isn't, but nowhere did I say those two were the ONLY ways to get reads on a player. Just two ways I suggested, rather than the alternative:
Buid a case you do not truly believe in. To me, that's probably one of the worst things you can do. If you don't believe they're scum yourself, you'll never convince anyone else. The above two were examples of how to get a read on a player, instead of using a case you have no faith in to get said read.

If you think someone is 50% likely to be scum, then you should be questioning them to figure out their alignment, and you should be drawing attention to them and getting other people to look at them (IE: making a case).

All but the last part is true, and what I was suggesting. You're drawing attention to them, sure, and you should be...but that isn't a case. A case, to me, is basically writing a persuasive letter to the rest of the town to lynch your target. A case is trying to convince others that someone is scum, and in the process, you draw attention to them, but drawing attention to them is not the point of the case. Trying to get them lynched is. See the difference?
(Ack, it makes so much more sense in my head, but I really think the problem here is that I have terms clearly in my head, but there aren't any words coming to mind which can define these terms.)

On the other hand, even if you're pretty sure that the guy you're voting for is scum, you NEED to always keep an open mind and listen to what they have to say, and you need to be willing to change your mind if they bring up good points.

This is valid: if they make you doubt that they're scum, you SHOULD admit it. If you're no longer convinced they're scum, you definitely need to make it clear. I'll edit that in.

Basically, your advice is "If you're suspicious of a person X%,

For reference, I was against the idea of putting solid percentages in, but figured it'd give a better general idea of what I'm talking about if I did.

then ask questions but don't make a case; if you're suspicious Y%, then make a case but don't ask questions, debate, or re-think your idea" and I think both of those things are wrong.

For the first, again, it's the definition of "case". "Drawing attention to someone" is not to me a case. It's...well, is their a word for it? Anything shorter than "drawing attention to someone"? A case is "trying to convince others to get them lynched". You can draw attention to someone without the intention of getting others to lynch them. A case, however, is intended to draw attention to someone, but if done poorly, it might not work. As in, if you get into the wall war, you're not really getting your target lynched.

For the second, if you're fairly sure they're scum--enough to make what I call a case--then you probably don't need to ask any questions towards the person, because you most likely have already done so. You should still be asking questions with others, and debating with others, and if you're no longer as sure, you should make it clear. But debating with your target? Suicidal. Admitting you're wrong about a specific point? Will make others believe you're admitting to being wrong on the whole thing, making them think you're no longer as certain as you really are. If you really ARE in doubt, you SHOULD say so, but if you're not, anything which can be misinterpreted as conveying that meaning should be avoided.

...Does that make any sense to anyone else besides me at all? >_<

Whenever you're attacking someone, you should usually both be trying to get a read on them and trying to get other people to vote for them at the same time (and increasing pressure on them, which is basically both at once).

Oh, you can attack someone without making a case. Asking questions, voting for them, all ways to attack. In the process--as long as you're doing it right--you'll be drawing others' attention to your target of interest. And in doing so, you'll hopefully get a better read on the player. But that's not a case.

A case, to me, is once again, trying to make others vote for your target. If you make a case, you should be confident in your read. Otherwise, it'll read as a BS'd load of garbage you threw together.

but you must never just close your mind and stop listening, that's just bad play.

And in no way, am I trying to encourage this. You should keep listening, and if they convince you, you'll say as much. If they don't, you shouldn't have to say you're not convinced, because in doing so, you'll just create the massive Wall War that this section of the guide is meant to try and prevent.

---

*Takes a deep breath*
Sorry. If this guide was perfect as it is, I would've already put it on the Wiki.
Simply put, I'm trying to make myself more clear on my points, and responses like this are what I need to do so.

[MichelSableheart]

Hopefully, by the time you've read this guide, you'll be able to [...] learn how to wall less often.

...

Under NO circumstances do you build a case against someone you’re not sure is scum!

