# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/621 "2009-12-16T03:14:23Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > **Mhaye** : I don’t follow through on your vote for Diggit. > > Can you explain how you get from point A, Diggit’s opinion on play, to B, voting for him? > > I mean, if someone offers an opinion on play, shouldn’t you ask for clarification before going directly to vote, and collecting $200 ? > > I’m still a noob in comparison here, this makes my fourth or fifth game. I’ve offered up ideas that were out there, done things that were incredibly stupid [I wouldn’t be Meeko if I didn’t] and I’ve come to realize that they were wrong only by experience. > > I don’t know Diggits record, and I’m willing to guess he is more noob than me. > > I just feel your speed is out of synch here, Mhaye. here i can help. **dc** apparently wants to be able to comment on game play but finds that anyone else that does it is leading scum to some type of inside track, near as i can tell. **dc** has played a lot. **mhaye** does what he does at his own pace. sometimes quick sometimes slow. he is a motherfucker if he is not on your side. he reminds me of a coffee drinking **santo**. 'cause i can totally see him mouthing off about “i can go faster and i can go harder but no way can i go deeper”. sorry **santo** , get better. ---
**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 16, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/622 "2009-12-16T04:17:13Z")
Hrm. Speaking of people who are a pain in the ass when they aren’t on your side. Where’s story? He said he’d come back with analysis. Not trying to imply anything, it’s just hard to avoid doing housework when the game gets into lulls. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/623 "2009-12-16T05:16:15Z")
I have gone back and reviewed the play of Red Skeezix, DarkSide, and Diggit. I don’t really see much to ping my scumdar coming from Red. There are some things I disagree with him on (I think peeker counterclaiming was the right move), but he overall makes decent arguments, backs up his actions, and has corrected himself when he misunderstood something or made an error. The one thing that did seem weird to me was his reason for finding Freudian suspicious on Day 1. He thought her trusting peeker after he counterclaimed was suspicious. This was about the only thing that did not add to my suspicions of Freudian yesterDay. What non-town player is going to counterclaim in that situation and for what purpose? I realize no one is confirmed until they are dead, but I think trusting peeker in that instance was reasonable. As for DarkSide, I found her Day 1 play more scummy seeming than her Day 2 play. She throws out an early vote on pede for really slim reasons. Then she doesn’t comment a whole lot about what is going on during the day relative to the number of times she posted. She mostly just defended herself, but not all that well in my opinion, just saying things like (paraphrasing) “a lot of Day 1 votes have had a lot less reason behind them”. Then when pede claims, she changes her vote to a total nonparticipant. I am not really against policy voting, but I think there were several better places to park a vote than on someone who at that point seemed almost certain not to show up. I find her Day 2 play much less suspicious. She is addressing issues coming up in the game more consistently, defended herself against Skeezix more substantively, and just seems more involved in the game. I know she is not a newbie, so I don’t think she really needed scum coaching, but I do wonder why the seeming difference in play between the two Days. I find her more suspicious than some players, but definitely not enough to remove my vote from Freudian. Diggit pinged me when he suggested we stop talking about certain strategy in post 592. This is what caused me to decide to add him to the list of players I was checking out. I have to say I think the votes against him are well deserved. He seems to want to stifle relevant discussion (as opposed to peeker who just wanted to stifle irrelevant discussion), He is against using Towns one sure source of getting more information (even saying our advantage was in numbers, not information) which is the death of players. I don’t think I have played with Diggit, but peeker says he is very experienced. Yet, even with this experience, he votes peeker Day 1, only giving the reason that he is suspicious without saying why and calling him near incomprehensible. I will agree that peeker is not the clearest player around, but he has been nowhere near incomprehensible this game. I am not changin my vote from Freudian yet. I want to go back and look at her before I do, but there is a good chance I may switch to Diggit. