The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Frog wrote:Meh - o just realized majjority of you (certainly not all of you) require basic argumentation.

Spoiler: show

I feel like we have a ton of new players coming into the game but the level of player improvement is very low. It is my hope that this is simply because players don't really know where to start. Answering the question "How do you get better" is a tough one to tackle. For that reason I decided to make a few guides that should provide players with tools to improve their play. This guide will cover communication, perspective, and strategy. Perspective and strategy portions will be posted later. If your idea of scum hunting is learning that 'scum do this' then hunting for that you will never be successful. To really grow as a player you need to understand these 3 factors and analyze things independently for each situation and player. A good portion of this guide is some very basic shit you probably learned in grade school but I am focusing on it because it is the foundation that will determine how effective you could be in the game.

I. Communication

It is absolutely critical to be able to convey information to others in a way that they will understand, accept, and push your win condition forward. It is equally critical to understand exactly what other players are communicating and 'why'. If you are town you will be able to effectively convey your reads, identify scummy posts and prevent them from mislynching you. If you are scum you will be able to mislynch the town, keep them off balance, and prevent slipping. If these are things you want to improve on this section should greatly help.

This portion is focused on communication. There are aspects of scum hunting in it but that is something that will be covered in mcuh more detail as I get into Perspective and Strategy. If you would like to contribute to improve this guide or contribute to the other portions let me know.

Spoiler : 1. Basic parts of an argument : Click to show


A- Claim

The Claim is the point you are trying to make. This is what you are trying to persuade your reader to accept.

B- Warrant
This is the common belief you are using to pivot your audience into accepting your argument. An example would be:
In order to argue that murder is wrong by saying "It is terrible to end a human life" the reader must first value a human life. If they do not value a human life your entire argument will have no impact.

C- Grounds
This is a sub argument to provide value to the warrant. It is also the claim in the new argument. If you know that your warrant is not a common belief you must first attempt to establish the value of that warrant in order to present an argument of any value. An example would be:
In order to argue that abortion is wrong because "A fertilized egg counts as a human life and taking a human life is wrong" the reader must first agree that a fertilized egg counts as a human life.
If this warrant is not accepted the grounds would be an argument to establish that a fertilized egg counts as a human life.

So to summarize you can see the basic argument format and how it chains into sub arguments.

Claim- Pollution is bad
Warrant- It damages the environment
Grounds / Sub argument claim- Damage to the environment hurts your health
--------------Sub argument warrant- Your health is important
--------------Sub argument grounds / Sub argument claim- Worse health means a shorter life
----------------------------------------------Sub argument warrant- A shorter life means less time to do the things you enjoy
----------------------------------------------Sub argument grounds- Blah blah blah

And so on.

Being able to identify these factors allows you to effectively argue. Without recognizing this pattern you will end up having frustrating discussions that get nowhere; and if you have not been using this pattern it’s probably why nobody takes you seriously in day chat. If you find that you are unable to use it when pushing a scum read then chances are that you do not have a real read.
The piratical application of this is that you need to identify common ground with your readers when presenting an argument. When interacting with another players argument you need to force them to establish a claim and a warrant for their point to have value. If they do not you have to either draw out why their argument holds no value, agree to disagree and move away to a new topic that will be productive.

Spoiler : 2. Functions : Click to show



A- Appeals

Logos- Appeal to Logic "Steel is stronger than iron, so for a stronger frame we should use steel"
Pathos- Appeal to Emotion "Your donation of only 5$ a year can save the lives of 20 poor starving children"
Ethos- Appeal to Credibility "As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results."

These are functions that you would use in your warrant and grounds. Any large argument will use multiple of these functions. To be effective stick to Logos as much as possible and use Ethos by explaining exactly why your reasoning is correct. Use logical arguments to show that a player is scum and only appeal to credibility by explaining the scum hunting technique you are using to logically point out that the player could be scum. If you try to argue about how good you are it just turns into a pissing contest.

B- Fallacy's

By learning to recognize these patterns you can find some slips and identify fake arguments. Almost every complex argument will have some level of fallacy in it; this is because at some point in almost every argument there is a logic jump. For that reason do not assume just because an argument contains a bit of fallacy that it is invalid. I will cover a few of the most common ones but to understand them at a greater level I strongly recommend watching This Series. There is 3 times as many outlined in this series.
The value in understanding this as town is that it allows you to recognize players ‘painting’ a target a scummy as opposed to scum hunting. This counters scums ability to act as a power wolf and lead mislynches against the town, as well as provides a potential alignment tells.
The value in understanding this as scum is that it gives you an idea of methods to avoid in order to gain more town cred and avoid slips. It can also provide you with more ways to manipulate players who do not understand these methods.