When you are convinced someone is scum (let’s say 80-94% sure)

It is extremely rare that you are sure someone is scum. Even in a three player endgame, I don't get my estimates to the 80% you mention here. In fact, I can't recall the time I estimated someone at over 40% based on non-role related evidence. You should build cases far more often then that. Questioning is fine, but there comes a time that you have to convince the rest of the town to vote for your top suspect, even if you can't be sure they're scum. But even after that, you should be more then willing to change your opinion.

This means that openness is key. You should at the very least acknowledge their defense. If they're town, they might bring up points you missed. If they're scum, you don't want them to convince other town players with faulty arguments you ignored. Yes, quote wars should be avoided, but it is very well possible to counter a defense without going into a quote war. "Not relevant to the original point" is a very strong argument. Allthough you acknowledged this (and in later posts seem to argue for this), "ignore their defense" is an advice that doesn't convey this at all.

I also disagree with your suggestion to not acknowledge when an argument of yours has become invalidated. Immediately acknowledging that an argument isn't valid anymore is far better then getting called on it and giving the impression that you were trying to lynch someone on faulty arguments.

---

In summary, you should accept that you will be wrong quite often, and argue that someone is scum with that in mind. (AKA: I agree with Yosarian too.)

[Mastin]

It is extremely rare that you are sure someone is scum.

I consider "sure enough to want others to vote them" to be sure enough. My percentage (80%) was just my rough guess of when that'd be the case. And when you want others to vote them, what do you do? You make a case.

Even in a three player endgame, I don't get my estimates to the 80% you mention here.

Again, I just pulled the number randomly as a rough guestimation. It could be significantly lower, for all I know; I was just taking a rough guess.

In fact, I can't recall the time I estimated someone at over 40% based on non-role related evidence.

Disagree. 33% is what I'm using for "Neutral". Meaning, if someone's 33% likely to be scum, they're a neutral read, not a scum read. 40% is a scum read--enough to vote--but it's a very weak one. 40% is like, a just-recently-left-the-RVS-and-mostly-off-of-gut type. It's enough to vote, yes, but I see it as extremely weak.

You should build cases far more often then that.

I tend to disagree with this, but again, it's due to my definition of "case". If you make a bunch of what I consider cases--that is, trying to convince the town that your vote is on scum--then I believe it'll overall weaken your stance. Sure, it's alright if you change your mind a bunch of times. But if you actively try to get the town to lynch whoever your most recent suspect is, it makes you seem too impulsive. From my experience, people see more impulsive players as being unreliable.

Ack. I think the above might be sending the wrong idea, but I'm not sure how to clarify it. >_<

But even after that, you should be more then willing to change your opinion. This means that openness is key.

And again, my guide is not meant to discourage changing your opinion. It can, should, and DOES happen.

You should at the very least acknowledge their defense.

And again, it's complicated, but I'm not intending for you to ignore the defense. Just not to...how do I put it? >_< (Words are really escaping me. This is a seriously difficult concept for me to explain. :/) I dunno, not to clutter the thread unnecessarily? Not to weaken a case you still believe in? (If you no longer believe in it, again, no harm in letting it be weakened. If that makes sense.)

If they're scum, you don't want them to convince other town players with faulty arguments you ignored.

If they bring up faulty arguments, you don't necessarily need to point out the faulty arguments they bring up. For all you know, another player will do that for you. You DO need to do it if it IS convincing other town players, but unless you see that to be the case, there's a good chance you're just cluttering the thread unnecessarily.

...Does that make more sense than how I originally worded it? (I hope so.)

Yes, quote wars should be avoided, but it is very well possible to counter a defense without going into a quote war.

Which is where my advice of "a sentence or two, not a paragraph or two" comes into play. I've observed that posts with shorter paragraphs are easier to read.

"ignore their defense" is an advice that doesn't convey this at all.

Which is why it's almost certainly bad wording on my part. (Either that, or not going into enough detail on the concept.)

I also disagree with your suggestion to not acknowledge when an argument of yours has become invalidated.

