Mastin's Insane Tells: Revisited.

[Mastin]

I've been meaning to update that page for a long time, and finally got around to doing it. Those familiar with it might've seen some of the tells, and thought that they were completely worthless/invalid, and quite frankly, probably disagree with most of them. I decided to reevaluate some of them, and look at them in more detail. This was the result. (Small note: I wrote these 5-2.5, not 2-5.)

Spoiler: The Original Article

Mit # 2.5--Buddying

A simple sub-section of 2 [bandwagoning], this tell is simple: Buddying is extremely anti-town. It makes you look like you're either trying to stop a lynch of a player really badly (which might be a sign of them being your partner if you're scum), or that you're trying to buddy up to a townie if you flip scum. It's a great tactic to get on a pro-town player's good side as well, by agreeing with them a great deal.

If someone buddies up to another player, they are more likely to be scum.

NOTE: Well, more accurately, buddying is anti-town. It is not a wise thing to do, period. It benefits scum more often than town; if a town player buddies to scum, it makes the town player look bad and they'll have reverse Tunnel Vision--they'll refuse to see that player as scum. If scum buddies to a townie, it makes the townie look worse and might get the townie on their side. The only time where buddying is NOT beneficial to the scum is when they buddy with other scum, which leaves both looking rather suspicious.

The Note was a later edit. Two scum buddying is still quite the scumtell, and unlike what I'm about to define, isn't shown as manipulation. However, nor is it "two town agreeing with each other". It's, uh, hard to describe? I suppose it's situations similar to Tar's Chainsaw Defense scenario, though not necessarily identical.

As of 12/29/10, I still believe in this tell, just not quite as broadly as I used to, due to a slight thing I've noticed--I have come to a revelation: there's a difference between buddying, and "two players agreeing with each other". Like almost all my tells, it's something quite subtle. However, once again, telling the two apart will give you the difference between "probably town but

might

be scum" and "almost certainly scum, with a

slight

chance of being town".

Many times, two players simply happen to agree with each other. We've all seen this quite a number of time. At their best, these people might as well be Masons: working together, coordinating their efforts, and considering the others to be confirmed town. (They almost never are confirmed town; they just have

that strong

of a read on each other.) I'm not quite sure how to describe it; it's something you simply have to see for yourself in order to believe it. But basically, they mutually agree the other is town, and work with them. Unlike what I said before, this alliance, this might-as-well-be-masons, almost always is

extremely

pro-town, because it is that solid, and it traps scum more often than not. [This probably needs a definition, but I have no word to describe it.]

How is this different from buddying? Buddying is something else. It's when one side tries to manipulate the other into gaining their trust. Instead of it being natural, it's artificial. (I suppose that's something common in almost all my tells--1: natural play versus artificial, and 2: how subtle the tells are.) It's slightly subtle, of course. However, even if the other party is fooled into trusting the person doing the buddying, there will be small differences in how they work together, differenciating this from the former. Due to the different nature of how the bond is formed (natural linking together versus artificial manipulation into the link), anyone knowing what they're looking for can spot the difference.

(Original Article, Augmentation, cut due to space restrictions on this post.) This is actually backwards from what most experienced players tend to believe, in my experience. That got me thinking, "what was my logic behind this?" Well, obviously, I'm insane. But what was the truth behind the tell? I had no stats, so

something

had to have made me think that.

As of 12/29/10, my opinion on this has changed slightly. See my redefined tell # 5 for more details. Basically, scum are afraid of change. They'll fear the inconsistencies, and aim to fix them, whereas town will just let it be. "Isn't that the reverse of your tell, then? Wouldn't it make it null?"
If it were that simple, yes. However, all is not as it seems. Instead, I've formed a new opinion: both scum and town contradict themselves, sure. Both scum and town will augment themselves just as much, too! So, surely, that means this is a null tell?

No. The difference is--once again--quite subtle. Scum players will aim for that consistency. They'll try beyond what's natural to nail that feeling of it being consistent. They put in the effort, make it deliberately overall the same pattern. And in doing so, it becomes somewhat artificial. Town, however, will just keep themselves spewing out what they please. And in doing so, they'll keep themselves rather consistent, simply because they're town; they're being honest, and speaking their truthful opinion. And because there is no lie involved, because it's natural, instead of artificial, they are less likely overall to slip up. Sure, they'll have contradictions, but their contradictions will mostly seem natural, honest mistakes which can be made simply from not thinking. Scum, however, when making their contradictions, will read more like a slip, something which slipped through the cracks in their web of lies--not from not thinking, simply from not thinking enough.

(Disclaimer: like all tells, this is not universal. And like most of my redefined tells, this is something subtle, hard to pick up. If you master it, you're far more likely to find scum.)

