# 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:** 40
**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 22, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/781 "2009-12-22T20:17:01Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > OK, I have some issues with parts of **Storyteller** ’s analysis of Day 2 - again sorry for not using multi-quote. Several of the cases against **Freudian** were carried over from arguments or votes made on Day 1 which you seem to ignore and I don’t see what you mean by “a lot of terrible votes for her”: > > 1. **Zeriel** > 2. **Skeezix** > 3. **Drain Bead** > 4. **Tom Scud,** > 5. **GuiriinEspana** > 6. **USC** > 7. **MentalGuy** > you really seem to have gone out of your way to misrepresent almost every vote made on **FS**. > [@ToeJam](#): > > Hey, **GEE** , I gotta say I find this kinda suspicious. Why did you vote for **Storyteller** and not me? You know, I find it “kinda suspicious” that in a post that you’ve quoted, you don’t notice the case that the player lays out in THE FIRST EIGHTY PERCENT of the post. For comparison, here’s the sum total of your analysis of the initial votes on Freudian from your analysis/vote post: > [@ToeJam](#): > > 1. Hi Opal! (Actually I had to include the Hi Opal part to make the quote tag work at all.) I don’t know what the hell to make of this. Are you just really really confused about the argument that you yourself made in a post yesterday? Did you only read the last paragraph of Guiri’s post before accusing him of being scum? And why are you so concerned about **story’s** well-being, anyway? In short, WTF? Not shifting my vote from **Maha** because (a) I’m wary of OMGUS tendencies in myself and (b) I don’t really see a scum motive. But seriously. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/782 "2009-12-22T20:52:15Z")
@ **ToeJam** , as **Tom** has said, I think it’s clear that I find **Story** ’s mischaracterization of the **FS** voters anti-town, not his conclusions or analysis. You quoted the original votes and did not alter them to suit your agenda. One thing is an interpretation of a voter’s motives to paint them in a negative light but it’s completely different to alter what the voter said and their reasoning behind their votes. As for **Zeriel** , **Peeker** and **Pedescribe** first argument was about whether scum had more or equal information as Town. Right now scum know more about **Zerial** ’s death, Town can only guess (with a very high probabilty) but scum know who killed him. **Story** didn’t mention the assumption he was making, he stated as fact that scum killed **Zeriel** and hypothesized on their reasoning - to me this looked like he had information that the rest of Town didn’t have. I would have expected a simple “assuming scum killed **Zerial** ” somewhere in his post. This alone is a minor point but in combination with his mischaracterization of the **FS** voters, I find him suspicious. On a related note, I had not considered that there may be situations in which **Peeker** would prefer not to admit to killing or being roleblocked such as these ones you mentioned (again, sorry for not using the quote function): - _Peek killed Z, and Scum chose not to kill in hopes of exposing the RoleBlocker into saying they blocked Y, and thusly they can try the “bus a townie” tactic as well as get to kill the RB that night, or the Vig, since now the Doc would be be in WIFOM._ Also: -_Peek killed Z, and Scum were not blocked but hit the doctor, who self protected. Or scum hit the Doc’s protection target._ In both cases it could be preferable for **Peeker** to say nothing to avoid exposing the Doc or RB, that makes sense. But then you urge **Peeker** to tell us when he kills: All of these are options to consider, bnot going to go into the backalley thoughts and just go with the simple one: Scum WANT to target someone every night. Scum WANT people dead. Dead people help scum. Ergo Z’s death helps scum- they probably wanted him dead. _(And Peeks I HOPE you would tell us first thing if you DO kill someone)._ :confused ---
**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 22, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/783 "2009-12-22T21:05:46Z")
**DayEnd will be Tuesday, December 29th at 8 PM Central Time.** (Option 2) **Merry Christmas!** to those for whom that’s appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/784 "2009-12-22T21:20:27Z")
NETA, sorry about the gibberish towards the end of my last post - I hate my new BB… Which was that law about correcting typos? ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/785 "2009-12-22T21:53:18Z")