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/624 "2009-12-16T06:04:44Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > As for DarkSide, I found her Day 1 play more scummy seeming than her Day 2 play. She throws out an early vote on pede for really slim reasons. Then she doesn’t comment a whole lot about what is going on during the day relative to the number of times she posted. She mostly just defended herself, but not all that well in my opinion, just saying things like (paraphrasing) “a lot of Day 1 votes have had a lot less reason behind them”. Then when pede claims, she changes her vote to a total nonparticipant. I am not really against policy voting, but I think there were several better places to park a vote than on someone who at that point seemed almost certain not to show up. I find her Day 2 play much less suspicious. She is addressing issues coming up in the game more consistently, defended herself against Skeezix more substantively, and just seems more involved in the game. I know she is not a newbie, so I don’t think she really needed scum coaching, but I do wonder why the seeming difference in play between the two Days. I find her more suspicious than some players, but definitely not enough to remove my vote from Freudian. I’m just not going to apologize for getting lucky with **pede**. Luck can certainly be a variable in this game, but his post about **Tom** ping’d me and I went with my hunch. Your choice of paraphrasing evidence of my allegedly scummy lack of substantive participation is also questionable. The post you are trying to remember was quite early (post #192 to be specific) and shortly after my initial vote for **pede**. Between there and the Dusk post (#454) I do have substantive posts, and I even explain why I’m choosing not to participate in some of the discussions that I felt were a waste of time and full of more snark than substance. Also, I think if you look at some other players you will find that, low and behold, your subjective opinion of their participation level and substance will also vary from Day to Day as much as mine apparently has. At least we are in relative agreement on **Diggit**. I’m willing to let his Day 1 stuff with respect to **peeker** slide as just being wrong on Day 1. But the comment about not giving scum any ideas strikes me as the sort of thing that a Townie might think probably decide not say, and that a scum player might say without thinking. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/625 "2009-12-16T06:05:51Z")
NETA: That last line should read - “But the comment about not giving scum any ideas strikes me as the sort of thing that a Townie might think but probably decide not say, and that a scum player might say without thinking.” ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/626 "2009-12-16T06:10:38Z")
NETA: :smack: I mean “But the comment about not giving scum any ideas strikes me as the sort of thing that a Townie might think but probably decide not to say, and that a scum player might say without thinking.” ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/627 "2009-12-16T07:51:38Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > I take it that this means that you have no intention of pulling your vote off of pede, despite the simple fact that if he’s lying the real vig knows it and will presumably take care of it. Makes a good night 1 kill for a vig if he’s lying. > > I think that play is scummy. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > \<\\> > > If he’s scum or SK, he’ll die for it, either the vig will get him eventually or the vig will get killed and we’ll know he’s lying and we’ll lynch him. If he actually is the vig, he probably will be roleblocked or killed by scum. > > This effectively makes the problem between pede, scum/SK, and a possible vig (if he’s lying). IMO, Town should not waste a lynch on him at this point. The straight odds are low that he’s telling the truth (I figure 1 of 6), but why should town bother to lynch him? I would even go as far to say that the cop shouldn’t even waste an investigation on him (due to godfather). > > Again IMO, his claim makes him not town’s problem until someone is forced to counter-claim him or the real vig ends up dead and confirmed. Then, it is town’s duty to lynch his ass since he will be undeniably not town. > [@peekercpa](#): > > \<\\> > > i think he claimed this to save his butt hoping that he would get investigated and show up town. then when i, the real vig, showed up he would just call b.s. and potentially have the dick confirm that he is town. shoot, enough confusion to not only potentially get a mislynch but also unearth the detective. > > \<\\> I once read that taking a long break from Poker helps your game. I can’t help but wonder if Mafia is much the same way. My God Peeker, I understand you 100% here. :eek: I snipped a good bit of this post. However, what I left is enough. You won me over based on this selection alone. > [@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? > > \<\\> Obviously with the day behind us, and with some of us not playing in day 1, it is all to easy to use hindsight here. That aside, I can only wonder what you are thinking about, stating that Peeker’s counter claim reeks here. As I just stated, I understand Peekers line completely. I get the feeling that you still think it was a gamble for Peeker to do what he did. We got the sk, I don’t think there could have been a better pay-off. We may not understand what or why Peeker does, but when he does, I am fairly certain he knows and accepts the consequence. And then we have the issue with post [531](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11884726&postcount=531) Skeez remains stubborn on a fact that, frankly, reminds me of myself. … In a world where I understand Peeker 100%, and can glimpse the view point that other players [not playing in this game] have had against me, it is all too much. To be honest, before reviewing the thread I considered voting Peeker simply because he was Peeker. Then, once I reviewed the thread, and saw the entire vig claim situation that Peeker chose to engage, I must move off that position. Skeez has not moved [greatly] from the position given. We have the sk dead. Peeker put a target on his back in doing so, but we have a payoff. Actions being louder than words, I must question why Skeez is where he is. * * * **Vote Red Skeezik** Peeker’s logic is correct. He saw a liar and moved to act on it as soon as he could. Again, I don’t know if the planets are aligned tonight, or what, but I am hearing Peeker loud and clear. In the face of that, I wonder what Skeez is up to. ---