(Original Article, Caution Versus Recklessness, Cut due to space restrictions.) I was reading a post in a game, where someone mentioned that scum put more thoughts into their posts. Then, I realized I had seen that thinking around before. From a lot of people, actually. It sounded familiar. That was what inspired me to revisit my tells, actually. I had to have been right...just......not in the way I thought I was, not in the way that my examples gave. No, it was something harder to see, something which makes a lot of sense when you see it but which many overlook.

As of 12/29/10, I've formed a new opinion: this tell was valid...but not in the way I thought it was. I thought that showing blatant caution was a scumtell, but in truth, many players are just cautious. And others are reckless as scum. Instead, it applies to how things are worded. It's basically a more subtle thing. I've seen many others use this wisdom, too. Essentially...scum are afraid they'll get caught. Their posts are more well-thought-out, and actually less likely to contain things they consider to be slips. (Not that they don't contain slips, though.) They don't want to contradict themselves. Town, on the other hand, are far more likely to just post a first draft, essentially. Scum might not put a great deal of work into their edits, but I've certainly observed that scum DO take more time on their posts, and are more careful, even if they don't realize it. It's such a subtle tell that most probably can't tell the difference.

It's so fundamental, that it might even be subconscious, but it's there. Think about it for a solid minute. If you've been scum, do you just post whatever you happen to be thinking? Probably not. You post whatever you think your town self would be thinking. However, in that, you have to get it perfect. You have to nail your town thought process, and that takes a great deal of effort. You also have that fear of slips, so actively try to avoid them. You might avoid posting something you would as town, simply due to the fear of it being seen as scummy.

Basically, there are so many reasons why this tell is right. It's difficult to explain in more concrete terms; just know that it works. (Disclaimer: However, like most tells, this is not universal. And this tell is also something a bit hard to pick up on. Because it's such a small difference, you have to put in a great amount of effort to notice the difference. If you can pull it off, however, you'll find the scum.)

And there you have it. Some of these might seem like common sense, or maybe they seem outlandish still, and despite my efforts, make no logical sense to you. But to me, these are actually quite valid.

[Mastin]

For reference,
This is supposed to start where "(Original Article, Augmentation, cut due to space restrictions on this post.)" currently is:

Spoiler: The Original Article, Augmentation

It's a simple tell, really. When a player gets their facts strait, it's pro-town. They're being consistent, and are far less likely to be scum who are backtracking/making mistakes/revealing too much/etc. If they have facts that augment each other, then it looks even better for them. Yet when a player is inconsistent, it looks bad. They can get their story wrong, they can backtrack, anything can be an inconsistency. But I have found it to be a fairly solid tell, in most games.

The basic tell is

If a player is augmenting their arguments instead of contradicting them, they are far more likely to be town.

NOTE: Of course, this doesn't work in reverse that well, in my experience, because from what I've seen, many players WILL contradict themselves. I have no stats to back it up, but to this day, I believe that more town players will be consistent than anti-town players.

And then right here would begin my talk, "This is actually backwards" and on.
Similarily, "(Original Article, Caution Versus Recklessness, Cut due to space restrictions.)" is actually supposed to be this:

Spoiler: Original Article, Caution Versus Recklessness

It's a simple tell. I've seen it dozens of time.

In 742, Caleb (town) recklessly hammered Datadanne.

In that same game, Jeff (m. goon) had the chance to hammer, but didn't, thinking it was the pro-town thing to do and that to not do so would look scummy. Instead, the wagon stopped, and he got lynched.

In 763, Tubby had the chance to hammer, but didn't. For the exact same reason: he thought it was pro-town to show caution. He got lynched instead. See the pattern?

In Polygamist Mafia, Zazie insisted that we shouldn't hammer when we had the chance to. Caution. Guess who lost the game? We did. I was hammered day one.

So, basically, this tell in simplest words,

Caution is a scum tell, where Recklessness is a Town Tell.

NOTE: This WAS true at the time I wrote it. I really did think it was the case. I think it was almost site-wide, in fact. Of my tells, I've even heard people call this one actually useful whereas the others received a less positive opinion. However, this was months ago. Things change. I'm no longer positive in this tell like I used to be, and I think it might actually be starting to be neutral again.

And here would be "I was reading a post in a game" onward.

Due to that blasted glitch, my posts can only be a certain length. I could fit the first in where it was supposed to go, but these two couldn't fit without making my post glitch.

[Vi]

Mit #1 - I don't find it particularly reliable. I have a nasty habit of being last to confirm regardless of alignment simply because of my own schedule. That's not to say I haven't intentionally done it as scum, mind - but I actually didn't get a lot out of stalling confirmation stage talk.

