Mastin's Guide to Playing Well

Type: Play Views Author: Mastin

History

Original Publication: February 17, 2011 by Mastin

This guide was created on December 29th, 2010, in this thread by Mastin. It was later revised, on January 4th, 2011, starting here.

Last Revised: March 16, 2017 by Mastina

Introduction

These tips are meant to mostly be general, as a more universal guide, rather than game-by-game. My intention: improve your overall play, making 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 more capable of forming a solid opinion, build a stronger investigation, better make cases, and generally, wall less often, learning to say more with less. While all considered pro-town, these have use regardless of alignment.

First Tip

In the current meta, most people don’t have a problem with people not voting at all. Theoretically, you can go the whole game without voting and get away with it. Similarly, unvoting without revoting. Don’t! This shouldn’t be you. There’s almost never an acceptable reason to waste your vote in Not Voting, and here’s why.

The classical Vanilla Townie Role PM states that they only have two weapons at their disposal: their voice, that being, an ability to discuss things during the day and say what they believe…and their vote. With those as your only assets, if you choose not to cast a vote, you choose to waste one of only two given universal weapons at your disposal.

Votes are some of the strongest pieces of information available to the town. As the old expression goes, “A vote’s worth a thousand words”. No tool greater serves you in achieving an elimination; if nobody voted, there’d be no elimination. It is for good reason people do Vote Count Analysis; votes serve as the best indicators of people’s opinions. (More on those later.)

Vote count analysis has caught scum more consistently than any other technique I’ve witnessed. 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.

“But…I’m not sure of my reads!”

Sure! 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. You should still be voting. Why?

If there is so much as a single player who has >random chances of being scum in your mind, you should be voting them. 21% when scum make up 20%? Vote them. POE from townhunting eliminates names from the possible scum pool? Those left are >random chances of being scum; vote literally any of them.

For example, if you’re town in a 10:3 Mini Game, then each player you have to read has a 25% chance of being mafia. Get three solid townreads, and now each player left is 33% likely, already an 8% improvement over random. Every additional player you can name as town bumps the odds of catching mafia in those you cannot up higher than that established base percentage.

“What if it’s too early?”

There’s never a time too early to make a call like that. People form opinions even in the RVS and RQS off of the content provided. I honestly believe in every playerslot’s first two to three posts, you have enough to theoretically determine all the scum in the game. Plus, it’s not like you’re locked into a vote/read forever--you can always change it at any time should you choose to. It doesn’t matter if you’re wrong. You can often gain more from being wrong than right, even! Simply put, there is no excuse not to vote.

“You’re generalizing!”

Sure! There will always be exceptions, and if I tried, I’d never be able to list them all. Generally, I still recommend using your vote barring these special circumstances. Some of the more common acceptable times to not cast a vote are included in here for convenience.

Theme Game Mechanics

If there’s a special mechanic attached to voting, caution in casting one vote is justified. An example of this done well were the various insanities in the Stars Aligned series of games, which featured multiple various mechanics restricting votes, e.g. being unable to vote the same player more than once.

Another moderator who is notorious for vote manipulation mechanics is Varsoon, where at times it could feasibly take as little as two votes with twenty alive for a player to be eliminated. In such instances, being cautious and aware of what could happen is always advisable.

An elimination is close

Whenever the player you wish to vote (or are voting) is close to an elimination, it can sometimes be prudent to avoid having/keeping a vote on there, as to prevent an elimination from occurring before you are ready for the day to end.

The game could end

If you are in ELo, or even MeLo, it goes without saying that you have every right to hold back on voting.

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.

Footnote

The reliability of Vote Count Analysis may be debatable, however, I will say that—in my personal experience—it has been the technique which has served me most faithfully. Obviously, it doesn’t always work. Yet in spite of that, for me it is a given that it works more often than it does not.

Second Tip

You’re voting? Good. Now what? Further your contribution to the town, of course! How? Simple: you strengthen your read. You almost certainly aren’t immediately convinced someone is 100% scum (which is good!). Far more likely is a weak—at best—read. This step is perhaps one of the largest parts of scum hunting. It’s what I have deemed the Personal Investigation.

