Basic Strategies
Author: Vitaly - mr. Koteo (Brisbane Mafia Club)
Previous Chapter gave you the tools: how to speak, listen, build a version, react to suspicion, and leave a useful last word. This Chapter is about aiming those tools.
It is universal for any role, but the goals differ:
Red strategy wants contrast and accountability (two camps, testable versions).
Dark strategy wants uncertainty and time (no stable camps, survive with your team).
How to Use the First Two Days
The first two days don’t decide who is Dark. They decide whether Dark can hide comfortably.
Mistake 1 — Treating Day 1 as “warm-up”
If Day 1 is random, Day 2 starts with no anchor points.
What to do Create one clean accountability test for the table:
Ask players to commit to one Dark-ish direction early (even a soft one),
Then check the same people tomorrow: did they keep it, or did they flip, and why?
This is not about voting (Day 1 may have no voting or only a split). It’s about owning your words.
Micro-example: Day 1 → Day 2 accountability (Day 1 logic only)
On Day 1, player #7 says: “For now 4 is Dark-ish only from early content: 4 spoke mostly about ‘general ideas’ and didn’t give any concrete reads on 1–3.”
(This is normal Day 1 logic: it’s not proof, it’s a direction.)
On Day 2, #7 is asked: “Yesterday you called #4 Dark-ish. Still? If not, what new information changed it?”
Mistake 2 — Misusing the Brisbane club Day 1 spotlight (seat #10 follows #1)
This club practice is not “artificial drama”. It is a tool.
What to do
Seat #1 often doesn’t nominate.
Seat #10 receives a simple instruction gesture from #1: show “6” → meaning “nominate #6”.
Seat #10 nominates #6.
Now the table has a clean axis: #1 vs #6.
Important: #1 must explain why #6 (why this chair is the best early test).
Micro-example: spotlight with explanation
#1 shows with gesture “6” to #10.
#10 nominates #6.
Later #1 says: “I asked for #6 because their early speech avoided taking any table position and tried to stay Neutral. I want #6 to speak again and be accountable.”
Goal: give #1 meaningful analysis time and re-hear the most suspicious chair.
Mistake 3 — Pushing so hard that you become the target
Early pushing is useful, but if you push like you’re forcing a verdict, you can become suspicious and get voted out.
What to do Push cleanly:
push a direction,
keep tone controlled,
keep logic simple,
accept disagreement.
Ready-to-say
“I’m pushing a direction, not forcing a verdict.”
“If you disagree, give me your alternative direction and why.”
Identifying Suspicious Behavior
Suspicion is not “nervousness”. Suspicion is actions that remove structure or avoid responsibility.
Mistake — Calling something Dark because it looks weird
Any single behavior can be Red. You care about patterns.
High-signal beginner patterns:
Version without responsibility: lots of talk, no names, no teams, no direction.
Unexplained flips: “Yesterday A, today B” with no trigger.
Choo-Choo strategy: repeating the previous speaker (train carriage), adding no logic.
Teamless push: “Vote X” without answering “who else is in X’s team then?”
Ready-to-say
“If you call someone Dark-ish, build the team: who else fits with them?”
“Don’t just repeat — add logic.”
When to Vote
Previous Chapter taught you not to donate your vote. This section is about what voting should achieve.
A good vote does at least one:
removes a Dark-ish chair, or
tests a team hypothesis, or
creates accountability for tomorrow.
Free voting (what it usually means)
In club language, “free voting” usually means:
“Nominate more players so we can see who votes where.”
The goal is not “choose between two”. The goal is to reveal natural voting lines: who saves whom, who refuses to vote whom, and which chairs vote together.
Micro-example: free voting via multiple nominations (and analysis next day)
Day 2, 9 players. The table is stuck and nobody has confidence.
Several nominations are made: #3, #6, #8.
Voting happens. Night begins immediately after voting.
On Day 3, Reds review the key line: “Yesterday, when #6 was on the ballot, who voted for #6?”
Then the question becomes: “You voted to #6. If #6 is Dark, who is #6’s Dark team in your version then?”
(Yes — the “team” question is only meaningful if you assume the seat is Dark.)
Free voting is a tool. If the table can’t execute it cleanly, it becomes chaos and helps Dark.
When Silence Is Golden
Silence doesn’t mean “say nothing”. It means: don’t spend your minute feeding fights.
Mistake — Turning your minute into an argument
Arguments feel active. Often they create fog.
What to do If you’re tilted or unsure:
state your camps in one line,
ask one clean question,
stop.
Gesture-friendly pressure question
“If you think I’m Dark, who else could be in my team then?”
The First Critical Decisions
The first true critical zone is usually 7–8 players left.
At 7–8:
Red needs 50%+ certainty on the direction and a clean vote plan.
One wrong elimination can end the game or make it unwinnable.
Dark often pushes harder to win fast. Red should notice tempo changes and ask: “Who benefits from speeding this up?”
Mistake — Arriving at 7–8 with no direction
If you’re still “Neutral on everyone” at 7–8, you are already late.
What to do Before you reach 7-8:
have one main Dark-ish candidate,
one alternative,
and one team hypothesis.
“This seat is not for voting”
You will usually hear “This seat is not for voting” only after that player has already been nominated (so they are on the ballot). The phrase is not proof of anything: both Red and Dark players can say it, and it can appear when the table is sliding toward a two-Sheriffs conflict or when someone is trying to protect a chair for strategic reasons.
If someone says it, don’t freeze. Do two simple things.
First, force a concrete alternative:
“Okay — if not this seat, who is your main candidate today?”
“Which nominated seat are you voting instead?”
Second, force team logic (so it doesn’t become empty noise):
“If your main candidate is #__, who do you put in their team?”
“If you’re protecting #__, what teams does that imply for you?”
At 9–10 players this phrase can be used as an early-table tool (sometimes to cover a Sheriff’s Red check). At lower player counts it has much less practical power because there are fewer safe options — so treat it as a warning sign that the table is entering a high-risk zone, and demand even clearer structure: one candidate, and one team hypothesis around that candidate.
Micro-example: non-critical day (9 players)
Day 2, 9 players. #5 is nominated.
Someone says: “#5 is not for voting.”
Correct reaction (Day 2 is not critical yet):
“Okay. If you don’t vote #5, who is your main candidate today?”
“And if that’s your candidate — who do you put in the Dark team with them?”
You’re not forced to be certain yet. You are forced to keep the table structured.
Ready-to-say templates
Accountability prompt (you → someone at the table)
“Name one Dark-ish direction and your reason. Tomorrow I will ask you to repeat it or explain what changed.”
Controlled push
“I’m pushing a direction, not forcing a verdict.”
“If you disagree, give your alternative direction and why.”
Team forcing question
“If you think X is Dark, who else could be in X’s team then?”
“Not for voting” follow-up
“If you don’t vote #__, who is your main candidate today?”
Last updated