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You can ignore the version in this post, because it's out-of-date.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.)
-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 to vote, but there are plenty of reasons you 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.
-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 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.
-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 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.
(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
should
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
*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
*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.