Mit #2 - I'm not sure about this one. "Third on a wagon" is what most people usually use (keeping early bandwagons locked to a length of three people ). IMO you should just let the wagon grow for a while until it's more or less agreed that it SHOULD go down, and then criticize people.

Mit #2.5 - I'm glad you added the caveat, but you don't mention how to distinguish between natural and artificial.

Mit #3 - Almost correct. The closest you came was that scum don't like change, and in order to prevent it they will rigidly hold on to their original argument. Scum PoE arguments tend to look particularly artificial.

Mit #4 - This only works if it's done like ten times in a row.

Mit #5 - While I don't agree with your examples, you nailed it with the update.

Mit #5.5 - Kind of strange. I'll give this one a mildly positive review.

[Mastin]

Heh. #1's outdated. I couldn't find any way to update the tell. I already know what the kernel of truth behind it was, but the evidence doesn't support my claim. (It doesn't go against the claim, either, so it's null, most likely. Still makes a fun RVS vote, though. )

#2, it might actually be somewhat valid, but depends on the size of the game. 2 in a smaller (newbie-size) game. I call it the Butter Zone: Votes 2-5 are FAR more likely to be scum. Why?

Scum tend not to want to start a wagon. 1: It might not catch on, when they need a pro-town player lynched. Therefore, starting a wagon is no guarantee it'll succeed. 2: If it DOES catch on and is successful, the original starter of the wagon will most likely catch flak for the town lynch. And we all know about the scum voting later in the wagon being a scumtell, to the point where scum actively try to avoid it. Therefore, scum prefer to be in the MIDDLE of a wagon, which (depending on the game's size) is votes 2-5. That's the truth behind this. I should put that in; thanks for bringing it up.

2.5: Eh, I might do that eventually. Artificial versus Natural is probably a far larger tell than I originally gave it credit for. However, due to how subtle it often is, I'm not sure how easy it'll be for me to define it. I strongly believe the tell is true, but how to go about proving it's true, well, that's a bit harder.

#4, I've been searching through the old forum, trying to find the Tell. I can't find it. >_< I KNOW I had it somewhere. I thought I brought it up in Emerald Mafia, but can't seem to find a reference to it, anywhere. (I remember a ZazieR post, and me responding to it, and me mentioning how it's the fourth tell, which I really needed to put on there.) For all I know, it could've been my greatest discovery of all time, in the history of scumtells.
...Most likely, it was very similar to the other previous four. I can't know how to revisit this one until I find what it originally was. I really hope I can find it, eventually.

#5.5, bit of an old tell, not updated. I suppose it still holds true, but is a bit unorthodox.

---

Thanks for the feedback, Vi.

[Mastin]

Some notes:

-I'm beginning to suspect Mit # 4 was fencesitting. I have no way of confirming this until I finish my search through Mastin. (Pity me, please. Have you

tried

reading some of my old games?!? ) It's rather time-consuming, but this has been burning at me for a long time: WHAT THE HECK WAS THE TELL?!? I once so strongly believed in it, yet now, I can't remember what it was!
*If Fencesitting wasn't my fourth tell, it might've been a sub-set of 5. If it wasn't a sub-set of 5, it could become Mit # 6. I've believed fencesitting was a tell, but recently discovered that there is a difference between town-fencing and scum fence-sitting. Another subtle difference, but one I strongly believe in.

-I added this phrase to Mit # 5.5:

Update: As of 12/29/10, the creator of this article still thinks this tell is true, albeit highly unorthodox and generally not recommended.

-I added a similar phrase to Mit # 1.

Update: As of 12/29/10, this Tell is considered by the author to be Null. However, it still makes a nice, fun, RVS vote! (What? We all have our own unique joke-tells... )

-I must thank Vi for reminding me about the Butter Zone. It's a tell I strongly believe in, and definitely something I should include there. Here's the full section.

Spoiler: Mit 2, Bandwagonning, Original

Bandwagons early-on have always been suspicious. Two-man bandwagons, even more so. This is basically a tell based off of my experience--in 742 (link: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10609), Kronos bandwagoned Jeff's vote for the same reasoning. He was scum, exposed for it by me. He was the second, and only, voter.

It also applies to Newbie 763 (link: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10972), where Ivanavich suggested a no-lynch, and Chief followed. Ivan was pro-town, Chief was scum. I saw blatant buddying, and I was half-right, too.

So basically, this tell is

The second vote on any given bandwagon, especially in newbie games, is more likely to be scum.

NOTE: No data other than the two threads--to my knowledge--on this subject has been provided. It would be best to try and avoid using this tell until it is either shot down/confirmed with a broader info base. Except in the RVS, where it would work fairly well.