Personal Investigation Defined

A Personal Investigation is any investigation conducted by you, the person, the player. Everyone does it in some form, even the scum. (They want to find who to kill and who they can eliminate, which they accomplish by analyzing the information they have available. This is not too dissimilar to what a town player will do.)

To go into what that definition actually means, it is loosely this:

You think someone is scum, or alternatively, have formed an opinion someone is town. Regardless, you deem it important enough to mention in-thread. Let’s assume your read is not significantly stronger than random. You want to draw attention to them. You vote them (scumread), or vote with them (townread), and express 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…anything, to make your statement on the subject. If asking “Why did you do that, X?”, it tells people you find X worthy of scrutiny.

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.)

These Personal Investigations can be of any length, from one-liner to massive wall of text, but in general, they’re reasonably short and to the point, commonly conveying a single thought. Interestingly enough, building off my first tip, a vote can be a Personal Investigation. So is doing an isolation read. 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.

These Personal Investigations serve to focus attention onto a player and cause others to (re-)evaluate them with your feedback in mind. When you do, you’re mainly looking for their reactions to what you have given. From their opinions, you will receive additional information. And that’s where your read will either be strengthened, or weakened.

With a more solid opinion formed, you have a better foothold on the game, in a position where you hopefully have something strong enough where you can push. If not, continue cycling through new Personal Investigations until you do. (A personal investigation is testing the hypothesis formed from your opinion, so it can and will be shown wrong just as often as right.) At that time, you can switch gears. While a Personal Investigation can convince others, its purpose is instead to force others to contribute, so the next step is in getting people to follow you. This will be defined in the third tip.

Using This Concept

Know The Doubt Zone

You know it. The zone where you have a read but lack confidence in it. This is where the Personal Investigation is done. If you’re past this stage, then it’s no longer necessary to ask those questions, do that meta research, and gather information to analyze. Instead, your focus will be on presenting your findings.

Avoid Making Cases

Cases are what you do after the Personal Investigation. A case which you do not believe in fully is a disaster waiting to unwind. If YOU’RE not convinced in your read, how is somebody else supposed to be? And trust me, it shows. In the best-case scenario, you’re thought of as doubtful town, who is trying to convince themselves that their read is not wrong. In other words, you look like you’re suffering from confirmation bias, tunnel visioning your target. In the worst-case scenario, you’re thought of as scum, trying to justify a vote on someone you know is town. Neither is desirable.

Instead, when doubtful, stick to Personal Investigations. Certain formats of Personal Investigations resemble cases, but the difference between the two is that a Personal Investigation is meant to figure something out; a case is meant to convince others you have figured something out. A case is for after a conclusion is reached; A Personal Investigation is done prior to the conclusion.

Take your time

No need to rush if you don’t need to. However long it takes to get through your Personal Investigations is however long it takes. All in the name of getting a stronger read. If you accomplish that, it’s worth the wait. Strong reads don’t magically appear; it’s something which happens on its own, naturally.

Third Tip

So you’ve formed a solid opinion. As sure as you’re going to get in your read. Now you just have to do something with that read. You’re convinced you’re right…so the next step is in convincing others that you are right. Therein enters creating a case. We all have our own ideas of what that means. Here’s mine.

Definition of Case

A succinct summary would be “an attempt to convince others that your stance, above all others, is correct”, and therefore, something to follow. Inherent in that definition is a need to believe what you are saying to be true. A case tends to work best by being focused on a specific set of players you want to draw attention to. While this is similar to a Personal Investigation the goal (and therefore intention) is different.

The attitude behind a case is, “I’m right, and here’s why!” Unlike Personal Investigations, no case works well without an explanation. 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 the conclusion of your work. (Normally, why you believe a player is scum.) Instead of just your opinion, you’re showing the fruits of your labor: all the questions, research, and investigation you have done, laid out for everyone to see, in an effort to convince them you know what you’re talking about.

Persuasion is what a case is about. It's the artform of selling your narrative to your target audience, stringing them along to show what you want them to see, so as to have them act as you wish them to.

Gaining Followers

A good case is no mere statement of opinion; a good case demands others follow your lead, which requires sufficient explanation of your stance. You’re asking for others to agree with you, or at the very least demand to know why they disagree with you. As a result, 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 figure out a way for it making sense to everyone else.