Just to let the game know, I did my Christmas traveling today, I am now set up over with my family. I will be driving out to the Airport to pick up other family members and will be with them at their house over the weekend. [Local family members, but they are flying back from Australia on the 25th / 26th.] I will have my Itouch with me, so I can make minimal comments on those days. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/786 "2009-12-22T23:02:24Z")
i did not kill **zeriel**. back in a bit, maybe. ---
**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 22, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/787 "2009-12-22T23:58:34Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > I don’t know what the hell to make of this. Are you just really really confused about the argument that you yourself made in a post yesterday? Did you only read the last paragraph of Guiri’s post before accusing him of being scum? And why are you so concerned about **story’s** well-being, anyway? In short, WTF? > > Not shifting my vote from **Maha** because (a) I’m wary of OMGUS tendencies in myself and (b) I don’t really see a scum motive. But seriously. Y’know what, screw it. I KNOW (because I just checked) that you didn’t make any editorial comments whatsoever about the merits of the Freudian bandwagon on THIS board. But I think you DID post something about how crappy the case against **Freudian** was… somewhere else. **unvote Maha** **vote ToeJam** For getting a little TOO cocky when he found a Townie who had made a crappy vote. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/788 "2009-12-23T00:30:57Z")
> [@MHaye](#): > > Doing a post-lunch catchup before I head off and read some job adverts to see a claim-and-counterclaim scenario. > > 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. > > Given some of the discussion upthread, Pede might have hoped that the lynch settled on a VT, and then the Doc protect him in the absence of anyone else, or that the true Vig and scum leave him alone thinking that the Doc _might_ be protecting him. (I know I’ve seen - and followed, in games when I have been scum - that argument in the past.) > > Assuming for the moment that Peeker is not Town, what motive might he have for counterclaiming? Honestly? Peeker can’t positively know what Pede _is_, so he’s risking Pede flipping Town Vig, which would lead to a guaranteed Peeker lynch Tomorrow, instead of a Day where Peeker **might be** the lynch candidate. Why make a bad uncertain thing certain when you don’t have to? > > But there is another possibility. > > Pedescribe has, in the past, advocated Townspeople lying. He has even practiced actuive deceit (by which I mean he has, as a Town-aligned player, made false statements **knowing** that they were false and with the intention to mislead. Most recently he tried it on in Conspiracy 3; he was one particular investigative role but claimed to be another (briefly) in order to pull the wool over the eyes of a specific anti-Town faction, who had already checked him out and thus knew he was probably lying. His biggest lie was that he repeatedly claimed that there were four Masons in Evil Dead. > > It’s quite possible, then, that Pede is simply a vanilla Town trying to get out of a lynch. In which case, his lie has exposed the Vig to public scrutiny. > > In summary, unless Pede is actually the town Vig he’s the right lynch candidate, and if he is the town Vig we’ve got a scum (or possibly SK) lined up for tomorrow. Additionally, pedescribes past play reduces his credibility with this claim. > > **Vote Pedescribe**. this. **mhaye** is one of those folks that plays more town when scum than when he is town. i kind of thought, in my twisted little mind, that maybe we caught a big dog. but this certainty of the sk makes me go hmmm. but even at the end he temporizes. and guys/gals i could be totally wrong 'cause i am playing off gut right now. **vote mhaye**. and i ain’t saying dick what i have or have not been doing the last couple of Nights. but if you are a town blocker i will attempt to kill tomorrow and maybe can confirm you and me. and if scum don’t get the dick then we can have 5 confirmeds come morning. i kind of like the idea of a scum rb targeting me and letting our dick do the work while i sit here and fuck off. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/789 "2009-12-23T01:15:08Z")
