Alignment Discovery

[Albert B. Rampage]

Introduction
I. Intent
II. Strategy
III. Objectives
IV. Behavior

Introduction

A player's alignment is inferred by his intent; his intent is inferred by the overarching strategies he seemingly employs. The latter is concluded from the objectives he seemingly pursues; which at last, are inferred by his behaviors. The only directly observable evidence is behavior.

Like peeling the layers of an onion, scumhunters will read several levels beyond a post to assess another player's win condition.

Let's break it down with these questions:

Intent

: How does he technically win? Is he trying to win?

Strategy

: How does his posting trend fit in with the objectives you think he's after?

Objective

: What short-term goals is he pursuing with his posts?

Behavior

: What is he posting and how is he doing it?

I. Intent

The core of alignment discovery lies in intent. Intent can be described as which faction a player intends to eliminate - if any at all. Scumhunters must ask themselves if a player is trying to win, or has he given up? Does he care about his win condition, or is he actively working against it? Depending on player morale, intention may vary wildly. Everything a player does starts with his intent.

II. Strategy

I define strategy as a plan or a series of plans that a player puts in action to achieve what he desires. Players can carry out multiple plans at once, abort a plan that becomes too risky, or lock themselves into a plan for the rest of the game; the latter is often achieved by claiming or using tunnelvision. Some players have a favorite strategy; what we call metagame. Others model strategies they witness in a different game, or mix up their play with creative new plans to achieve their objectives. In a nutshell, a strategy is a road map to reach an objective -or a series of objectives- a player thinks will get him closer to his win conditiion.

Let's examine the components of a plan:

Outcome-driven

A plan has specific, measurable objectives, can fail or succeed, and must be achieved within a frame of time. Building a case isn't a plan, but convincing players to join a bandwagon can be.

Time-sensitive

Plans are temporary. Some newbes think that claiming locks them into a plan for the rest of the game. They've never seen players unclaim, admit to lying or take back what they said. They would be surprised at what's out there.

The length of a plan varies. A player could begin a plan and abort it immedaitely upon uncovering new evidence, or tirelessly work on the same plan for the whole day, or even the entire game. A player's experience and character determines how far he can plan ahead, how quickly he switches gears, how determined he is to see a plan through to its end.

Many newbes think that longer plans are safer, but disregard how a series of short plans can appeal positively to a wider range of players, or how it can be harder to read due to the constant change.

Players must assess the profile of a player. At what skill level is he? Does he pride himself on being patient and deliberate, or wild and unpredictable?

Risky

A plan, by definition, must be achievable in the mind of the one enacting it. Plans will always have an element of risk, which can be mitigated using different techniques that will be explored in the behaviors section.

A reckless player will make high-risk, high-reward types of plays. Conservative players will take half measures to test the waters. They will wait for more information before making a decision, and ask more questions than they make statements.

The cost-benefit ratio of a plan is assessed on an ongoing basis as the game progresses. Experienced players have an easier time recognizing windows of opportunity, where the reward outweighs the risk, and choose to make their plays at that time.

Energy-consuming

Plans have different energy requirements. Some plays require a lot of reflection, coordination, mitigation, math and foresight. It doesn't take much effort to sheep, to appeal to emotion, to go off on random tangents, to spam or rehash the same posts, to honestly claim, to policy lynch or tunnelvision, or finally, to vote based on anti-town behaviors.

Better, more invested players, can enact bigger, more powerful plans, that can make the game's momentum swing dangerously in one direction or another. That's not to say that simple plans can't be as effective, just that they may be easier to see through, since they are more straightforward and obvious.

Quality Variance

The quality of a plan is defined as the amalgation of good timing, deniability, opaqueness, certainty in correctly reading other players and predicting how they will react, having contingency plans for risk factors and covering your bases with well prepared explanations for behaviors. A great player capitalizes on the vulnerabilities of the obstacles to his win condition with subtle, careful and high quality plans.

III. Objectives

Players will uncover their peers' strategies by making educated guesses about the objectives driving explicit behaviors. Objectives are selected or dropped as players evaluate the risk, quality, energy and time parameters of the plans it would take to achieve them.

Scum teams may pursue different objectives due to a lack of coordination, or by deliberately hedging their bets.

Making a grab for one objective may undermine another.

Below is a compilation of non-exclusive list of objectives to illustrate:

Town

Wincon

:

Kill

every

scum

.

Town Objectives

-Kill the most dangerous scum
-Safeguard the identity, role and life of your town's PR(s)
-Protect players you think are town
-Encourage pro-town behavior
-Ensure a favorable environment for town
-Avoid attracting bandwagons
-Convince the town of your reads
-Get compliance from another player
-Survive
-Pick up on valuable information

Scum Wincon: Kill every town.
Scum Objectives

-Survive your bandwagon
-Protect your scumbuddy
-Out PR(s)
-Kill PR(s)
-Frame town
-Force townies into making exploitable mistakes
-Ensure a favorable environment for scum
-Set up future lynches
-Convince a town player that you're town
-Get compliance from a town player
-Manage your scumbuddies effectively

In addition to these goals, there are a number of personal motivations that may exist, most common among them settling a grudge with someone.