Also essential is presentation. One key aspect of most good cases is that they will recognize alternative viewpoints, and then explain why these perspectives should be doubted, in favor of your own. This is a nifty trick which helps demonstrate you lack confirmation bias, and are willing to change your stance.

In fact, you probably will be doing so. The process of Personal Investigations to cases is not a one-time deal; it is a continuous loop, where you cycle through them one after another. Still, for as long as you hold your read to strongly be true, you will want others to sheep your read, and your case needs to acknowledge this; be firm in that you do want what you’re doing to be taken seriously.

While you want to acknowledge the alternative possibilities and you want to spend some time letting your intentions be known, to write the best case, you need to maintain focus, and not lose sight of your objective. You’re trying to eliminate someone, or stop someone from being eliminated. Make sure what you are writing actually puts forward the proof necessary to further this goal.

On that note, the best cases are often not incredibly long walls. They’re actually relatively short. Keep things succinct and as to the point as possible. You’re presenting the absolute best, strongest points for why you hold your belief, and this requires you not include every possible detail which could be meaningful. Use only what was really convincing to you.

Your case will, if written well, draw opinions. You may still end up talking yourself out of your read after making the case, but this is no reason to fear making the case in the first place. Your read will strengthen, or your read will weaken. It will happen, especially after feedback. So write it without fear of what will happen later if you’re wrong, and especially without fear of people saying you’re wrong. (The whole idea of the case is to prove you're not!)

So while your case may not be absolute, it still will be firm. Always be open to input, but always be willing to stick to your guns. That is how you will get others to listen to your words. On a related note, whenever you no longer believe in a case you have written, make it abundantly clear this is the case and specify exactly where you stand; leave no room for ambiguity or confusion on your stance. Full reversal, half reversal, down to null, weakened read but still existing, whatever. Doing so will help maintain the integrity of your future cases, such that they are always held at the appropriate level of value for the case given.

Filter Carefully!

I cannot stress enough the need for this. Don’t put forward points that aren’t absolutely true; if you do, then your entire push will be easily strawmanned: if we see “Alright, I was wrong about that specific point, but the rest of the case still stands!”, no matter how true that statement may be (and often it is quite true!), it’s too late. Your audience saw your flawed point, and so will now ignore your valid points. It leaves you in the position where either you have to admit you were wrong on something (giving the illusion of doubt), or where your continued defense of a bad point is…well, bad.

Should you mistakenly make a flawed point, you are not defenseless against an accusation, however. It is still possible to push your case while acknowledging an imperfection. One of my tactics is to ignore the bad point (flat-out not acknowledge you made it), and instead continue to press the other points, which are still valid, yet got written off. I only ignore these within reason, though.

What I need to emphasize here above all else is that—especially in a longer case—a single invalidated point isn't important to the overall picture presented. You do not want to fall into the trap of responding to what you think is wrong in your case. Instead, you want to continue pressing what you think is right. So if someone points out one flawed part of your case and ignores the rest, repost the case without the flawed part and demand they address it by pointing out (rather justifiably) they have not.

(That said, please take 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.)

This strategy won’t always work. Sometimes, it’s impossible to ignore your invalid point, and you’ll be forced to address it. But you can still use this time to explain why you have done so, why you are pushing the points which weren’t invalidated, and why they are more important than the single point which was. In other words, at all times, you want to be the one in control of how your case is handled. Not the players who could be scum. And with that focus, they’re more likely to understand your decision to not address the point which was wrong.

Followers/Weaknesses Footnotes

Footnotes cover the theory of the "doubt illusion" and "ignore it".

• Exploring Doubt

I believe that, on some subconscious level, 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. 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. In a sense, this is a variation of the 7for7 fallacy, in that if we see one wrong point, we think all the points are wrong.

Emphasis also plays a part; we tend to see what sticks out as unusual with great ease. If nine points are maintaining a stance and one point is admitting a stance is wrong, which sticks out? Even if not on a conscious level, the answer is obvious. It’s different, in some way, and we know it. And because we notice it more, we think of it more. It sticks with us longer, especially if we’re skimming. So immediately, the words “I was wrong” will stick out, whereas the words, “no, you’re wrong!” won’t.