Mhaye has also been extra crispy quiet… ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/790 "2009-12-23T03:04:41Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > 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. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > 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.” > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > 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.” > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > **Vote Diggit** > > Let’s hear a claim already. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Would you rather I just not vote where I feel the most suspicion then? I’ve stated a few times why I don’t have much confidence in the case against Freudian, and I can see at least one significant and compelling mark against Diggit. It is compelling enough for me to vote for him. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Just a quick check in to see that Zeriel is our only casualty, which is good (except for Zeriel ☹ ) I’m curious if peeker took a shot or not. > > We are in the middle of helping to clean out a house that we’re about to start renting… about 6 hours away from the house we currently reside in, so I’ll probably be scarce until at least Monday. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Forgot to add that I don’t have a preference on when the Day ends. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > If we assume for the moment that both **Diggit** and **Freudian** are Town, the vote analysis is not going to tell us much, but I do think it is a healthy and productive line of thought, but if that is the case then the scum are camouflaged in the vote distribution as a result. > > The reactive instinct in me is to have a little chat with **Freudian** questioning how she could perceive my vote for Diggit as trying to fly under the radar to jump on the bandwagon when it created a tie, and that tie was even called out and questioned by another player. Then there’s the little chat I’d have about skimming the more substantive posts of mine around the post that contained my vote. > > But I still find myself willing to keep giving her some slack. I’m going to go back and look hard at Alka again and see if my suspicions from yesterday have grown or faded. > > As for the lurking/missing crew, please come play. Don’t be a scummy coward, and if you are a Townie we could really use your fresh perspectives as well as reasons not to think you are a scummy coward. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Oy vey run on sentences. The “but I think it is a healthy and productive line of thought” was referring to the vote distribution analysis in case that wasn’t clear. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > You’ve definitely been posting like you are skimming, **Freudian** and you have a very snarky retort for anyone who calls you on it, which has been often. Yesterday you eye-rolled me for pointing it out when I wasn’t even voting for you, and have yet to vote for you. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > The “skimming” that I consider as categorically anti-town is when players emphasize a single post or small number of posts by a player and use those posts as a platform for suspicion when in fact the targeted players’ inclusive posting history (and/or similar behavior from other players etc), if taken into account, would nullify all or part of the argument being made against the targeted player. > > It is absolutely anti-town for a townie to play that way because it creates a lot more analysis work for all of the other townies while simultaneously providing cover and manipulation opportunities to the scum. The other townies now have to do the due diligence that the lazy/skimming Townie player did not do, check the facts, realize that the targeted players posting context is not really as the lazy/skimming Townie presented, and THEN that same player is left wrestling with what to do with the doubts and suspicions he/she has about the lazy/skimming Townie. > > It is a double-edged sword when Townies do it, and that is very bad. When a Scum does it, it only cuts one way and it a relatively common behavior for them, which is just how the game is played. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > This post and the strange hypothetical to pledge votes are really all I had on you, **Alka** , but you have addressed most of my concerns now that I’ve re-read a bit. > > I’m also realizing that with my last post I’ve pretty much talked myself into being comfortable for voting for **Freudian** at this point. She still has her vote on me in spite of the full context of my Diggit vote being pointed out to her, further weakening her case. > > From an information perspective, a claim or a flip from **Freudian** is going to produce a big junk of data to analyze, however it goes down. I’m probably going to catch some heat for saying that, but it is what it is. > > I’m probably going to catch some heat for flip-flopping a bit on her as well, but she happens to have a play style that can rub people the wrong way, and so does **peeker** , so I have been trying to mitigate for that since they were both quite active on Day 1 and we are still riding some