# Colorless Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 2, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729 "2009-12-02T18:21:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/521 "2009-12-13T16:57:36Z")
If you want spoilers, chuck me a PM. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/522 "2009-12-13T17:22:51Z")
I’ve been following the game as a non-player, and have just finshed a full re-read, so I’m fully up to speed now. Good to get the SK day 1, buys us some more lynches, gives our power roles a better chance of surviving longer and makes data analysis easier (no scope for cross kills to confuse us). **@peeker** - Did you try to kill anyone last night? At the moment I’m assuming Amrussell was killed by scum. > [@peekercpa](#): > > if a scum false claims anything other than dick could the real town role step up? i mean seriously, a one for one trade in a game with 4 and 1 means that we have some lattitude. I agree that 1 for 1 is always a good trade for town, but I don’t think instant counter-claim should be a town policy. This is a fully open setup, unless we are at lylo a scum claim dooms them. The real townie can choose the best time to counter them. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > A counterclaim IMO, should be made at the players discretion depending on the context of the game. A general policy that can be easily gamed, would be wasting our power roles for naught. I agree with this. > [@Mahaloth](#): > > I asked because in my Wild West game, JoeyP’s kill could not be blocked. The only way to stop him was to kill him, so I want to make sure kills can be stopped in this game. When I first read #67 I mistakenly thought that the gf’s kill couldn’t be blocked. > [@Rin\_Twisted](#): > > Amrussell has these long posts of ‘advice’ on dealing with scum and powerroles- some of which is actually pretty good advice- and then nestled inside of each are these ambiguous statements that, if I were scum, I would be taking as direction and strategy. The case against Amrussell was really weak, would have been a silly risk for scum to start day-talking strategy. The only examples of day-talk I’ve ever seen have been signals to bus. > [@ToeJam](#): > > When I played Mafia, long ago when I was but a wee bairn (whatever those are), we used to play harder and faster and more paranoid. I have to get used to seeing others defend each other- as it totally feels… odd to me. I feel it muddies the water, and creates senses of bond, trust, and touchy-feely biases. That’s not what a person trying to sort through the chaff as it were, wants to see. I’m happy with players defending each other, as it’s generally pro-town to take a position. Obviously, scum will sometimes defend townies to gain cred, but that can come back to bite them if they later find they need to push for their lynch. What I don’t like is players defending another before the accused has a chance to respond. The exception to this is if an attack is based on a factual error, those should be pointed out ASAP to avoid wasting town’s time and energy. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > I’ll > > **vote peekercpa** > > Because: > > 1. Of the current lynch candidates he’s the one who pings my suspicion the hardest > **2. His contribution to the thread is nary incomprehensible (which adds to 1)** \ I don’t like the justification for this vote, peeker has been fairly straightforward this game. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I’m still thinking about it. But it’s such a cliche. Person is about to die, they pull out a power role, and most of the time they’re lying. What are the odds we actually are about to lynch the vig? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I’m not a mathematician and I don’t have hard numbers. But I just know that half the time we end up lynching vanilla town in the beginning. It just seems spectacularly unlikely to me that we just so happened to pick an important town role. Not even like a role blocker–a cool, sexy killing role, like the vig! Just WAY too convenient. Your reasoning was faulty here, 4 town power roles so a 1 in 5 chance of lynching one on day 1, not that long odds. Also, 4 scum and 4 town power roles, so a 50-50 chance the claim was genuine (any claim from the SK was not likely, as it was suicide, they would die when the real role flipped or countered). I find it strange you’d be so dubious about the validity of Ped’s claim, in Screamers mafia we had 2 claims (peeker and jpei) on day 1, both genuine. I also find it odd you haven’t come across the term bussing before. FS has a history of being mis-lyched. It seems unlikely to me that she is gf or roleblocker, but it’s possible she could be a goon setting herself up for a bus. Ped’s claim and peeker’s counter were the big events of the day, there were some interesting reactions. Firstly, Ped was not playing to his win condition when he claimed (as he has admitted), once he claimed vig he had zero chance of surviving the endgame and winning. I’m somewhat suspicious of the players who fingered Ped as a possible SK, which might have been a slip. To a townie reasoning it out, they should have been expecting Ped to be scum, while scum would have known he wasn’t one of them. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I have to agree with everyone else, I think it would be pointless for peeker to be lying right now, so > > **Vote pedescribe** > > I was actually planning on voting for Freudian for the reasons Red and USCDiver were but it looks as if we have definitely caught a scum or the SK. **@MentalGuy** – why did you think Ped might be the SK? > [@MHaye](#): > > Clearly one of them is lying, as illustrated by the philosopher Mark Knopfler.Pede claimed Vig when in the lead; this could be the act of a desperate scum, but to be honest smells more like that of a serial killer to me. The SK needs to stay alive at all costs; a scum Pedescribe could hope to win even if he’s lynched Day 1. As I’ve pointed out, an SK couldn’t hope to win after claiming in this setup. I find MHaye’s mention of the SK a bit less suspicious as he also brings up the possibility that Ped might fake-claim as town. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m worrying myself about the fringe possibilities like “ **pedescribe** is scum, **peekercpa** is SK”. Both of those guys play randomly enough that I wouldn’t put it past either of 'em. I notice you’ve backed off from this overnight somewhat. If peeker had been scum or SK it would have made no sense for him to counter-claim. He’d have been gambling that Ped was lying, which he couldn’t possibly have known, and even if he’d been right he have committed suicide, leaving himself open to a counter-claim. Peeker is the vig, unless another player flips as vig. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > This does not mean that I necessarily trust **peeker** , or will be trusting him even if **pede** flips as scum. **@Cookies** – See above. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Your counter-claim reeks btw. What exactly is the point of it? If you are really the vig, why break cover for no reason? Why are you protecting Freudian? Was that so-called trap a little day 1 bussing? If peeker had tried to NK Ped instead he’d have failed if the doctor protected him. There were pros and cons to peeker’s counter, it wasn’t a bad move to make. Right now, I’m going to: **Vote MentalGuy.** Reasons: possible slip concerning Ped’s as SK, somewhat wishy-washy post #275 which struck me as more for appearances than helpful to town, consideration of the bad case on Amrussell without backing it with a vote (possibly waiting to see if it gathered momentum), late vote on day 1. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/523 "2009-12-13T20:20:11Z")
In an open setup with a scum roleblocker, I’d expect a Scum on the block to claim a higher-power role than Vig on Day One, hoping for a counterclaim. The Vig claim actually made me lean more toward SK than Scum. At that point, **ped** knew he was pretty much done–he was either going to be lynched or vigged that Night. And because he was PFK, he didn’t need to draw out a high-profile Town power role in a way that a soon-to-be-lynched Scum would. There was still a chance he could have been Scum, but I don’t consider a Vig claim a good play for Scum on Day One in this particular game. Or really any game, now that I think of it. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/524 "2009-12-13T21:05:22Z")
**alka** let it be sufficed to say, at this point. i did not kill **amrussel**. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/525 "2009-12-13T21:17:50Z")
Again, I’d like to remind everyone that I made that statement with respect to **peeker** prior to **pede** having made any indication that he was actually the SK. We can talk about whether or not it was good play on **peeker’s** part to counter claim all day long, and I do happen to think it was good play, but I do draw the line at insinuating that it is somehow suspect for people to have not immediately endorsed **peeker** as confirmed town YesterDay, especially over the first 3/4s of the Day. Even ToDay, a little skepticism is not unwarranted. Further thoughts on **peeker** and **Freudian** … I had no trouble parsing the intent of **peeker’s** initial Miller post, but I am going to need more than **Freudian’s** apparent falling into the very behavior that **peeker** was warning about, followed by a flurry of personal and defensive posts between them and others, before I’ll be inclined to put her name in blue. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/526 "2009-12-13T22:25:51Z")
i’ve already said my piece. and since this is dragging a touch. **vote skeez** and just as an aside if i get rb’ed until endgame this mother fucker potentially could go a couple more months. i am going to open up a real weird avenue of discussion. what if we not only pick a lynch but also a nk. if i get through then the nk is whatever the nk is. if i get rb’ed we kill the nk target, lather rinse and repeat. at least that way sooner or later we might have multiple deaths in a Night. it might also speed this up a touch. because the suggested nk is going to have to do something or get killed or lynched. if the nk is scum then they have to false claim or get in the vanilla pool. i really haven’t even ran the numbers. just a thought as a way to ratchet up the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/527 "2009-12-14T00:02:43Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Again, I’d like to remind everyone that I made that statement with respect to **peeker** prior to **pede** having made any indication that he was actually the SK. Not really relevant, we didn’t need to see Ped flip to know that peeker’s claim was almost certainly genuine. As I said above, if peeker had been scum or SK he couldn’t have known Ped wasn’t really the vig. That would be an insane risk to take, especially as the inevitable counter claim or flip would be guaranteed to result in his death. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > We can talk about whether or not it was good play on **peeker’s** part to counter claim all day long, and I do happen to think it was good play, **but I do draw the line at insinuating that it is somehow suspect for people to have not immediately endorsed peeker as confirmed town YesterDay, especially over the first 3/4s of the Day.** That misrepresents my argument. The players doubting peekers claim haven’t thought through all the implications in this setup, which is not necessarily scummy. The point I’ve picked up on as a possible scum information slip is thinking of Ped as a possible SK after his claim. It’s not a particularly strong argument, as townies don’t always think of everything, and more people made the connection than there are scum, but I think it’s worth considering. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Even ToDay, a little skepticism is not unwarranted. It’s anti-town to worry about highly unlikely scenarios, when they pose no danger to us. Peeker is 99% confirmed. If someone counter claims him, we lynch them, and in the highly unlikely event that they flip vig we can then lynch peeker. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/528 "2009-12-14T00:28:30Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Not really relevant, we didn’t need to see Ped flip to know that peeker’s claim was almost certainly genuine. As I said above, if peeker had been scum or SK he couldn’t have known Ped wasn’t really the vig. That would be an insane risk to take, especially as the inevitable counter claim or flip would be guaranteed to result in his death. > That misrepresents my argument. The players doubting peekers claim haven’t thought through all the implications in this setup, which is not necessarily scummy. The point I’ve picked up on as a possible scum information slip is thinking of Ped as a possible SK after his claim. It’s not a particularly strong argument, as townies don’t always think of everything, and more people made the connection than there are scum, but I think it’s worth considering. > > It’s anti-town to worry about highly unlikely scenarios, when they pose no danger to us. Peeker is 99% confirmed. If someone counter claims him, we lynch them, and in the highly unlikely event that they flip vig we can then lynch peeker. I misrepresent your argument no less than you misrepresent my statement yesterDay that I didn’t necessarily trust **peeker** yet at the time that I made the post. I’m defending a statement that I made when the situation was simply a Day One Vig vs. Vig counterclaim, which is a situation in which everyone in the Town damn sure better be looking closely at both players. I have not been holding **peeker’s** claim in much doubt since **pede** fessed up to being the SK, so when people stop quoting a post that was made prior to that and trying to pass it off as my current position, I’ll stop defending it. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/529 "2009-12-14T00:59:32Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > i am going to open up a real weird avenue of discussion. what if we not only pick a lynch but also a nk. if i get through then the nk is whatever the nk is. if i get rb’ed we kill the nk target, lather rinse and repeat. at least that way sooner or later we might have multiple deaths in a Night. it might also speed this up a touch. because the suggested nk is going to have to do something or get killed or lynched. if the nk is scum then they have to false claim or get in the vanilla pool. i really haven’t even ran the numbers. just a thought as a way to ratchet up the discussion. This is a horrible, terrible, awful, no good idea. Look at it this way. We all pick a NK target for you. That target is Town. Scum doesn’t block you, you kill Town. Scum instead blocks someone else, potentially a Cop or a self-protecting Doc. The next Day, we pick another NK target for you. That target is also Town. Scum blocks you, the next Day when that target is still alive, everyone assumes they’re Scum and there’s a very quick and perfunctory mislynch that garners Town no info whatsoever. If I were Scum, I’d be salivating to get Town to agree to this idea. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/530 "2009-12-14T03:15:42Z")
**Drain** , I don’t see why it’s SO horrible. Granted, the role blocker is going to role block him, but why would everyone assume they’re scum if it doesn’t go through? It’s unorthodox but I think it could work. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/531 "2009-12-14T03:57:30Z")
Peek, I’m putting this up front, so it’s real clear. 1. I disagree with your choice to counterclaim, if I were in your shoes I wouldn’t have done it. But I also recognize that it has at least paid off with a SK being lynched. And as I said before, its up to the person who has that role to make that decision. 