Straw Man- Setting up a weak version of the opponents argument in order to discredit it
Red Herring- This is when someone draws the argument into a tangent proving that the tangent is correct and insinuating that it either proves their point or draws away from the original point.
False Dichotomy- This is when a player trys to force you into choosing between 1 of 2 choices. Usually with one of them being obviously ridiculous
Slippery Slope- Claiming that A will start a chain reaction leading to B then C then D and D has a dire consequence
Ad Hominem- This is when a player attacks a person in order to discredit their argument as opposed to addressing the argument
Hasty Generalization- This is basically stereotypes.
Fallacy of Accident- This is usually when someone trys to cover a specific situation by citing a general rule when the situation is an exception to the rule
Missing the point- The premises of the argument does not support the conclusion.
Post Hoc- Assuming because B came after A, A caused B
Weak Analogy-An analogy is not strong enough to support a conclusion
Begging the Question- This is basically circular reasoning
Appeal to Pitty- Forcing someone to feel sorry to accept a conclusion
Appeal to Ignorance- If it can not be proven it must be false; or If it can not be disproved it must be true
Appeal to Unqualified Authority- Adding Ethos to an argument from a bias or unqualified source.

C- Tone
Different tones have different implications. Learning to read and use these will increase your ability to understand and manipulate chat. You should keep in mind that this type of reading cannot be used without an understanding of the players posting style and their perspective. If you try to use these independent of that analysis you can easily screw yourself.

Confidence and Doubt:
When you see a player who expresses total certainty recognize that it could reflect hidden information. Absolute certainty is more often a tone expressed by scum unless it is supported by reasoning that backs up this level of certainty. Keep in mind that certainty reflects confidence but confidence does not reflect certainty. Its a grey line you have to analyze.
Team Scum show a gap between their level of confidence and the level of certainty that should be reflected by their reasoning. This is because team scum already know who the scum team is and have to fake their reads on players forcing them to guess at exactly how confident they should be about a read. You can often find this game is the largest when town reading a player because many scum players put less thought into town reading a slot than they would to scum reading a player.
When you see a player express doubt on what should be absolutely certain it can reflect deception. A good example of this is when scum claims a fake night action. A town player would know without doubt that they received the night action. Scum tend to express the read a little more softly leaving doubt in the situation.
When a team scum gets pressured with a night peek they often express doubt. Instead of questioning the players motivations they immediately move to get town to question the read by referencing framer or witch possibilities. This especially true in setups where there is little or no opposing scum at play because they pretty much know the slot scum reading them is town. Their response is focused from that perspective. Town may also do this if they town read the slot that is scum reading them but they are more likely to question the players alignment because they know they are town and the subconscious assumption is that a player pushing them may be scum.
As scum you can spread doubt to create a bias against future issues. For example, you could take time to discredit night actions which will give your team mates an advantage down the road when faced with a night action claim by seeding the thought in the minds of the players ahead of time. This can backfire if your reasoning is poor.

Aggressive / Passive Behavior:
Useful for identifying a players level of certainty and doubt. If you want to identify how certain a player is about an issue aggressively cast doubt and challenge the reasoning behind a belief. You can even not direct the comment at him and instead address the player base to see if he comes out to address the issue. Keep in mind that players natural level of aggression when using this.
Anger as a form of aggression is a common ‘go to’ response for players that deflect other emotions into anger as a defensive mechanism. Usually as a result to frustration or hitting a subject the player does not want to talk about when a reaction to a push.
Use aggression to focus attention on a specific issue or to distract from something. If some townie trys to crumb something and does a shit job of it you can blow up about some issue and it will draw focus away from it.
As scum you can use aggression to beguile reads. Its much more of an Ethos appeal than anything else and with that in mind you can effectively replace logic with emotion and push targets doubt. This is especially true if you are able to identify players who try hard to appear ‘skilled’ as that it will force them to choose between saving face and being honest.
You can often deflect aggression from players pushing on you if you respond with passive behavior.