**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 16, 2009, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/628 "2009-12-16T11:53:33Z")
Welcome to the game Meeko. Please bear in mind that excessive posting makes the game no fun for a lot of the players. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > You acknowledge the weakness of the case but support it regardless. Interesting. I give it a little more credence than I normally would because the case was made by a now confirmed townie. (Peeker may well be wrong, but at least I don’t need to worry about his motives. His confirmation is a boon for town, I spent a disproportionate amount of time worrying about his alignment in the last game). > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > It may appear to be backpedaling, but only if you haven’t paid attention to my play throughout the whole game (all two days of it so far). You might take note that before ped actually came out as SK, I had moved my vote to freudian and accused peek of backing her up with his counterclaim. Which is a theory that doesn’t hold up, as peeker would have been certain to die and we’d then have wondered why he did it. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > I’m still suspicious of Cookies (less than yesterday), but more suspicious of Freudian. So thats where my vote lies. Thanks for the clarification of your current position on Cookies. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Also consider the fact that I acknowledged that I was misreading Cookies vote as opportunistic, and not as she intended it: To point out the false dichotomy in pede’s comment yesterday. … If I have suspicions that are shown to me to be based on a misread, should I continue to pursue them with the same vigor? Fair enough. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Easy target? What does that even mean? Someone is playing scummy, so I vote for them and that says to you I’m picking on an easy target? I agree that FS is playing anti-town, but unfortunately a lot of anti-town play is not scum motivated. Scum have a lot of options for exploiting anti-town play, the most common being using them as a safe place to park a vote. I think FS is more likely to be town than scum, but her play gives us a problem. Town have to treat anti-town play as suspicious, or scum have free rein to play scummily. The SK lynch was a good result, but the downside is it gave us little information, as both town and scum had reasons to vote him. I’m not opposed to an FS lynch today, but I don’t think it will give us much info either. Even if she does flip scum, “bus FS” seems an obvious scum strategy. I tend to use anti-town play as a tie-breaker, my threshold for voting someone is lower if I don’t think they are helping town. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > I must be missing where you stated your opinion before I posted, since I apparently repeated it back to you, could you supply me with a quote to the relevant text where you stated this opinion? Post #527, and the fact I’d used it as supporting point in my case against MentalGuy. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I for one do not see **Skeez** letting up on me a little bit as suspicious. It makes me inclined to relax a bit about him as well, at least for now since we seem to be more in sync in our views. I’d like to know more about whether **Alka’s** suspicion of **Skeez** for backing off extends to me by proxy and why. Did you find his case against me compelling, **Alka**? No, it was the possible backpedalling that got my attention. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I’m still trying to make sense of **Alka’s** list of questions too. Be more specific please, why are you having problems with this when I explained my reasons in #590? > [@MHaye](#): > > It’s a good maxim in these games that the Scum, collectively, have a better idea of the game status than the Townies, individually. The primary reason for this is that a Townie’s developing ideas can’t be bounced off someone else for quality checking, whereas the Scum can do just that. So stifling discussion of strategy helps the Scum more than it helps the Town. I agree with this. ---
**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 16, 2009, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/629 "2009-12-16T12:22:08Z")
I notice ToeJam hasn’t posted for some time, and he has been active in other threads. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/630 "2009-12-16T12:58:53Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I notice ToeJam hasn’t posted for some time, and he has been active in other threads. He had mentioned that he wouldn’t be posting this week. > [@ToeJam](#): > > Also- next week for me is my week of finals. So I pretty much will not be checking in on this thread from Sunday to Friday. I’m basically going to have to eat it in terms of posting/voting/anything. On an unrelated matter, I’ve been re-reading the last 50 or so posts… I found **Alka** ’s questions a novel approach and regret not giving him a better read on me from my response. It was interesting to see him do a 180 on his case against **Mental Guy** but at least followed it up with an unvote. I’m unsure about **Diggit** ’s request to stop “scum” strategy talk - it’s certainly suspicious that he said this shortly after his own strategy post. I’d like to see his response the the latest votes on him. I agree that **MHaye** ’s reasoning for his vote on **Diggit** is a little weird but I think I can see what he means (about the advantage of losing a few townies in exchange for additional info on votes, behaviors) but I don’t agree that it’s good to accelerate the death rate blindly. I appreciate **Freudian** ’s admission that she was wrong to FOS people for unvoting after the first Vig claim ([#576](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11888110&postcount=576)). While I admit my vote on her is 1 part OMGUS to 2 parts suspicion, I still feel more strongly about her than anyone else at the moment. **Mahaloth** ’s vote on **Meeko** is a little strange, especially as the reason he voted **rin** in the first place was “I do think rin has done very little other than stir the pot and back off to watch”. Surely by getting a sub, **Rin** ’s inaction is partially excused? ---
**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 16, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/631 "2009-12-16T13:10:04Z")
**Vote Count** with about 1 days, 12 hours, and 50 minutes 11 Votes required to start countdown. (peak vote in parentheses) **6 Votes** \ ***Freudian Slit** (7 #584) Zeriel (512), Red Skeezix (536 593), Drain Bead (545), Tom Scud (561), GuiriEnEspaña (568), USCDiver (582), Mental Guy (584) **3 Votes** **DiggitCamara** (23#606) Red Skeezix (593), peekercpa (603), MHaye (606) **2 Votes** **Meeko** (2 #540) Tom Scud (534 561), storyteller0910 (540). Mahaloth (571) **Red Skeezix** (2 #590)) peekercpa (526 603), Alka Seltzer (590), Meeko (627) **0 Votes** **Mental Guy** (1 #522) Alka Seltzer (522 590) **Zeriel** **Drain Bead** **Tom Scud** **Alka Seltzer** **peekercpa** **Mahaloth** **Nanook of the North Shore** **ToeJam** **USCDiver** **MHaye** **GuiriEnEspaña** **storyteller0910** **ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies** _Lynch Leader \*\* Not voting:_\* Nanook of the North Shore, Freudian Slit, ToeJam, DiggitCamara, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/632 "2009-12-16T14:10:08Z")
I’m keeping up with the reading, but I don’t have much more to say at this time. It didn’t help that I’ve been sick the last day or so. ---
**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 16, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/633 "2009-12-16T14:41:18Z")
I’ve been a bit uncomfortable with my **Freudian** vote, and various people have put my discomfort into words lately: she seems to be skimming and acting defensive, but still seems more to me like a Townie playing a poor game than a Scum. For which reason, I’m going to shift my vote (following my earlier “pings”): **unvote Freudian** **vote Diggit** ---
**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 16, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/634 "2009-12-16T14:43:14Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > Meeko, make sure you read the setup. In particular, read post #67 thoroughly. ---
**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 16, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/635 "2009-12-16T14:44:22Z")
And NETA to my vote change post - she seems to HAVE BEEN skimming et cetera. ---
**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 16, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/636 "2009-12-16T15:28:47Z")
@Meeko A distillation of the argument you are making against me: “I am voting for skeezix because I agree with peeker’s choice to counterclaim and he does not and he won’t change his mind.” Well it’s nice of you to come join this game, but I don’t see the merits of the argument that because I disagree with peeker’s decision that it means that I am scum. Also, Meeko, if you snuggle Peeker any harder then you will probably end up pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/637 "2009-12-16T18:34:06Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Also, Meeko, if you snuggle Peeker any harder then you will probably end up pregnant. \ **Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/638 "2009-12-16T20:21:30Z") > [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > if that happens the doc that did my vasectomy is going to have some questions to answer. He couldn’t help it, he was hit by a roleblocker! ---
**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 16, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/639 "2009-12-16T20:36:55Z")
Meeko, you criticize MHaye for voting w/o first asking for an explanation. But you vote me in the same manner, why the inconsistency there? ---
**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 16, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/640 "2009-12-16T20:48:33Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > Um. Could we stop analyzing the strategy for scum? We don’t want to give them ideas! Based on this (the whole no information thing), and the Vig shouldn’t do anything strategy…it’s sounding like **DC** is scum who’s afraid of getting targeted by Vig and who’s afraid of us coming up with strategy. For that reason, and the reason that I really really don’t want to die, \*\* Vote Diggit\*\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=33)