# 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:** 29
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/561 "2009-12-14T18:14:25Z")
Quicky look at Freudian: 98: agrees with Cookies that pede looks suspicious, won’t vote yet. 125,127: roleblocker stuff; thinks Town roleblocker should act. 132, 144, 146, 149, 151: peeker/miller stuff; in 132 Freudian agrees with what she thinks is peeker suggesting that a miller should be lynched; then goes off on peeker for being overaggressive, defends Mahaloth. 172, 183, 193: more peeker/miller stuff; 172 she accuses peeker of baiting her. 201, 203: Is there a serial killer? Is the game gastardly? 217: pinged by pedescribe for jumping too quickly 223, 228: exchange with Rin re: amrussell and evil-crumbing 231, 238, 248, 268: post Zeriel vote for FS, FS returns to accusation that peeker baited her, wonders why people are so quick to defend him. 288: votes pedescribe for overeager bandwagon-jumping 289: apologizes for being over-defensive 299, 301: queries spEd about the hammer vote number (11 rather than 12) 305: reiterates apology for defensiveness, continues prosecution of pedescribe 311, 331, 333, 336: calls out low-volume posters 324: has played 4 or 5 games in the past 345, 360, 362: pokes pede re: guiri post 376, 379, 407, 417, 425, expresses/defends skepticism re: pede claim 439 and overnight posts: fluff 530: defends “vote-for-vig-kill” idea 532: thinks peeker’s counterclaim didn’t reek. You know, I really wasn’t on the Freudian wagon before, but reading through it all at once, she really does look like someone who was skimming, got caught, and got over-defensive about it. Which admittedly, could also happen to a Town player, but it sure does smell scummy. I’d still like to see what **Rin** has to say, and I’m still worried about low-volume **Mahaloth** , but I think I will **unvote Rin** **vote Freudian** ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/562 "2009-12-14T18:20:20Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I asked the question of Guiri to help to help me get a read on him. So it was basically just a “if you were a dog, what breed of dog would you be?” question? > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > The Town Roleblocker probably should refrain from using his/her power at Night as much as possible, since it’s an even chance that (s)he will block a Town power role. This, of course, should be at his/her discretion. Actually, at the point with the scum roleblocker probably blocking peeker, I’d say it’s worth the town blocker blocking. They’ve got an equal chance of hitting a scum or town attempting a night action, but hitting scum at this point is always good, while hitting town is always bad for a cop block, but only occasionally bad for a doc block. And if peeker’s kill goes through, the town roleblocker has now got a hint as to who the scum roleblocker is; not 100% sure (the scum could deliberately let peeker kill to put suspicion on an innocent townie by this logic), but something that could be tested repeatedly over multiple nights. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/563 "2009-12-14T18:33:31Z")
Having said that (and voted) about **Freudian** , it occurred to me that her skepticism of **pede** ’s claim is a point in her favor; yes, it could be a scum trying to see if they could push for a Town power-role lynch anyway, but I’d think the safe scum play would be to back off from a claim; certainly she couldn’t KNOW that the claim was false. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/564 "2009-12-14T19:36:39Z")
I’m also being pinged by **Diggit** , who has an IMO undermotivated vote for **peeker** and a handful of posts urging Town power roles not to act, in addition to the no-brainer vote for **pedescribe**. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/565 "2009-12-14T19:42:38Z")
I don’t see how any of those things I did were scummy, **Tom Scud** , and I’m not being obtuse. I just don’t see it. I do think that a lot of the people who did the opposite of me (saw **pedescribe** ’s claim as being real) are scummy because it is a safe reaction to just back off. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > **Unvote pede**. > [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > **Unvote Pedescribe** So these people are on MY list of suspects. ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/566 "2009-12-14T19:44:29Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > I’m also being pinged by **Diggit** , who has an IMO undermotivated vote for **peeker** and a handful of posts urging Town power roles not to act, in addition to the no-brainer vote for **pedescribe**. When are you referring to? Did **Diggit** still vote for **peeker** after the vig claim? Because voting for the one person who is essentially town claimed seems really stupid to me. Despite **peeker** ’s arguing with me on day one, I do think it’s silly in any event to mistrust the one person who’s basically a confirmed townie. ---