Apathy:
This can be an indicator when it is in contrast with a player who is dedicated unless intentionally expressed. Mostly telling when associated with reads or the death of a player. Finding when a slot unintentionally expresses apathy can be very useful.
As scum you can use apathy to offset pushes. Simply responding to a push on you by expressing that you do not care how they read you dodges responding and leaves them with nothing to read.
As either alignment you can use apathy to discredit focus. If a player pushes a subject simply pushing that you do not care about the results of the push carries weight. I have sometimes used this to avoid pressure on a subject I didn’t want to talk about.

Spoiler : 3- Application of Communication : Click to show

If you understand exactly how to communicate and understand others communication the question exactly what should you communicate and why? I am going to totally ignore some of the basics and jump to some applications that are extremely useful but underused. Keep in mind that you still have to understand the players and their perspectives to effectively use these.

Insulating a town read from a scum night kill- If you are able to pick up that Player X is probably a Doctor there are 2 ways to play it out. You can try to pull attention off the slot or you can scum read the slot. From the scum perspective (See perspectives in part two) it makes sense for scum to target players they think they cannot lynch. By scum reading the slot you can provide incisive for scum to leave the slot alive.

Town read a slot as a poke to see if it is scum- This is something that catches many scum off guard. By town reading them with flawed reasoning you can watch their reaction which is usually much less filtered than if you scum read them. Be careful not to use this on players that may be town and desperate for pressure relief. This works particularly well on slots that are under pressure even if you just push a conversation change. An innocent man will push to stay on the subject of his guilt to clear himself while a guilty man will gratefully accept a change of subject to avoid getting caught.

Scum read a slot to judge reaction of another player with weak reasoning- Sometimes you can identify a scum trying to just ‘paint’ a target as scummy as opposed analyzing to identifying their alignment. If you present flawed reasoning and push for them to give feedback on your reasoning you may catch them working to justify your bad reasoning.

Aggressively address the town opposing a belief you hold to be true to identify who thinks the same as you- If done correctly you can end up identifying exactly which players are willing to confidently defend that point.

In general you should take the time to consider what you are pushing and why. What are other people pushing and why? If you are struggling to convey a message cut back to the basics. Find common ground and build on it. If you are not sure what to post and need content to analyze create that content. Gambits do not have to be hard 'I have this feedback' nonsene that beguiles town. They can be soft and simple plays.

Spoiler : Case Examples : Click to show
This is going to be delayed until the next to sections are done. When trying to write it up I found it impossible to avoid addressing strategy and perspective


Nothing in Mafia is independently a 'scum tell' until you break into mechanical analysis which will be covered in a later guide. I believe that this will be viewed as the "Least useful" portion of the guide I am working on but I will also argue that it is the most important. Until you are able to effectively communicate and identify other players communication you are crippled in your ability to play regardless of how good you are at identifying scum.

What is this from?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Frog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Dyslexicon wrote:Anyway, thoughts and stuff after catching up.

Suspicious of MP. I did not find his push on Ika convincing at all, and I found it to be an easy push at the time. He is more so defending why it's reasonable for him to suspect Ika than actually accounting for why Ika is scum. At least that is what I see. There's also other things that makes little sense to me (see my catch up with questions and stuff).

VOTE MOVING PICTURES

Noting also that he is softly defending Golden. Don't know what this says about Golden, he may be town if MP is scum, but I'm not sure.

So in the Silver and Ika vs MP and Golden think, I'm most inclined to think MP as scum. Golden I'm not sure of, sometimes I think town and then something happens and I'm doubting again. Silver seems very town to me. Lol me if I'm wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ika does seem town to me, he reads fearless town, but less sure of this read as there is not so much to go on here.

---

I really really really want to slap PSI and Soneji with a cod right now. They need to get into this game right meow. For reals.

---

Conflicted on sig. He did look a lot better last he posted, but there's not that much to go on.

As for the case on Zebra, I don't know her. The case is reasonable, and she could be scum. What makes me doubt is my doubt about some of the people advocating her lynch.

Sloonei is apparently having time contrains. That sucks, cause it doesn't make it easier to read him. Not a town read for me right now, but can't really say he is scum either.

I want Marco to post more thoughts on players and less mechanic/strategic analysis. Still reads town.

^I could say the same for Frog, but you know, Frogs be jumping and I'm just going to let them.