I honestly believe that in theory, it IS the best thing to do, to admit you're wrong. But again, when taking psychology into account, I think reality paints a different picture.

I'd love to do an experiment. Have three games. Make three nearly identical length cases. (To take a random number, a ten-point case.) In each of them, include one statement.
-In the game where you want to admit it's no longer valid, have it appear like under the stretch of the imagination, it could apply, but probably doesn't. (If that makes sense.)
-In the game where you want to stubbornly defend the faulty point, make it look like it's theoretically possible to come to that conclusion, but that no rationally-thinking person would.
-In the game where you want to ignore it, make it deliberately false.

Or something like that. Basically, if what I'm thinking is correct, psychologically, the first game will have people dismiss your argument. "Town vs. Town" would be the most likely case. In the second, you'd either be called illogical and/or irrational town, tunneling hard, or scum, desperately trying to achieve a lynch.
In the third, you *might* get called on the faulty argument, but if not, it'll just fade away.

If someone insists on bringing it up, and is beginning to think you were using the faulty argument intentionally (something I don't think is very likely to happen, other than possibly from the defender--and even then, it might not be brought up more than once or twice), then you'd probably admit it later.

...Ack. That made a lot more sense in my head when I thought about it earlier. >_<

In summary, you should accept that you will be wrong quite often

Again, ideally, I'd love to do this, and mentally, SHOULD do it. But publically, I'm not convinced it's the correct move. It's something everyone SHOULD know--that they'll be wrong quite often, and that other town members will be wrong often, too. Key word,

should

. I simply don't think that's how the human mind works in those scenarios. I see a lot of people either 1: conclude that being wrong-->being scum, or 2: conclude being wrong before-->being wrong currently.

and argue that someone is scum with that in mind.

You can argue someone's scum without building a case, by the way. Again, it's my particular definition of "case".

---

I think I need to update the first post with all these responses in mind, but it'll be a bit of a headache. (I really, REALLY suck with words. >_<)

[Yosarian2]

If you think someone is 50% likely to be scum, then you should be questioning them to figure out their alignment, and you should be drawing attention to them and getting other people to look at them (IE: making a case).

All but the last part is true, and what I was suggesting. You're drawing attention to them, sure, and you should be...but that isn't a case. A case, to me, is basically writing a persuasive letter to the rest of the town to lynch your target. A case is trying to convince others that someone is scum, and in the process, you draw attention to them, but drawing attention to them is not the point of the case. Trying to get them lynched is. See the difference?

If you think that someone is 50% likely to be scum, then that makes them already a decent lynch (since random lynches are much less then 50%), and you both be trying to get information about the other person, and trying to explain to the rest of why you think they're a decent lynch (which is really the same thing as trying to get them lynched).

If you think that someone is 90% likely to be scum, then you should both be trying to convince the rest of the town that they're a good lynch, and you should be trying to get information about the person, because you still might be wrong.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you're ALWAYS doing both; you're ALWAYS trying to explain to the rest of the town why you think person X is suspicious (and thus, convince them that they want to lynch them) AND trying to get information about person X. You might be more FOCUSED on trying to get a person lynched in one game, or more focused on trying to get information in a different game, but whenever you're suspicious of someone, you should always be doing both.

[Fate]

First page tag

[Mastin]

Note: Slightly outdated post, because I also wrote the revised guide.

---

Okay, so I think part of the problem here is that I haven’t done my job, fully. There are five steps to doing this:
-Recognition. I found something, and recognize it. My job is to make others recognize it as well, and to do that, I need the other four steps.
-List it. This is giving names. I gave one name—“Case”. I failed to find a name for the other, but I have remedied this problem, because I thought of a term for it:
Investigation. “What, can’t that be confused with a cop Investigation?” Sure, which is why I decided to put a word in front of it: Personal. Yes, P.I. Why that term?
…Because, think about it…that’s what every single role in Mafia does. They conduct a personal investigation of the town. As a pro-town player, they’re trying to gather the evidence as they know it, and form a conclusion from it: who is scum, and who is town. It’s their own personal investigation into every other player, get reactions, you get the idea. The word just fits perfectly, now that I think about it. So, now we have our names down:
*Personal Investigation.
*Case.

