Readlists - Opinions and Formats

[Ircher]

The diff between null & neutral in my readlist is null indicates an absense of a read (practically only D1). Neutral is more a mixed read on the slot. That's my definition... Though maybe I should clarify that as it seems to confuse a lot of people.... I consider an absence of a read to be 100% in the middle (that's why its yellow) as it can go either way whereas a neutral/mixed read is slightly on the scummier side cuz I'm saying they've done both town and scum stuff. Hence why its lower and yellow-orange.

The very top tier is reserved for people who truly are confirmed --> even if I'm scum, I'd never admit it, and if I'm town, then I'm confirmed from my POV. So, I'm always at the top. The only other way up there is by being a confirmed PR. Obv. though, I am only confirmed from my POV, so that's why I add in the disclaimer in parenthesis.

[RadiantCowbells]

Zulfy

[OceanWind]

I always have a readslist at any point in the game. I may not post it in the game thread but I'd either have it in notepad or be sending the mod a PM with a list of my reads. It really depends on your style of scumhunting. If you are the kind who find something "scummy" and go after it like a dog with a bone, you can probably make do without readslists. But if you are like me and need to have a few townreads and POE to assist you in zoning in on the mafia as the leftover players i.e. non-townreads, it's near impossible to scumhunt effectively without having a readslist somewhere, whether in thread, in your notes, in a PM to the mod, or in your head.

I prefer it if people post readslists because it does show them committing to positions on all players in the game. Ideally, they include lots of detailed reasons. If that doesn't work, I'd prefer a short one-liner at least for each read. But there's a huge difference between the two. If all you have to say for your reads is "gut" or "I think they are town but they could be scum because I was looking for something that they do as this alignment and they haven't done it yet" or "I want them to be town but I don't know," that's just stupid. I don't care about how you feel about your reads if your reads are empty. What I want to see is 1. Point out specific posts. 2. Explain why they are townish or scummy. 3. Back it up. While reading games, I've found readslists that are opaque and unhelpful and others that are fairly useful.

If you can't do even one-liner reads-list, at a bare minimum, a naked reads list is annoying and insufficient but better than no reads list at all. So, Ranger's lists might be weird but they're better than nothing. I'm a strong proponent of providing reasons for reads. I don't understand why some players don't post reasons for their reads. (I saw Plotinus's earlier post in thread but I'm not talking about them. In fact, I've seen them post immensely long walls full of reasoning when needed.) I'm talking about people who are just lazy and use "gut" or "because they're scum" as reasons to vote people.

[Firebringer]

that's just stupid. I don't care about how you feel about your reads if your reads are empty.

If they are empty probe into why you think they have empty reads. Are they lazy town? Is that their playstyle is it indicate they want to be open to possibilities later so don't want to backtrack anything.

A reads list no matter how detailed is noteworthy. Its content no matter what. Even if its just X is town everyone else is null or X is scum everyone else I don't know.

[OceanWind]

By empty, what I mean is reads like the ones I linked above. I'll quote the first read in that wall:

zito - this is a hard read to explain. except that I feel like we are naturally falling into step which is a really good sign and nothing he has done has made me jumpy and I like where his head is at. strong townread.

This are the types of reads I see time and again which don't actually convey anything. Take the above quote: "It's a hard read to explain?" What's the point of saying this? It's meaningless filler. "Nothing he has done made me feel jumpy?" That basically means "he didn't do anything scummy." That's a tautology and doesn't actually say anything. A player is town because he doesn't look scummy? Duh. "I like where his head is at?" What does that even mean? Does the poster agree with his reads? If so, which ones? I could go on and on for the rest of the readslist.

What would have helped here is some amount of detail. This player said this and that and they are scummy or town for these reasons and so on.

[Accountant]

I've been experimenting with percentage based readlists. They look like this.

Scum Leans

John Smith (70%)

John Smith is mafia because reasons. Also his name sucks. More reasons. On the other hand I have to give him credit for his astute point about Jane Doe's post #456. Therefore he is a scum lean to me.

-

Actually, they're my favorite type of read list, since they're the most specific and detailed, but I got lynched for them in my first game so I stopped using them for a while. I hope people start using these types of lists again.

[Aneninen]

Others' readlists are always good to read. As town, I can see the logic (or the

lack

of logic) behind them, although this can be diminished by the playstyle of the poster. Eg wall-lists are definitely harder to read or some players just throw in a readlist without little-to-no reasoning. As scum, those help me to see how dangerous a certain townie is. This, on the other hand, is weakened by the fact that some players change their readlists very quickly.

As for

my own

readlist, it's a useful tool for me. In most cases I post my readlists as

self-reminders

: at a certain point of the game my thoughts were those. They're just like checkpoints. And they get their full use at LyLo or close to LyLo: I can check my

previous

thoughts and reasoning with the knowledge of all the later flips.

[Ranger]

My style of reads has already been discussed by others. I use it because it is efficient and does not assign arbitrary labels to positions that are largely fluid: my top-tier list can sometimes be "these players I will never, ever, EVER lynch", yet other times, my top-tier can be "barely above null". I can have as few as two or three tiers, or as many as the playerlist.

Listing's valid as scumhunting for the reasons mentioned already: I don't have to waste effort on something unnecessarily detailed if people have no questions, and if they do, they simply engage me. Changes in the list provide content. I've personally taken so many people adapting my style as a sign I did something right when I created it, so I'll continue to use it as long as it serves me well.

As for other ways: I don't mind reading walls (though I'll most likely skim for the important meaty details), but I use the maftigers skin and most colors hurt my eyes, so I'm not fond of colored lists.

[kuribo]

Best format is the Kurmometer:

[Ircher]

@Kuribo - Just.... no....

[kuribo]

i admit it's a little bland but it gets better later in the game:

[hiplop]

i was so close to being a cool guy

[Dwlee99]

0/10 I'm not on the readslist.

[Psyche]

...good times

[Cheery Dog]

0/10 I'm not on the readslist.

Then go get in the graveyard!

[Killthestory]

I don't explain my reads. My reads are formulated throughout the thread. I only use reads list, formatted as
{Top town}
{Null}
{Scum}
To organize myself and let others see where I stand. Anything else is just for town freelo.

[GuyInFreezer]

I copy the playerlist and

random.org them

tierlist them with "-------------------". My tiers are different time to time. For an example, zmuffinman is always in every one of my tier list because that's where he truly belongs.

[Kagami]

No, zmm belongs in top town until he's alive on Day 3.

[Sakura Hana]

I think reads lists are more relevant to playstyle, i hate doing readlists in general because my reads change all the time.

[Zulfy]

Zulfy

Hmm?