Btw, I skipped a lot of the talk about the lurker lynch plan, and all that. Not interested. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And I think I'll actually attempt do a rainbow list, cause they are pretty. But I rarely agree with myself once they are posted. I'm all

I don't understand this double standard. Literally no one in this thread agrees with me about ika, so yes, I am spending more time explaining and defending my view than I am explaining why I think he's scum. I already explained in full and pointed to posts why I was mafia reading him, and his continued insistence to only throw out gut reads is infuriating. Apparently I'm not accustomed to his meta even though I've seen it in action, because I feel like I'm playing a different game than everyone else. It's not an easy push. That's absurd. An easy push would have been what Frog is doing -- for the people who aren't around. It's Day fucking 1, I explained precisely why I thought ika was scum. No one agrees with me.

lel - TBH im bedazzled - Ika and/or silverwolf w ith abit of elbow grease is a simple lynch whether town or scum. But it's a weak player push. I've been opposing it precisely because of that.

Rest assured - I WILL resolve multiple players tomorrow

I'd prefer if we coordinated amongst the 4 I suggested for now.

I must just have different experience so far with ika and Silverwolf than you have had.

In Turf Wars, their first game here, ika was mafia and Silverwolf was town. ika made it until Day 6 until he was lynched; Silverwolf was then NKed that Night. I highly doubt she was going to be mislynched.

In E.S.T., their second game here, both ika and Silverwolf were town. Silverwolf was NKed Night 2, again because she was a largely consensus town read. ika made it to endgame without dying.

In neither game did ika show any signs of being an "easy mislynch"; if anything, he lasted longer than I otherwise thought he would considering his playstyle.

At some point I'll ISO the 4 you mentioned. You haven't changed your mind on those, yeah?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Frog wrote:Meh - o just realized majjority of you (certainly not all of you) require basic argumentation.

Spoiler: show

I feel like we have a ton of new players coming into the game but the level of player improvement is very low. It is my hope that this is simply because players don't really know where to start. Answering the question "How do you get better" is a tough one to tackle. For that reason I decided to make a few guides that should provide players with tools to improve their play. This guide will cover communication, perspective, and strategy. Perspective and strategy portions will be posted later. If your idea of scum hunting is learning that 'scum do this' then hunting for that you will never be successful. To really grow as a player you need to understand these 3 factors and analyze things independently for each situation and player. A good portion of this guide is some very basic shit you probably learned in grade school but I am focusing on it because it is the foundation that will determine how effective you could be in the game.

I. Communication

It is absolutely critical to be able to convey information to others in a way that they will understand, accept, and push your win condition forward. It is equally critical to understand exactly what other players are communicating and 'why'. If you are town you will be able to effectively convey your reads, identify scummy posts and prevent them from mislynching you. If you are scum you will be able to mislynch the town, keep them off balance, and prevent slipping. If these are things you want to improve on this section should greatly help.

This portion is focused on communication. There are aspects of scum hunting in it but that is something that will be covered in mcuh more detail as I get into Perspective and Strategy. If you would like to contribute to improve this guide or contribute to the other portions let me know.

Spoiler : 1. Basic parts of an argument : Click to show


A- Claim

The Claim is the point you are trying to make. This is what you are trying to persuade your reader to accept.

B- Warrant
This is the common belief you are using to pivot your audience into accepting your argument. An example would be:
In order to argue that murder is wrong by saying "It is terrible to end a human life" the reader must first value a human life. If they do not value a human life your entire argument will have no impact.

C- Grounds
This is a sub argument to provide value to the warrant. It is also the claim in the new argument. If you know that your warrant is not a common belief you must first attempt to establish the value of that warrant in order to present an argument of any value. An example would be:
In order to argue that abortion is wrong because "A fertilized egg counts as a human life and taking a human life is wrong" the reader must first agree that a fertilized egg counts as a human life.
If this warrant is not accepted the grounds would be an argument to establish that a fertilized egg counts as a human life.

So to summarize you can see the basic argument format and how it chains into sub arguments.

Claim- Pollution is bad
Warrant- It damages the environment
Grounds / Sub argument claim- Damage to the environment hurts your health
--------------Sub argument warrant- Your health is important
--------------Sub argument grounds / Sub argument claim- Worse health means a shorter life
----------------------------------------------Sub argument warrant- A shorter life means less time to do the things you enjoy
----------------------------------------------Sub argument grounds- Blah blah blah

And so on.