This was me scratching the surface of The Butter Zone. No, the true tell in Mit # 2 should actually be this:

After some experience off-site (this section is written as of 12/29/10), I came to an interesting conclusion: the scum there almost always had a particular voting range: votes 2-6. Why was that? Why that particular zone? Why were the scum almost always right there? I found the answer. Why?

Because it's right in the middle of a wagon. It's not just on MafiaScum where people late on the bandwagon are considered scummy, you know. That seems to be pretty universal, actually. But why not the first vote? It's simple scum reasoning, really. People voting early are not likely to be scum, because they're pushing for a lynch early, which is risky as scum. Quite simply put, while scum CAN start a wagon, they don't want to.

For starters, they need pro-town players lynched. A new bandwagon has no guarantee of achieving this. Scum being the pragmatic folks they are tend to want a more practical approach: stick with what's there, already. More than that, there's always a risk their started wagon IS successful. What happens to the original starter of the wagon? They will almost universally catch flak. Sure, probably not much and easily deflected, but still, scum don't like that kind of attention on them.

As for why they don't vote late? As mentioned, EVERYONE knows it's a scumtell. Everyone. That includes the scum, by the way. And as we all know, things evolve over time. Including how scum play. We all know scum voting late in a wagon is a scumtell. Therefore, scum try to avoid it at all costs. Because it's common knowledge that scum arrive late on the wagon, scum...won't arrive late on the wagon. Simple as that. It's so common, in fact, that this knowledge might as well make the tell null.

"But Mastin!" you cry. "If they don't want to be early on the wagon, yet hate to be late on the wagon, what do they do? Stay off every wagon?!? That makes no sense!" Well, let's not ramble on about that. (Fencesitting is a personal tell of mine; always has been. But as I have done it before, I recognize there's a difference between town-fencing and scum-fencing.) Instead of focusing on people not on the wagon, let's focus on a third category:

People in the middle.

"What's so bad about being in the middle?!?" Well, true, town can be in the middle, too. It's just that it's far more likely to come from scum. Why? Process of elimination. Simply put, scum want the middle. They want that sweet spot which most players overlook in a wagon. People pay attention to the wagon-starters. People pay attention to the late-wagoners. Not nearly as many people pay attention to the middle--and as scum, that makes it the perfect hangout, no? Scum prefer to be in the MIDDLE of a wagon, which (depending on the game's size) is anywhere from votes 2-6. I call it the "Butter Zone". Where the scum have the least amount of chance (by current site meta expectations) to be found. If everyone looks at the end, and everyone looks at the beginning, hang out in the middle. My "second to vote" tell was me stumbling onto something far greater than I thought. I failed to realize the number of 2 was mainly focused on newbie games, which (being smaller) would make the zone 2-3, possibly 2-4.

Thanks for reminding me about this tell, Vi!

[Kublai Khan]

Uh, Mastin... aren't you forgetting to list the number to lynch in your butter zone theory? Because it's sounding like you're casting a pretty wide net.

[Zachrulez]

They're called insane tells for a reason.

[Mr. Flay]

The other thing about the Butter Zone is it provides momentum. Wagons with less than 1/3 of the required votes tend not to get anywhere, and ones with more than 2/3 tend to get scrutinized (and often fall apart, which is a separate 'problem'). Hitting the sweet spot provides you some cover, though I'll argue that position is becoming less important as the tell becomes more known.

[Mastin]

Uh, Mastin... aren't you forgetting to list the number to lynch in your butter zone theory? Because it's sounding like you're casting a pretty wide net.

Nope, I accounted for that: as I said, it depends on the size of the game. In a larger game, it's something like 3-6. (Most games aren't beyond 24 players, which would mean a 13 required to lynch, making the middle zone to be up to 7.) In a smaller game, it's 2-3, possibly 2-4. (12 players max creates a lynch of 7, meaning the middle extends up to 4 at most.) Those votes are not close to the lynch in any game, at least, not on day one, where the tell was originally conceived. And while I think the tell loses force on later days, it still holds somewhat true. (At the very least, I'd say it's still applicable day two.)

Also,

They're called insane tells for a reason.

Quoted for truth. My mind has an unusual way of thinking. I'm bad with words, for example, yet I see things which many players tend to miss*. I gave numbers, but I'm not sure I worded it in the best way I could. Hopefully, this can better explain the idea.

(*Or if they do see it, tend not to think about it. I get the distinct impression that if someone learned to read "Mastin-speak", they'd realize that it makes so much sense and could really be true. )

The other thing about the Butter Zone is it provides momentum. Wagons with less than 1/3 of the required votes tend not to get anywhere, and ones with more than 2/3 tend to get scrutinized. Hitting the sweet spot provides you some cover.

This is basically the idea behind the Butter Zone Tell. Summed up better than what the article can say, obviously, as I suck with words.