-Define/Explain it. This is the area I have most trouble with, simply because I am so poor with words. But I think—at last—that I have it. Now that I have Names for the terms I have found, I can do a better job at explaining these things.

Personal Investigation: You think someone is town/scum. You’re more than 77/33% sure they’re town/scum, but not more than 90%. You want to draw attention to them. You support/vote them, and at this stage, you

explain why you have that opinion

, which in this case, is either why you think they’re town or think they’re scum. This process generally is shorter than a case, but not necessarily. As cases can be concise, so too can Personal Investigations be long. PIs are meant to get the rest of the town to know your opinion. You want to make it clear that you think this person is town/scum to the rest of the town. And you think it is important enough to post. You want their input, to see what they think after you give your full opinion on the matter—they might convince you otherwise. Or they might be convinced by you.

Case: You’re almost positive someone is town/scum. You’re more than 90/80% sure your read is accurate. Obviously, you want to draw the town’s attention to that person, as in a Personal Investigation. But this goes beyond stating and explaining your opinion. Here,

you are

not

just stating your opinion, or necessarily explaining said opinion

, though an explanation could be part of your case. No, rather,

you are trying to convince the rest of the town that your opinion is correct

. This goes beyond stating why you think they’re town/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. You want your target to live/be lynched, and you want everyone to follow you. That said, however, you should remain open to input—you might have overlooked something which makes your case invalid. If you no longer believe your case, you need to say as much to prevent confusion should you no longer be available to clarify.
Cases are stereotypically known to be longer. However, as PIs can be any length, so too can a case. Cases tend to be long, simply due to the effort put in to convincing the town of your target’s alignment.

-Give examples. This one’s easy.

Questions are a form of Personal Investigation. Iso-reads and metagaming are both forms of Personal Investigation. A Personal Investigation is meant to get a stronger read on a player, while simultaneously giving your current opinion on them. Therefore, stating “I think X is scum” counts as a Personal Investigation. Why? Because—even if you don’t give a single reason—you’re looking for the town’s opinion on your statement, to clarify your read. “I think X is scum, because Y—who flipped scum—defended him.” Is borderline. It could be a case, but it depends on how you handle it. If it is a PI, you’ll probably not elaborate. If it’s a case, you’ll want to explain why Y (who flipped scum) defending X makes X scum. Note that this is just a general guideline.

A case is, well, a case. We’ve all seen them in Mafia games. “X is scum. He lurked day one, when we most needed activity. He hammered day two, well before the deadline, when we were still in pro-town discussion. He role-fished the NK last night, which screams to me that he found something in the response and followed through. Furthermore, Z was NK’d on night one, and Z thought that X was suspicious, so X had motivation to off Z. Not to mention, X has dodged my questions *examples as proof*, and has given scumslips: *examples of what the player making the post thinks are slips*.”

That is a case.

You can see the difference. PIs are statements of your opinion. Even a one-liner can be a PI, even a question has a statement. If you ask, “Why did you do X?”, chances are, you find something to be questionable, and that itself is a statement. While explanations can be part of a PI, they are not required.
PIs ask for others to look, and give their opinions, to strengthen or weaken your current read.

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. 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.

There. I think that’s about it.
Step five is applying the knowledge learned, and that’s what my Guide is meant to do. To allow people to know what to do, I suppose. Now that I’ve gone through the process, I can better show how to apply the knowledge of PIs and Cases.

So, with all of this in mind, I have decided to re-write the guide, using everything I have accumulated with this feedback. Thanks, guys.
(Will post the revised guide above if it fits in a single post, below if I need to break it into chunks.)

[Mastin]

Breakdown required.