IV. Behavior

Behaviors are what is written and how it is written. In essence, it's directly observable, irrefutable evidence.

Below is a non-exclusive list of behaviors by category:

Lazy behaviors

-Lurk
-Appeal to emotion
-Appeal to authority
-Sheep
-Park vote
-Tunnelvision
-Speculate on setup
-Prod dodge

Anti-town behaviors

-Ad hominem
-Lurk
-Prod dodge
-Lie about your role
-Softclaim
-Claim too early
-Hammer before a claim (excluding under imminent deadline)

Pro-town behaviors

-Dispel myths and misunderstandings
-Make sure everyone is on the same page
-Write catch-up posts for replacing players
-Warn the town when a player is at L-1
-Write quality cases
-Deter unproductive personal conflicts
-Early aggression

Invested in the game behaviors

-React emotionally
-Wallpost
-Post frequently

Illogical behaviors

-Contradict yourself
-Random votes after RVS

[mastin2]

<3 ABR

There's a reason I consider you to be my first true IC.

Small details, though:

Town Objectives
-Survive

While, certainly, there is value in a town player surviving, and--certainly--there can be value in a scum player dieing, in general, I consider surviving far, FAR more of a scum objective than a town one, especially in current site meta, where many scum play more survivalistic short-term games and don't keep their endgame in mind, and a lot of town players are willing to recognize that, occasionally, they need to take one for the team. Which makes sense, because town has more numbers than scum do.

In other words: town are more willing to die than scum are. Relatedly,

Scum Objectives
-Protect your scumbuddy

While this is, in theory, a scum objective, a LOT of scum these days have forgotten about it. (I keep advocating for them to remember it, so if I have my way, this horribly anti-scum tendency will be removed from games within a year or two.) Bussing's overabundance in current site meta is proof enough. It's more shocking to see a player not bus than it is to see a bus; it's expected for a player to have bussed at least once in the game.

Anti-town behaviors
-Lurk
-Softclaim

I agree that both of these are generally anti-town, but should be noted that you need to differentiate between "lurking" and "not spamposting". It's a distinction you'd

think

we don't need, buuuuuuut, if you read most games these days, apparently, it's a distinction which

does

need to be made. There is value as town to not posting at every single possible moment and waiting for a payoff, which technically can be called "lurking". It's not really lurking, nor should it be called lurking, but because it is occasionally called that, it's something you need to differentiate between.

As for softclaims, softclaiming itself is anti-town, but often-times, there can be a huge payoff to specific breadcrumbs. Yeah, scum are more likely to find them than town if you do them wrong, but if you do them right, then good breadcrumbing can make the difference between a town landslide and a scum landslide. In general, though, you're right. I discourage breadcrumbing, because while doing it right can make the difference between a town win and scum win, doing it wrong (which most people will) ensures it's the opposite of your intended outcome.

Pro-town behaviors
-Dispel myths and misunderstandings
-Write quality cases
-Early aggression

Just notes from this point on, but I would like to point out: there's a difference between dispelling myths and misunderstandings, and "completely dismantling" things. Dispelling myths and misunderstandings is a pro-town behavior. Completely dismantling something is, far more often than not, a scum behavior. As town, I can address a misunderstanding and direct attention. As scum, I can shut down said misunderstanding, demoralizing the player, and make myself look better as a result.

As for quality cases: length != quality. Quality = quality. The best cases are succinct and don't take long to explain and demonstrate. Cases that are a sentence or two or three generally resonate far better with people than a long wallpost will.

And early-aggression: while true, note that there's a difference between being aggressive and being antagonistic. Being aggressive is pro-town, and something you have as an alignment. So when people respond to your aggression, they're going to do so with their alignment. Being antagonistic is anti-town, because it's something that causes people to react as people, not players. And people have no alignment, and thus, you don't get good info.

Invested in the game behaviors
-Wallpost
-Post frequently

Should be noted that these are also largely player-dependent. I can whip out a wall in less than five minutes and be totally outside the game because I am verbose. There are plenty of players who can post frequently without giving a damn, too. But in general, yes, these are players who are invested. But disclaimer: just because they do these things doesn't mean they should. Posting too much or writing too much can make it harder for your voice to be heard, rather than easier. So keep in mind succinctness as you post!

Illogical behaviors
-Contradict yourself

Regardless of alignment, this is going to happen. Town by definition will contradict themselves as their reads evolve. Scum will contradict themselves as well. There is a difference between the two, though, and differentiating between them is a key element in scumhunting. They may seem illogical, but generally, there is some basic fundamental reasoning behind them, and you need to lock onto that.

[JacobSavage]

I come to offer respite from long posts.