Being able to identify these factors allows you to effectively argue. Without recognizing this pattern you will end up having frustrating discussions that get nowhere; and if you have not been using this pattern it’s probably why nobody takes you seriously in day chat. If you find that you are unable to use it when pushing a scum read then chances are that you do not have a real read.
The piratical application of this is that you need to identify common ground with your readers when presenting an argument. When interacting with another players argument you need to force them to establish a claim and a warrant for their point to have value. If they do not you have to either draw out why their argument holds no value, agree to disagree and move away to a new topic that will be productive.

Spoiler : 2. Functions : Click to show



A- Appeals

Logos- Appeal to Logic "Steel is stronger than iron, so for a stronger frame we should use steel"
Pathos- Appeal to Emotion "Your donation of only 5$ a year can save the lives of 20 poor starving children"
Ethos- Appeal to Credibility "As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results."

These are functions that you would use in your warrant and grounds. Any large argument will use multiple of these functions. To be effective stick to Logos as much as possible and use Ethos by explaining exactly why your reasoning is correct. Use logical arguments to show that a player is scum and only appeal to credibility by explaining the scum hunting technique you are using to logically point out that the player could be scum. If you try to argue about how good you are it just turns into a pissing contest.

B- Fallacy's

By learning to recognize these patterns you can find some slips and identify fake arguments. Almost every complex argument will have some level of fallacy in it; this is because at some point in almost every argument there is a logic jump. For that reason do not assume just because an argument contains a bit of fallacy that it is invalid. I will cover a few of the most common ones but to understand them at a greater level I strongly recommend watching This Series. There is 3 times as many outlined in this series.
The value in understanding this as town is that it allows you to recognize players ‘painting’ a target a scummy as opposed to scum hunting. This counters scums ability to act as a power wolf and lead mislynches against the town, as well as provides a potential alignment tells.
The value in understanding this as scum is that it gives you an idea of methods to avoid in order to gain more town cred and avoid slips. It can also provide you with more ways to manipulate players who do not understand these methods.

Straw Man- Setting up a weak version of the opponents argument in order to discredit it
Red Herring- This is when someone draws the argument into a tangent proving that the tangent is correct and insinuating that it either proves their point or draws away from the original point.
False Dichotomy- This is when a player trys to force you into choosing between 1 of 2 choices. Usually with one of them being obviously ridiculous
Slippery Slope- Claiming that A will start a chain reaction leading to B then C then D and D has a dire consequence
Ad Hominem- This is when a player attacks a person in order to discredit their argument as opposed to addressing the argument
Hasty Generalization- This is basically stereotypes.
Fallacy of Accident- This is usually when someone trys to cover a specific situation by citing a general rule when the situation is an exception to the rule
Missing the point- The premises of the argument does not support the conclusion.
Post Hoc- Assuming because B came after A, A caused B
Weak Analogy-An analogy is not strong enough to support a conclusion
Begging the Question- This is basically circular reasoning
Appeal to Pitty- Forcing someone to feel sorry to accept a conclusion
Appeal to Ignorance- If it can not be proven it must be false; or If it can not be disproved it must be true
Appeal to Unqualified Authority- Adding Ethos to an argument from a bias or unqualified source.

C- Tone
Different tones have different implications. Learning to read and use these will increase your ability to understand and manipulate chat. You should keep in mind that this type of reading cannot be used without an understanding of the players posting style and their perspective. If you try to use these independent of that analysis you can easily screw yourself.

Confidence and Doubt:
When you see a player who expresses total certainty recognize that it could reflect hidden information. Absolute certainty is more often a tone expressed by scum unless it is supported by reasoning that backs up this level of certainty. Keep in mind that certainty reflects confidence but confidence does not reflect certainty. Its a grey line you have to analyze.
Team Scum show a gap between their level of confidence and the level of certainty that should be reflected by their reasoning. This is because team scum already know who the scum team is and have to fake their reads on players forcing them to guess at exactly how confident they should be about a read. You can often find this game is the largest when town reading a player because many scum players put less thought into town reading a slot than they would to scum reading a player.
When you see a player express doubt on what should be absolutely certain it can reflect deception. A good example of this is when scum claims a fake night action. A town player would know without doubt that they received the night action. Scum tend to express the read a little more softly leaving doubt in the situation.
When a team scum gets pressured with a night peek they often express doubt. Instead of questioning the players motivations they immediately move to get town to question the read by referencing framer or witch possibilities. This especially true in setups where there is little or no opposing scum at play because they pretty much know the slot scum reading them is town. Their response is focused from that perspective. Town may also do this if they town read the slot that is scum reading them but they are more likely to question the players alignment because they know they are town and the subconscious assumption is that a player pushing them may be scum.
As scum you can spread doubt to create a bias against future issues. For example, you could take time to discredit night actions which will give your team mates an advantage down the road when faced with a night action claim by seeding the thought in the minds of the players ahead of time. This can backfire if your reasoning is poor.