of the ripples of those early interactions. > > Snipped > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > that should be chunk of data, hopefully not junk data… > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Mhaye has also been extra crispy quiet… This looks like a Lot of Noise, Noise trying hard to be Signal, rare actual Signal, A lot of NETA on top of NETA and Signal that is overly generic and comes out being more constipated than a certain Jamie Lee Curtis Mafia quote. Cookies seems to be saying a lot, inspite of saying she can’t be around. Yet that information is anything but. I think Cookies is trying to maintain a presence that she does not have. My gut is telling me this is scummy. **Vote Cookies.** ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/791 "2009-12-23T03:18:53Z")
We can’t edit and I make typos. Flimsy as hell justification to try and stretch into suspicion. On the Saturday that Dawn broke, I was day into a weekend out of town and said that wouldn’t be able to post much until at least Monday, as in that day that comes after the weekend is over. Again, flimsy as hell. The presence I’m trying to maintain is participation in a game that is anemic because we killed the SK right away and the only people dying are Vanilla Townies, one at a time. I’m here, I’m reading, I’m voting, I’m posting what observations I have. Call it a gut call if you must, but why throw all the other bullshit in? ---
**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 23, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/792 "2009-12-23T04:52:20Z")
**Vote Count** with about 6 days 21 hours and 10 minutes to go. With 16 players, it takes 10 players voting for one person to start a countdown. (peak vote in parentheses) **3 Votes** \ ***Freudian Slit** (3 #779) Drain Bead (707), MentalGuy (761), ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (779) **2 Votes** **Tom Scud** (2 #751) ToeJam (737), storyteller0910 (751) **ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies** (2 #790) Freudian Slit (733), Meeko (790) **1 Vote** **Meeko** (1 #708) Red Skeezix (708) **ToeJam** (1 #716) Tom Scud (716 723 787) **Nanook of the North Shore** (1 #721) Mahaloth (721) **storyteller0910** (1 #770) GuiriEnEspaña (770) **MHaye** (1 #788) peekercpa (788) **0 Votes** **Mahaloth** (1 #728) Tom Scud (728 787) **Drain Bead** **USCDiver** **peekercpa** **Alka Seltzer** **Red Skeezix** **GuiriEnEspaña** **Mental Guy** _Lynch Leader \*\* Not voting:_\* Nanook of the North Shore, USCDiver, Alka Seltzer, MHaye ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/793 "2009-12-23T20:08:29Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > You know, I find it “kinda suspicious” that in a post that you’ve quoted, you don’t notice the case that the player lays out in THE FIRST EIGHTY PERCENT of the post. > > ```auto > > I don't know what the hell to make of this. Are you just really really confused about the argument that you yourself made in a post yesterday? Did you only read the last paragraph of Guiri's post before accusing him of being scum? And why are you so concerned about **story's** well-being, anyway? In short, WTF? > > Not shifting my vote from **Maha** because (a) I'm wary of OMGUS tendencies in myself and (b) I don't really see a scum motive. But seriously. > > ``` Actually, I wanted simply to hear more from **Guiri**. I like hearing players talk, especially those I don’t have a read on. So sometimes I’ll mix up easy Qs and hard Qs and see what comes up. What comes up is that I find it interesting that you jumped to **GEE** ’s defense, when she’s perfectly capable of saying the very same things. Why are YOU so eager to defend a player who’s alignment you don’t know? Just because I asked her about Storyteller does not mean I trust **storyteller**. Hell, if you had bothered to ask me a question, you could have found out that in my personal opinion, \*\*Storyteller \*\*and \*\*Mhaye \*\*are two of three players that should NEVER be alive to endgame just on principle because they’re that damn good at this game. The third being myself of course, but I have an ego to stroke. Story and Mhaye are two players who I LOVE to play with and admire greatly, but I cannot get a read on them, and the longer the game goes on, the more I wish they were dead. I consider that statement a respectful and honorable statement towards their skill and value at playing the Game- and not a grudge one Mhaye. In fact, I love to know that they are a mason or confirmed roles, but alas, in this game that’s not going to come easily (the mason thing at least). So yeah, not sure why you assumed that GEE couldn’t defend herself, or why you jumped to the idea that I feel that Story is worth defending. I merely wanted to know what **GEE** ’s thoughts were, and wanted to open a line of dialogue which you happened to butt yourself into. Thanks for that. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/794 "2009-12-23T20:19:59Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Y’know what, screw it. I KNOW (because I just checked) that you didn’t make any editorial comments whatsoever about the merits of the Freudian bandwagon on THIS board. But I think you DID post something about how crappy the case against **Freudian** was… somewhere else. > > **unvote Maha** > **vote ToeJam** > > For getting a little TOO cocky when he found a Townie who had made a crappy vote. > [@peekercpa](#): > > i did not kill **zeriel**. > > back in a bit, maybe. That’s all the information I want from **Peeks**. He said he didn’t kill Z, and I’m want to believing him. That’s all he should say- nothing more nothing less. Now if he WAS the one who killed Z, then I’d expect him to say “My bad, I did the Z kill” and we move on from there. Because if Peeks was the one who kills the dead body in the morning, and we waste days thinking it was a SCUM kill, well that’s just stupid playing and we’ve basically been dicked around with false information for a few days- and that’s NOT cool, ya know? Does that help clear up my statements, or do you still want to me clarify/explain my thoughts better? ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/795 "2009-12-23T20:20:59Z")
Gah that last post was the wrong post. The right post is coming up. Stupid quoting. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/796 "2009-12-23T20:22:50Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > @ **ToeJam** , as **Tom** has said, I think it’s clear that I find **Story** ’s mischaracterization of the **FS** voters anti-town, not his conclusions or analysis. You quoted the original votes and did not alter them to suit your agenda. One thing is an interpretation of a voter’s motives to paint them in a negative light but it’s completely different to alter what the voter said and their reasoning behind their votes. > > As for **Zeriel** , **Peeker** and **Pedescribe** first argument was about whether scum had more or equal information as Town. Right now scum know more about **Zerial** ’s death, Town can only guess (with a very high probabilty) but scum know who killed him. **Story** didn’t mention the assumption he was making, he stated as fact that scum killed **Zeriel** and hypothesized on their reasoning - to me this looked like he had information that the rest of Town didn’t have. I would have expected a simple “assuming scum killed **Zerial** ” somewhere in his post. This alone is a minor point but in combination with his mischaracterization of the **FS** voters, I find him suspicious. Thank you. That’s what i wanted to hear. > [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > In both cases it could be preferable for **Peeker** to say nothing to avoid exposing the Doc or RB, that makes sense. But then you urge **Peeker** to tell us when he kills: > > All of these are options to consider, bnot going to go into the backalley thoughts and just go with the simple one: Scum WANT to target someone every night. Scum WANT people dead. Dead people help scum. Ergo Z’s death helps scum- they probably wanted him dead. > > _(And Peeks I HOPE you would tell us first thing if you DO kill someone)._ > > :confused Well, allow me to clarify then- what I mean is that it’s not wise for Peeker to announce to us WHO is targetting or such. However, if there are two dead players, or a single player and \*\*peeker \*\*has killed them- then it is in the TOWN’s best interest to know which one \*\*peeker \*\*has killed. Why? Because Scum know who they targeted. So if A and B are dead- how did two players die? Scum wanted one dead for a reason and Peeker for another- so I’d hope he’d immediately speak up and let us know which one was his target and which one was the scum kill. That’s the simple case. Now in the other case: One dead body- turning up as a townie (more likely than a single body that’s scum). The key here is We the town should assume that’s a scum kill (as the SK is dead and it’s not in the Vig’s best interest to kill townies). If this IS NOT the case, ie: there’s a townie (the vig) who has information here about the kill (because he killed said person)- he should speak up. That’s why I said “_(And Peeks I HOPE you would tell us first thing if you DO kill someone)._” That way we know that there’s a single body here and it’s AT LEAST in part due to the Vig. That’s all. No involvement of doctors, RBs, or scum targeting the same player/ also no kills should be invoked (though they should all be considered obviously). But at least we should know then that perhaps that’s