Please carry on. (Great post though)

[mastin2]

In the spirit of succinctness, I'll boil my post down:
-Town are more willing to die than scum.
-Scum, in attempts to survive, will bus (needlessly).
-Scum lurk; good town post smartly.
-Direct energy efficiently as town. (Succinctness is pro-town!)
-More posts/words != better usage of energy. BETTER posts = better usage of energy.
-Read intention, not the surface.
-Aggressiveness is not synonymous with antagonizing.
-Avoid softclaims; don't 'crumb (you'll do it wrong).

Or even better:
Towns win by using energy efficiently.
Scum win by making towns not use energy efficiently.

[saulres]

Town are more willing to die than scum.

When the numbers are on their side, sure. But as it gets closer to LyLo, and certainly in LyLo, I don't think that's true.

And I think if they have a good PR it becomes less likely even on the early side.

[Mr. Flay]

saulres is wise. Otherwise, there's good stuff here.

/egosearch

[GuyInFreezer]

While this is, in theory, a scum objective, a LOT of scum these days have forgotten about it. (I keep advocating for them to remember it, so if I have my way, this horribly anti-scum tendency will be removed from games within a year or two.) Bussing's overabundance in current site meta is proof enough. It's more shocking to see a player not bus than it is to see a bus; it's expected for a player to have bussed at least once in the game.

^

[GuyInFreezer]

Town are more willing to die than scum.

When the numbers are on their side, sure. But as it gets closer to LyLo, and certainly in LyLo, I don't think that's true.

And I think if they have a good PR it becomes less likely even on the early side.

Also if a townie doesn't trust the other town's ability to scumhunt
(aka ego)

[Oversoul]

You make reference to "plans" but I rarely ever see more than a few select individuals enact a plan.

Could you clarify what this means? When I think of a plan I think "I will post this way to draw suspicion on myself, voila I am an innocent child!" or the like. I don't think players in general play with a "plan" other than a plan to win.

[Albert B. Rampage]

You make reference to "plans" but I rarely ever see more than a few select individuals enact a plan.

Could you clarify what this means? When I think of a plan I think "I will post this way to draw suspicion on myself, voila I am an innocent child!" or the like. I don't think players in general play with a "plan" other than a plan to win.

There are great examples of plans in this thread.

I'll quote two that I've seen used time and time again:

7. Be as distracting as possible. While people will complain if you make too many wall posts, almost nobody complains if you take up several pages with a silly one-on-one argument that nobody else cares about. This can be done with a buddy or your primary suspect. Use confusing pronouns whenever possible to increase uncertainty, and never let a single point drop. Argue your stance back and forth, getting more obscure each time. If you make reference to an earlier post, state the number but do not give a link. Nobody will admit that they can't follow the argument, they will find it difficult to concentrate both on reading you and pushing their own agenda, and best of all, they can't call you out on anything because you're just a loyal townie doing his best to catch scum.

6. A clueless townie that is hard to lynch is a great asset, particularly if they have a short fuse and lots of posting time. You should always be testing potential wagons, and you'll usually find one guy who nobody wants to lynch. That guy is now your primary suspect. Tunnel on him all day, then when nobody else wants him dead, you settle for a VI townie lynch, then do it all over again next day.

[Ranmaru]

Interesting, I'd like to read this now, but I'm procrastinating with studying for a test and a few essays due tomorrow. D: Mah reads r bad.

[fferyllt]

Town are more willing to die than scum.

When the numbers are on their side, sure. But as it gets closer to LyLo, and certainly in LyLo, I don't think that's true.

And I think if they have a good PR it becomes less likely even on the early side.

win condition + role + longterm objectives --> motivation --> in-thread behaviors

my algorithm.

[Blair]

W + R + O = M
M + P = B

Win Condition = W
Role = R
Objectives = O
Motivation = M
Behaviors = B
Playstyle = P

(A.K.A. Reasons you play the game - some for the challenge, some for the social aspect with friends, etc.)

In other words, I would only slightly tweak yours.

[fferyllt]

I like that addition. A lot.

[Ranmaru]

Introduction
I. Intent
II. Strategy
III. Objectives
IV. Behavior

Let's break it down with these questions:

Intent

: How does he technically win? Is he trying to win? He seems to be trying to win. (Isn't lazy, seems to be agreeing with me)

Strategy

: How does his posting trend fit in with the objectives you think he's after?

Objective

: What short-term goals is he pursuing with his posts?

Behavior

: What is he posting and how is he doing it?

So basically this:
Behavior > Objective > Strategy > Intent > Alignment

Right? Could you give an example of how you would use this on a certain player in a game? (like a road map in actually reading a person) Also, how do the answers to those questions contribute to the conclusion (the actual read). I don't really think I have any thing to base this off of, but if you want me to try I can so you can see what I think when I try to read someone. I also wonder about how much time you wait for information to gather, to read someone. I'm always active (usually) and at times I get distracted and always vote everywhere (especially in the most recent game I played). I'm just wondering if me always attacking all the time may just hamper someone else's game and cause me to go on the wrong path (to misreading someone), while also possibly seeming scummy to them, all in the while I was simply trying to also seem townie as town.