Aggressive / Passive Behavior:
Useful for identifying a players level of certainty and doubt. If you want to identify how certain a player is about an issue aggressively cast doubt and challenge the reasoning behind a belief. You can even not direct the comment at him and instead address the player base to see if he comes out to address the issue. Keep in mind that players natural level of aggression when using this.
Anger as a form of aggression is a common ‘go to’ response for players that deflect other emotions into anger as a defensive mechanism. Usually as a result to frustration or hitting a subject the player does not want to talk about when a reaction to a push.
Use aggression to focus attention on a specific issue or to distract from something. If some townie trys to crumb something and does a shit job of it you can blow up about some issue and it will draw focus away from it.
As scum you can use aggression to beguile reads. Its much more of an Ethos appeal than anything else and with that in mind you can effectively replace logic with emotion and push targets doubt. This is especially true if you are able to identify players who try hard to appear ‘skilled’ as that it will force them to choose between saving face and being honest.
You can often deflect aggression from players pushing on you if you respond with passive behavior.

Apathy:
This can be an indicator when it is in contrast with a player who is dedicated unless intentionally expressed. Mostly telling when associated with reads or the death of a player. Finding when a slot unintentionally expresses apathy can be very useful.
As scum you can use apathy to offset pushes. Simply responding to a push on you by expressing that you do not care how they read you dodges responding and leaves them with nothing to read.
As either alignment you can use apathy to discredit focus. If a player pushes a subject simply pushing that you do not care about the results of the push carries weight. I have sometimes used this to avoid pressure on a subject I didn’t want to talk about.

Spoiler : 3- Application of Communication : Click to show

If you understand exactly how to communicate and understand others communication the question exactly what should you communicate and why? I am going to totally ignore some of the basics and jump to some applications that are extremely useful but underused. Keep in mind that you still have to understand the players and their perspectives to effectively use these.

Insulating a town read from a scum night kill- If you are able to pick up that Player X is probably a Doctor there are 2 ways to play it out. You can try to pull attention off the slot or you can scum read the slot. From the scum perspective (See perspectives in part two) it makes sense for scum to target players they think they cannot lynch. By scum reading the slot you can provide incisive for scum to leave the slot alive.

Town read a slot as a poke to see if it is scum- This is something that catches many scum off guard. By town reading them with flawed reasoning you can watch their reaction which is usually much less filtered than if you scum read them. Be careful not to use this on players that may be town and desperate for pressure relief. This works particularly well on slots that are under pressure even if you just push a conversation change. An innocent man will push to stay on the subject of his guilt to clear himself while a guilty man will gratefully accept a change of subject to avoid getting caught.

Scum read a slot to judge reaction of another player with weak reasoning- Sometimes you can identify a scum trying to just ‘paint’ a target as scummy as opposed analyzing to identifying their alignment. If you present flawed reasoning and push for them to give feedback on your reasoning you may catch them working to justify your bad reasoning.

Aggressively address the town opposing a belief you hold to be true to identify who thinks the same as you- If done correctly you can end up identifying exactly which players are willing to confidently defend that point.

In general you should take the time to consider what you are pushing and why. What are other people pushing and why? If you are struggling to convey a message cut back to the basics. Find common ground and build on it. If you are not sure what to post and need content to analyze create that content. Gambits do not have to be hard 'I have this feedback' nonsene that beguiles town. They can be soft and simple plays.

Spoiler : Case Examples : Click to show
This is going to be delayed until the next to sections are done. When trying to write it up I found it impossible to avoid addressing strategy and perspective


Nothing in Mafia is independently a 'scum tell' until you break into mechanical analysis which will be covered in a later guide. I believe that this will be viewed as the "Least useful" portion of the guide I am working on but I will also argue that it is the most important. Until you are able to effectively communicate and identify other players communication you are crippled in your ability to play regardless of how good you are at identifying scum.

What is this from?