• Exploring Admitting You're Wrong

In an ideal world, you should be able to publicly accept you’re wrong. It happens to everyone. By probability alone, you’re more likely wrong than correct. Everyone SHOULD know this, and that even pro-town players will be wrong every once and a while. (Burden of Proficiency is a fallacy.) And you definitely SHOULD do it mentally. Yet it runs against the human brain’s wiring to think this way.

Back To Cases…

Let’s deal with responding to them!

There is something 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 keep the bigger picture in mind. One or two people disagree (especially an elimination target of a case)—that’s a given. Your job isn’t to convince them. Your job isn’t to convince the whole town. Your job is to convince the necessary number of town players. So if you have a few vocal opponents, you shouldn’t focus on them, as much as you do the rest of the players.

Don’t get into a lengthy debate with your opposition, especially if it’s your elimination 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, generating much noise, leads to players skipping the argument, and often assuming "town versus town".

It clutters the thread, and when both you and them are so strongly defending your stances, most likely doing so is a waste of time in terms of convincing them. It will alienate the rest of the town not involved in the debate, effectively killing your case and nullifying whatever use it would have had.

Limit Your Length!

The only time to continue a debate like the above is when you really do need the extra allies: too many players are stating they agree with the opposition’s viewpoint. At that point, it would be best to resume the engagement and point out the flawed defense your case came up against, but it should ONLY be at this point where your case would otherwise fail.

Let everyone read your original argument. 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, 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 sea of text, which everyone skips. You don’t want the town to be lost if you’re still convinced your points hold true. You want them to be able to follow along with your train of thought; you want them to see the evidence for themselves—the last thing you want is for it to become inseparable from a wall war after it. It will kill your credibility.

In short: Don’t Wallpost. One or two is okay; an initial case comprised of a wall won’t do too much to diminish readability. After that, cut it short. Even I skip them when they get too numerous. That says something!

Footnotes

There obviously are exceptions to the case I used (where the people debating have 0% chance of convincing the other), but in my personal experience, they are few and far 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.

• Effectively, TextWall Overdoses are perhaps one of the worst game-killers out there. I can collect a series of quotes from hundreds of people who'd agree, and yet, EVERYONE does them from time to time. Why? Because they don't know how NOT to. They try, but they fall into a wall eventually.

Avoid Repetition

Repetition can, if used appropriately, be useful for emphasis and to reinforce a point. If used intentionally, it can create a narrative, often an entertaining one and almost always a powerful argument. The unity of repetition is a good tool. However, the key phrase there is "if used intentionally", and most repetition is not done intentionally.

As much as possible, avoid accidental redundancy in words. If you’re like me, chances are this will be difficult to do. However, it is still possible to take some basic precautions. Clarity and conciseness in the original case can greatly help diminish the odds of repetition, but the real trick is whenever you respond to something, not to keep saying the same thing using slightly different wording unless you are specifically asked to do so. (E.g. they want you to reword the point so they can better understand it.)

It is generally recommended to avoid repetition mainly because repetition will lead to many negative connotations: it will lead people to assume you have far fewer valid points than you do, because you keep on repeating the same ones. It will lead people to think you are using the logic of “if you say it enough times, it must be true!” even though you (presumably) are not. It also tires people out, exhausting them.

If it is absolutely necessary to repeat something, try to add to what you said: flesh it out more and make it not just a rehash of what you said before. It might not always be possible to spontaneously bring new points up (especially if you were already rather thorough), but it doesn't take much to put your point in a new light, without it being repetitive. New perspective, with an expanded idea.

If someone says something you defended against earlier, you can quote the defense and say it still applies. The burden then rests on them to show why it doesn’t, not on you. You should in fact quote the defense (or maybe link to the post if the post it is in is short enough); telling them to go look it up will rarely have them do so. But you don’t need to (and shouldn’t) retype what you already have. It’s a waste of time and effort. When they inevitably come back with questions on the point, THEN you address them.

Conciseness is pro-town. If you can achieve it in your cases, you will go far.

Wrap-Up

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 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! :P