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/567 "2009-12-14T19:48:58Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > When are you referring to? Did **Diggit** still vote for **peeker** after the vig claim? Because voting for the one person who is essentially town claimed seems really stupid to me. Despite **peeker** ’s arguing with me on day one, I do think it’s silly in any event to mistrust the one person who’s basically a confirmed townie. No, **Diggit** voted **peeker** before the claim/counterclaim. Per your other post, I wouldn’t consider someone who backed off from a claim to be particularly scummy either; it’s definitely the conventional play, Town or Scum, and the fact that those two people did so is more a factor of when they were on line and posting than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/568 "2009-12-14T20:19:13Z")
@ **Freudian** , this is my full, unedited, original post in response to **Pedescribe** ’s claim: > [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > **Unvote Pedescribe** > > For now I’d like to see what the rest of Town thinks we should do. > > It’s funny that we just had a big discussion on what we should do in the event of a Vig claim… > > If **Pedescribe** is the real Vig and there’s no counterclaim, the Doc will probably protect him and scum will role-block him so he’s basically VT at the moment, right? > > If he’s not the real Vig, without a counter-claim, the Doc will likely still protect him so he can’t be “dealt with”" by the SK, scum or the real Vig - so he’s basically safe till the real vig flips. > > If he’s not the real Vig and there is a counter-claim, the Doc will have to decide which of the two claimants is townier, protect that person who, if the true Vig, will probably be roleblocked, while the less convincing claimant either gets lynched or NK’d by the SK. > > If I’m looking at this correctly, it all boils down to whether our Doc buys **Pedescribe** ’s claim and is willing to protect him or let the scum, SK or real Vig deal with him in their own way. > > FWIW, I don’t think his play style has been consistent with a Townie protecting a very important power role and I’m not sure what to make of the fact the he was the first to give “advice” to the Vig (#82). Isn’t that exactly what you’re NOT supposed to do? Now please tell me which part of that led you to understand that I saw his claim as real? We had discussed previously various approaches on how to deal with a Vig claim, no consensus was met but, as is normal in claims of power roles, I unvoted, offered my opinion including scenarios in which **Pedescribe** was lying, and waited to see what others thought of the claim. You poked **Pedescribe** for skimming and misquoting (he claimed that I gave no reasons for my first vote on him when I had given 4 or 5) but you then do the same thing here? Snip a small part of a post and make false statements about my belief in his claim? Before, I was confused about you - I really thought you were a townie digging themselves out of self-dug holes. I couldn’t see a reasoned scum motivation for your play and, as **Drain** said earlier, would have suspected you of being a jester if this game were not so straightforward. As it is, you skim, misinterpret, misquote, and are seeming less and less town-like to me. **Vote Freudian** ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/569 "2009-12-14T20:21:46Z")
Well, frankly, I think your whole, “I’m going to unvote until I see what the rest of the Town says” is kind of scummy to me. Or at best cowardly. It just seems like a traditionally safe response to me. But whatever, go ahead and vote for me. It’s the easiest thing to do, right? ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/570 "2009-12-14T21:12:52Z")
> [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > Alka, while the ask other people questions technique can be useful, only doing that and providing not much else is kinda bugging me. This is a baseless accusation, I’ve made a case against a player and have a vote down. I’ve also given my position on several issues and flagged up some points I think are of interest. > [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > Especially in this case since your questions seem kind of random. I find it interesting you labelled them as random instead of asking for clarification. > [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > I’m a bit concerned about the disappearance of Rin as well. On multiple occasions in the past I’ve seen scum drop off the radar after picking up heat early and then never be suspected again. It’s not an unusual tactic for them to use. Rin hasn’t been active on the board since the 7th, so I see no reason to assume her absence has anything to do with the game. Hopefully the mods are looking for a replacement. It’s not a good argument, she wasn’t under serious pressure. Rin only picked up 2 votes on day 1, and one of those was ToeJam’s pressure vote after she went quiet. > [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Per your other post, I wouldn’t consider someone who backed off from a claim to be particularly scummy either; it’s definitely the conventional play, Town or Scum, and the fact that those two people did so is more a factor of when they were on line and posting than anything else. Agree, unvoting the claimant was the only move in this setup, it’s a null tell. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/571 "2009-12-14T21:21:12Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > I’d still like to see what **Rin** has to say, and I’m still worried about low-volume **Mahaloth** , but I think I will :snipped: Yeah, I get the concern. I’m low-posting in this game by a ton compared to my normal play-style. I don’t want to be subbed out, though. I’m following along. I guess I’m trying to play more like Nanook, with careful reading and only posting when I have something to say. Peeker, do whatever you think is smartest vigilante-wise. Don’t let the scum have any say in it, which they would get in a day-time vote thingy. I’m not exactly feeling the vote-collection that has begun on Freudian. It feels more like people just jumping on than an actual case based lynch. However, I do think rin has done very little other than stir the pot and back off to watch. This is scummy. **Vote Rintwisted** ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/572 "2009-12-14T21:37:16Z")
Here is the entirety of my unvote of **pede** as well: > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > **Unvote pede**. > > Let’s see what happens next. And we pick on you in the playground because we like you, **pede** > > Hopefully some votes will get us some signs of life. > > **Vote Ichini** My waiting to see what happens next refers to waiting to see if there would be a counter-claim, which is also a reasonable interpretation of Guiri’s “I’m going to unvote till I see what the rest of the town says” statement. Low and behold, there was a counter-claim that followed shortly thereafter. And while we’re here, **Freudian** , is there any particular reason why MentalGuy’s unvoting of **pede** in post [#377](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11871280&postcount=377) didn’t make your list of suspects with **Guiri** and I? Making lists with double standards is scummy at worst and signs of more skimming at best. Further, I fail to see what is scummy about allowing for the possibility that a third-party player false-claiming as the Vig might be telling the truth, when there has not yet been a counter-claim. It sounds like you are trying to smear those of us who unvoted pede as having some sort of scummy perfect information, but the scum assumedly had no perfect information about **pede** other than that he was not scum. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/573 "2009-12-14T21:42:15Z")
In the interest of full disclosure, I seem to have been left off of the “not voting” list. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/574 "2009-12-14T23:11:57Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Actually, at the point with the scum roleblocker probably blocking peeker, I’d say it’s worth the town blocker blocking. They’ve got an equal chance of hitting a scum or town attempting a night action, but hitting scum at this point is always good, while hitting town is always bad for a cop block, but only occasionally bad for a doc block. > > And if peeker’s kill goes through, the town roleblocker has now got a hint as to who the scum roleblocker is; not 100% sure (the scum could deliberately let peeker kill to put suspicion on an innocent townie by this logic), but something that could be tested repeatedly over multiple nights. ok, **tom** help me out. i actually think the scum rb is going to leave me alone. i mean they can go fishing for the doc or dick. if they block me and i decide to sit on my hands they don’t accomplish anything. and if they block me and i decide to go postal the odds are, at this point, that i hit a town. barring that i’ve got a read that is making them nervous. and really the town rb, if they decide to do anything should be blocking me for the same townie mis reason that a scum rb wouldn’t want to block me. and the town rb has twice the likelihood of hitting a town power role than they do a scum killer. so i think this is backwards, right? and i really don’t parse the second paragraph at all. help? if i decide to kill and it goes through how does that help the town rb. i mean i guess they know that someone other than me or them is the scum rb but shit they already know that. ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/575 "2009-12-14T23:16:37Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > and i really don’t parse the second paragraph at all. help? if i decide to kill and it goes through how does that help the town rb. i mean i guess they know that someone other than me or them is the scum rb but shit they already know that. I parsed that as if the townie RB blocks the scum RB and the kill goes through then the townie RB will know they identified the SCUM RB correctly. ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/576 "2009-12-14T23:18:51Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > And while we’re here, **Freudian** , is there any particular reason why MentalGuy’s unvoting of **pede** in post [#377](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11871280&postcount=377) didn’t make your list of suspects with **Guiri** and I? Making lists with double standards is scummy at worst and signs of more skimming at best. :rolleyes: Wow, I skimmed. Yes, I found that suspicious, too, coupled with the fact that he hasn’t been posting a lot. Though to be honest, I’m starting to think that in retrospect I was a little hard on people for backing off their vote. As you guys have pointed out, it’s a null tell. I do think that not everyone jumping on MY bandwagon is doing it for good reasons. I think it’s way too easy for scum to just add themselves because “everyone else is doing it.” And I think a lot of people might regret this decision. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/577 "2009-12-14T23:33:42Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I parsed that as if the townie RB blocks the scum RB and the kill goes through then the townie RB will know they identified the SCUM RB correctly. i don’t connect those dots. if the scum rb leaves me alone, which seems to be the percentage play, then that doesn’t compute at all. matter of fact for a town rb to jump to that conclusion would be highly speculative. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/578 "2009-12-14T23:58:33Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Actually, at the point with the scum roleblocker probably blocking peeker, I’d say it’s worth the town blocker blocking. They’ve got an equal chance of hitting a scum or town attempting a night action, but hitting scum at this point is always good, while hitting town is always bad for a cop block, but only occasionally bad for a doc block. > > And if peeker’s kill goes through, the town roleblocker has now got a hint as to who the scum roleblocker is; not 100% sure (the scum could deliberately let peeker kill to put suspicion on an innocent townie by this logic), but something that could be tested repeatedly over multiple nights. > [@peekercpa](#): > > ok, **tom** help me out. i actually think the scum rb is going to leave me alone. i mean they can go fishing for the doc or dick. if they block me and i decide to sit on my hands they don’t accomplish anything. and if they block me and i decide to go postal the odds are, at this point, that i hit a town. barring that i’ve got a read that is making them nervous. and really the town rb, if they decide to do anything should be blocking me for the same townie mis reason that a scum rb wouldn’t want to block me. and the town rb has twice the likelihood of hitting a town power role than they do a scum killer. so i think this is backwards, right? Hm. I think that assuming you have any kind of read and aren’t just shooting randomly, you’re probably better off using than not using your power; it’s a kill that is at least somewhat likely to hit a scum, and that scum don’t have any influence over. Which means I think scum would be smartest to park their roleblocker on you. I mean, yeah, they can take a random shot at finding the doc or cop, but they won’t even know if they succeed, so what’s the point? I guess if they wanted to block-kill the same guy every day and just ignore you, that would make some sense, since hitting a self-protecting doc would suck for them. > [@](#): > > and i really don’t parse the second paragraph at all. help? if i decide to kill and it goes through how does that help the town rb. i mean i guess they know that someone other than me or them is the scum rb but shit they already know that. Freudian read me right there. If you think (as I do) that the Scum are probably going to block you (at least unless the cop or doc gets outed), then you having a kill go through might mean the town RB has found the scum RB. > [@peekercpa](#): > > i don’t connect those dots. if the scum rb leaves me alone, which seems to be the percentage play, then that doesn’t compute at all. matter of fact for a town rb to jump to that conclusion would be highly speculative. Right. I just don’t see the scum leaving you alone as the percentage play. But I guess you’re right that there’s too many variables for that to be an even semi-reliable investigative tool. Too bad. ---
**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 15, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/579 "2009-12-15T00:04:29Z")
**Vote Count** with about 3 days, 1 hours, and 56 minutes (peak vote in parentheses) **5 Votes** \ ***Freudian Slit** (5 #568) Zeriel (512), Red Skeezix (536), Drain Bead (545), Tome Scud (561), GuiriEnEspaña (568) **2 Votes** **Rin Twisted** (2 #540) Tom Scud (534 561), storyteller0910 (540). Mahaloth (571) **1 Vote** **Mental Guy** (1 #522) Alka Seltzer (522) **Red Skeezix** (1 #526) peekercpa (526) **0 Votes** **Zeriel** **Drain Bead** **Tom Scud** **Alka Seltzer** **peekercpa** **Mahaloth** **Nanook of the North Shore** **ToeJam** **USCDiver** **DiggitCamara** **MHaye** **GuiriEnEspaña** **Mental Guy** **ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies** _Lynch Leader \*\* Not voting:_\* Nanook of the North Shore, Freudian Slit, ToeJam, USCDiver, DiggitCamara, MHaye, Rin Twisted, Mental Guy, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/580 "2009-12-15T00:32:07Z")
oh, and here is one other observation. if you are a town rb and are blocking me, you play into scum’s hand. seriously that just neutralizes two town power roles. not that i am saying whether i fire or not but for you to block me is BAD. sit on your hands or claim. one more confirmed townie, or a given lynch is the percentage play. but if you feel compelled to block then fcs block me. at least that way our dick gets another read. i think that it is sub optimal but it is still better than the alternatives. back in a sec. as i was typing this out something occurred to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=30)