2. Despite the fact that pede was SK, I still feel that the your case was weak, and not really related to actual game play, but to a disagreement on a trivial issue that said nothing about whether or not he was town, or scum, or pfk. Your “lynch the liar” and false dichotomy posts were especially slanted, but you are known for aggressive play. > [@peekercpa](#): > > now remember this is before **ped** comes clean about being the sk. > > now does being wrong equal being scum. absolutely not. but i still go back to his seeming certainty that what we were seeing was town on town. how would he know this unless he knew this. and in the same post he gives me some grief about wanting **ped** lynched over a “trivial point”. and then follows it up in the next paragraph with an observation of \*\*ped]/b]'s “glaring inconsistency”. > my counter claim “reeks”. what was the point of it? uh, to lynch a scum or sk. i wasn’t protecting **freud** i was trying to lynch a non town. > > there is one more i want to look at before i get a vote down. but definitely **skeez** is a contender. It did reek, I didn’t know if either you or pede was the vig or if neither of you were the vig. You could have both been scum. The fact of someone claiming vig, then being counterclaimed by the same person who has been calling for their lynch all day was irksome, if not actually suspicious (since it is very risky for scum to counterclaim someone). The point of the question is (assuming you are actually what you claim) since you’ve counterclaimed, until someone else claims, you are for all intents and purposes a vanilla who is likelier to be town than scum. Why do this, when you could stay hidden and have a chance (although slim) to take out the other claimant? Fair enough, but the timing seemed to be to protect Freudian, which puzzled me. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > **Skeez** is also on the top of my list of potential votes as well at this point. Even though the scum had not had a chance to talk yet YesterDay, if he were scum he would know that **pede** was not scum and that I was not scum. The odds of my shoot-from-the-hip vote on **pede** being town-on-town were on his side. By trying to cast suspicion on me and my early vote, he could have been trying to both put general suspicion on my and lay groundwork for townie cred if **pede** happened to flipped town. No surprises here, except the change in your MO of voting from the hip. Why no vote for me? I mean, you could always change it if you change your mind later, and you had no reservations about voting for pede. Secondly, regardless of pede’s alignment, your vote was almost entirely baseless. Calling votes into question that there appears to be no real reason for is IMO not especially scummy, but if one tries hard enough one can find a scum motivation for any action, no? Also the two of you have commented on my town-on-town comment. There’s not much to explain here. I was confident that it was town-on-town since that is what I usually observe on Day 1, a few town-on-town feuds that result in a town lynch. Ie if two people are carrying on and on, then they take on an appearance of townliness. It’s hard for me to imagine a reason that a non-town player would carry on a debate of a gaming point for several pages, why would they want all that attention. Apparently I was wrong:smack:. I agree with Drain Bead, it’s a horrible idea to vote for NK’s. But drain bead doesn’t point out scum also gains information so they can avoid double killing the vig target. Not to mention the fact that giving scum extra influence on who gets NKed is silly. Freudian, it’s not novel, or new and it’s unorthodox because it gives scum even more information that they can use to plan their actions. I believe it was called “leash the vig” before, and I was told in another game that it failed spectacularly. I don’t see what you expect it to accomplish. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/532 "2009-12-14T04:02:57Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Peek, I’m putting this up front, so it’s real clear. > > 1. I disagree with your choice to counterclaim, if I were in your shoes I wouldn’t have done it. But I also recognize that it has at least paid off with a SK being lynched. And as I said before, its up to the person who has that role to make that decision. > > 2. Despite the fact that pede was SK, I still feel that the your case was weak, and not really related to actual game play, but to a disagreement on a trivial issue that said nothing about whether or not he was town, or scum, or pfk. Your “lynch the liar” and false dichotomy posts were especially slanted, but you are known for aggressive play. > > It did reek, I didn’t know if either you or pede was the vig or if neither of you were the vig. You could have both been scum. The fact of someone claiming vig, then being counterclaimed by the same person who has been calling for their lynch all day was irksome, if not actually suspicious (since it is very risky for scum to counterclaim someone). The point of the question is (assuming you are actually what you claim) since you’ve counterclaimed, until someone else claims, you are for all intents and purposes a vanilla who is likelier to be town than scum. Why do this, when you could stay hidden and have a chance (although slim) to take out the other claimant? Why is it suspicious to counterclaimed by someone who was calling for their lynch? It makes sense to me. He seems suspicious and then the crowning realization that he’s full of it is that he claims to be the same role as you. I’m not seeing why **peeker** is remotely suspicious despite his earlier aggressive play and I don’t know why people are questioning him so strongly. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/533 "2009-12-14T04:36:22Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > No surprises here, except the change in your MO of voting from the hip. Why no vote for me? I mean, you could always change it if you change your mind later, and you had no reservations about voting for pede. Secondly, regardless of pede’s alignment, your vote was almost entirely baseless. Calling votes into question that there appears to be no real reason for is IMO not especially scummy, but if one tries hard enough one can find a scum motivation for any action, no? If you are going to metagame about someone’s MO, you might want to familiarize yourself about that person’s actual MO based on a sample size larger than one Day. I’ve played a lot of Mafia on these boards, and Yesterday’s early vote on **pede** is actually not my usual approach. Not much I can do for you with respect to your views on my vote justification, but it does smack of a bit of hypocrisy since you are citing false dichotomies in your very own posts where you cast suspicion on others. Just what is your criteria to move above “almost entirely baseless”? Is it more than one false dichotomy, or do I need at least 3 distinct justification types out a possible 10? At least your dissatisfaction with and suspicion of my play does not diminish that giddy little sense of lucky happiness that warms my tummy at having had a hand in neutralizing the SK right out of the gate. 🆒 > [@](#): > > Also the two of you have commented on my town-on-town comment. There’s not much to explain here. I was confident that it was town-on-town since that is what I usually observe on Day 1, a few town-on-town feuds that result in a town lynch. Ie if two people are carrying on and on, then they take on an appearance of townliness. It’s hard for me to imagine a reason that a non-town player would carry on a debate of a gaming point for several pages, why would they want all that attention. Apparently I was wrong:smack:. I don’t recall commenting on your town-on-town comment, but I have referred to the concept in at least one of my posts. Are you sure that you are thinking of me? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/534 "2009-12-14T04:45:37Z")
Hi all. I’m wondering what has happened to **Rin Twisted** ; she hasn’t been here since story voted her. I guess for now I’ll **vote Rin Twisted** as a reminder that it would be nice to see her defense against that Day 1 case. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/535 "2009-12-14T04:54:06Z")
**Vote Count** with about 3 days, 21 hours, and 5 minutes (peak vote in parentheses) **1 Vote** \ ***Freudian Slit** (1 #512) Zeriel (512) **Mental Guy** (1 #522) Alka Seltzer (522) **Red Skeezix** (1 #526) peekercpa (526) **Rin Twisted** (1 #534) Tom Scud (534) \*Lynch Leader Not voting: Mahaloth, Nanook of the North Shore, Drain Bead, Freudian Slit, ToeJam, USCDiver, DiggitCamara, storyteller0910, Red Skeezix, MHaye, Rin Twisted, GuiriEnEspaña, Mental Guy, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/536 "2009-12-14T05:43:39Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > If you are going to metagame about someone’s MO, you might want to familiarize yourself about that person’s actual MO based on a sample size larger than one Day. I’ve played a lot of Mafia on these boards, and Yesterday’s early vote on **pede** is actually not my usual approach. Not much I can do for you with respect to your views on my vote justification, but it does smack of a bit of hypocrisy since you are citing false dichotomies in your very own posts where you cast suspicion on others. I was commenting on your actions and play in this game only. How was my comment meta? Looking at your past play in other games is meaningless. I could tell you to look at my past play on other boards and it would be equally meaningless. The only patterns of play for a specific player that are truly applicable are ones that happen in this game. It’s too easy for a person to just change how they’re playing. So the only thing that I have to go on is how you’ve played in this game. I can draw inferences on how I think a scum player might play based on how I’ve seen scum played in the past. But I can’t say Cookies is or isn’t scum because she usually plays scum like this or she usually plays town like that. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Just what is your criteria to move above “almost entirely baseless”? Is it more than one false dichotomy, or do I need at least 3 distinct justification types out a possible 10? At least your dissatisfaction with and suspicion of my play does not diminish that giddy little sense of lucky happiness that warms my tummy at having had a hand in neutralizing the SK right out of the gate. 🆒 I never said that you made a false dichotomy, but I said peeker did, and I said that it was aggressive and slanted, nothing more. I disagree with your reasoning, so I see your suspicions as baseless. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong, just means I disagree with the logic. The reason I voted for you was because you were being neutral with a parked vote based on reasoning that didn’t make sense to me. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I don’t recall commenting on your town-on-town comment, but I have referred to the concept in at least one of my posts. Are you sure that you are thinking of me? Yeah, that was my bad, I was trying keep everything straight in my head, and I read and then promptly misfiled your town on town comment in what I quoted. I don’t know why I thought you were talking about my comment. Probably just confused. I still notice that you didn’t bother to answer my question about why you are not voting me. The closest that you’ve come is saying “That’s not how I usually play”. Well I’ll say it again, that’s how you played yesterday, so why isn’t it how you’re playing today, why the change? We don’t have to call it MO. We can call it whatever you want. Why the change? And just FYI, you seem less suspicious to me today because you are not playing today like you played yesterday, or maybe I’m just seeing your side better and that’s coloring my opinion. Who knows? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Why is it suspicious to counterclaimed by someone who was calling for their lynch? It makes sense to me. He seems suspicious and then the crowning realization that he’s full of it is that he claims to be the same role as you. I’m not seeing why **peeker** is remotely suspicious despite his earlier aggressive play and I don’t know why people are questioning him so strongly. Who is questioning him strongly? Why did you quote me for that? Like I said it was irksome, if not actually suspicious, since you quoted me I will elaborate even further: it struck me as highly coincidental if true. But I didn’t think it was suspicious enough to vote for him did I? I just asked him some questions. To clarify things and to point out the awkward timing of the claim, which is what I was seeing at that point. You are not going to browbeat me into not pointing my finger and asking questions. As far as suspicion on peeker, it’s not more than the general paranoia that I have in this game (and probably less since he seems to be following up and hunting for scum). It is possible for him to not actually be the vig, but it’s not very plausible given the ramifications of his counterclaim. The fact that you appear to be 100% confident that he’s telling the truth, without even acknowledging the possibility of falsehood is heaps more suspicious to me than anything that he has said or done. Combine that with arguing against the flaws in the “vote the NK” plan. **vote Freudian Slit** ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/537 "2009-12-14T05:58:30Z")
No **skeez** , you didn’t accuse me of stating a false dichotomy, but you are dismissing my citing of **pede’s** false dichotomy as a baseless reason to vote for him Yesterday while using what you see as false dichotomies from other players as reason for your suspicions. Hence the hypocrisy comment. I’m not voting for you yet because there is a lot more information to consider Today than Yesterday, and there is a game full of other players that I’d kinda like to hear from and possibly even vote for to put pressure on them to participate. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/538 "2009-12-14T06:07:48Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > No **skeez** , you didn’t accuse me of stating a false dichotomy, but you are dismissing my citing of **pede’s** false dichotomy as a baseless reason to vote for him Yesterday while using what you see as false dichotomies from other players as reason for your suspicions. Hence the hypocrisy comment. > \ OK, now that makes sense. I guess I didn’t read pede’s statement as that, but now I can see how his statement is (and am embarrassed that I didn’t pick up on it), and I can see where your coming from better. As for your reason for not voting; thank you for clarifying. ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/539 "2009-12-14T08:01:16Z")
Two things. 1. Putting a harness on the Vig or other Town power role (which is what Peeker suggested) is simply a bad idea. We can’t exercise any form of executive oversight on the PM that Peeker writes to Special Ed. There is no way to exercise any before the gfact control at all, and all such an idea does is give the impression that we are in control when we’re not. Also, we know that four of the people trying to steer Peeker’s kill are Scum. Giving the scum a voice in the actions of the Vig simply means that they’ll have a chance to get Peeker to NK the wrong player. See M2, where this was tried. 1. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I am being forced onto a Government funded activity that means I get to do what I do every day anyway, but in less congenial surroundings and at a higher cost to the taxpayer. So my participation over the next three months will be limited to evenings GMT only. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/540 "2009-12-14T13:04:14Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Hi all. I’m wondering what has happened to **Rin Twisted** ; she hasn’t been here since story voted her. I guess for now I’ll > > **vote Rin Twisted** > > as a reminder that it would be nice to see her defense against that Day 1 case. In fairness, that was my last vote, as well. So it looks like we bagged the SK. This is good, though obviously not as good as killing Scum. I’m going to do a brief history of how the SK got dead this morning, and it may change my vote, but for now, having had no response from Rin Twisted, I would like to reiterate my vote: **vote Rin Twisted** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=28)