an option. In those cases, I personally am not a fan of having OTHER power roles try to speak up just because they’re thinking that the person they targetted must have been the scum killer/scum target. That’s where one should consider the other possibilities (ie: a scum deliberate no kill in order to draw out the doctor or the RB). That’s when we have to be really careful about the information and such we go on for the day. However, if there is just a single body, and peeks did NOT kill that guy- peeks should do exactly what he just did: > [@peekercpa](#): > > i did not kill **zeriel**. > > back in a bit, maybe. \*\* (Here’s the rest of the post, that was erroneously misposted up above)\*\* That’s all the information I want from **Peeks**. He said he didn’t kill Z, and I’m want to believing him. That’s all he should say- nothing more nothing less. Now if he WAS the one who killed Z, then I’d expect him to say “My bad, I did the Z kill” and we move on from there. Because if Peeks was the one who kills the dead body in the morning, and we waste days thinking it was a SCUM kill, well that’s just stupid playing and we’ve basically been dicked around with false information for a few days- and that’s NOT cool, ya know? Does that help clear up my statements, or do you still want to me clarify/explain my thoughts better? ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/797 "2009-12-23T20:29:15Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Y’know what, screw it. I KNOW (because I just checked) that you didn’t make any editorial comments whatsoever about the merits of the Freudian bandwagon on THIS board. But I think you DID post something about how crappy the case against **Freudian** was… somewhere else > > [Switches his vote for me then] So you think I’m scummy… for talking to GEE? You think I’m not only scum, but stupid scum to boot? :smack: And how nice, you mentioned you didn’t want to vote me because it would look like an OMGUS earlier but then you go ahead and make the switch. Just like last time with the \*\*Diggit \*\*switching votes- nice setup and then you wait and switch anyways. You need to improve upon that as a Mafia Player, regardless of what you play as: townie or scum or 3rd party, in future games. That’s just gonna lead you to hot water always. But I accept your vote, I rather expected it actually. I still feel confident in my arguments vs. you and your past behavior on Day 2, your actions on Day 3 not really helping to dissuade me. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/798 "2009-12-23T20:31:43Z")
And **Happy Holidays** guys, enjoy yourself and these times. 🙂 It’s been far to long since I’ve done this, but I still enjoy the Game; good to see even with things changing, some things are still the same. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/799 "2009-12-23T20:44:06Z")
**Guiri,** I will respond to your points later tonight; I don’t feel like I’ve mischaracterized anything, and will defend my positions. But I have to finish Christmas shopping, so it has to wait until after I’ve finished braving Quakerbridge Mall Hell. In the meanwhile, though, and for the record, **Tom Scud’s** latest post reinforces my suspicion of him. > [@](#): > > Also, the reason story got a lot more heat than you is that he mischaracterized (and smudged) the people who had voted for FS in the first place. In Tom’s first reply following my triple post, he doesn’t say a word about mischaracterization or smudgery (and good God, I have learned to hate that phrase and that concept, because I think it’s been co-opted to mean something that it shouldn’t mean, but that’s a story for another post). Nope. He waits for someone _else_ to get suspicious, and then follows-up with the above - which is a _true_ smudge, in that it encourages the reader to be suspicious of the target without really committing one’s own opinion on the subject - and happily uses the same buzzwords **Guiri** used. I am comfortable with my vote. More on the subject of **Guiri’s** post in a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729/800 "2009-12-23T22:07:36Z")
> [@ToeJam](#): > > And **Happy Holidays** guys, enjoy yourself and these times. 🙂 > > It’s been far to long since I’ve done this, but I still enjoy the Game; good to see even with things changing, some things are still the same. 🙂 Yeah. I would love to play one HUGE mafia game, that has all of the roles I have seen listed in tutorials or on the mafia wiki. I tried telling my parents about the game, and that it is an ongoing game… I basically had to settle for telling them it was like Magic The Gathering. But for free. Then again, they don’t get Magic, so you know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorless-mafia/519729.md?page=41)