---

Revised Guide To Playing

:

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.

---

First Tip

:

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

^

1

. 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…)

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.

“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?

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.

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.

“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:

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.

“You’re generalizing too much, Mastin!”

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.

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 sequel, Stars Aligned II. (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, and it can be found here.

---

Footnote 1

: 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.

[Mastin]

Part 2

,

of

hopefully only 3:

5

:

Second Tip

:

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?

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…

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… )—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.

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.)

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:

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?

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.

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.

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.

-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.

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. )

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.

[Mastin]

Nope, need a fourth.

Part 3

:

---

Third Tip

:

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?

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?

My initial definition of “Case” was quite simple: “Whenever you try to convince someone else that

your

opinion 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,

you are trying to convince the rest of the town that your opinion is correct

. 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. ) For that, you need others. You want people to follow you.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.
If you no longer believe your case, you need to say as much to prevent confusion should you no longer be available to clarify.

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

^

2

.

“But what can we do?!?”

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.

But if you can’t admit that point is no longer valid, what do you do?

Well, I have a theory on that. It sounds a lot worse than it really is: quite frankly…ignore it

^

4

. “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.

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.)

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.

[Mastin]

...Or a fifth.

Part Four

:

---

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. ), 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.

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

^

3

. 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.

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.

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.

Basically, this could’ve been summed up with two words: Don’t Wall. (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.

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.

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!” 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.

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.

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.

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.

---

[Mastin]

Sorry for the spam, but I hate that limit, too.

Final Part

:

(

Part Five)

---

Footnote 2

: 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.)
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.

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.

Footnote 3

: There obviously are exceptions to this, 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.

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.

Footnote 4

: 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.

---

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.

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!

[Guderian]

You needed to be commended on the dedication and love of the game of mafia you put into all of these posts. Truly, its amazing.

[Kublai Khan]

tl;dr

[Mastin]

You needed to be commended on the dedication and love of the game of mafia you put into all of these posts. Truly, its amazing.

Thanks.
I see it as a bit of an obligation to try and contribute everything I can to the site, considering the impact it's had on my life.

'Course, all I can do is post 1: my beliefs, and 2: my observations, with positive/negative feedback on what I see, and how to improve on it. Doesn't really mean much if nobody pays attention.

(Khan's right: I make things too long. But if this article were perfect, I'd make it a Wiki page. It's not, I post it here for feedback, and have just done a second-draft. The Final Draft is what the Wiki page will be. One of the things I hope to do is make the article shorter.)

Edit:

I've made a few upgrades. I improved the format, and linked to four of the five parts in the first post, also spoilering my first (and now outdated) draft of this Guide. Why not all five?
'Cause apparently, my first post is really right at the limit. It accepted the first four, but when I tried to add the fifth, it cried in protest of it being too long.

[RobCapone]

tl;dr

[Mastin]

You know, there's a difference between saying something and actually doing it.
If it's too long, then advice on how to make it shorter is appreciated. Really, I've done as much work on the Guide as I can, without help; at this stage, I need people to help me cut out what I don't need, to make it a more readable length.

[RobCapone]

ok I just read this and sadly this isn't how to scumhunt, this is how to play mafia as a town player.

your advice is what a person should be doing when they are town, it doesn't give anyone any insight on how to actually scum hunt.

To scum hunt you have to use your experiences on what scum does and doesn't do and once you have found something, than you do all of the things you have outlined.

don't get me wrong, this information is great, but it isn't teaching somebody how to scum hunt. (in my opinion anyway)

[Mastin]

Nah, you're right. Thanks. I used "Guide to Scumhunting" because I couldn't think of a better name for it. In both drafts, I address how that's not the best name, but it's the only one I could think of. I suppose I'll rename it, though.
However, while it was written with a town perspective, I'd also encourage scum to follow suit to make a smoother game, therefore making it what to do when more than just town.

Edit:

Err...that is, if I could edit it. >_<
It's not working. :/