# De'endee Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [July 6, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052 "2011-07-06T16:30:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**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:** [July 12, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/201 "2011-07-12T15:42:49Z")
No, I’m not sure Kelly is a “he”. I have that impression from somewhere, but I could be wrong. One other thing about the second vote – I still don’t know how to tie together my feeling that a player-enforced early “dusk” would be unworkable (and sometimes undesirable), plus the feeling that second votes have to be well-justified, with the need for power role players to try to level up. Obviously “I’m moving/adding a vote now for leveling reasons” must be allowable as a rationale, on some level. But under what circumstances? Should such votes be accepted when the race is otherwise still close? Should we try to push for frequent discussion of the current status of the votes, such that a consensus could be reached at some point ahead of the end of the day, even without a hard and fast rule? If/when we ever get a confirmed townie it might be possible for them to call it. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/202 "2011-07-12T17:14:27Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Regardless of double-voting, many of us seem to agree that a pre-deadline may be needed, perhaps 12 or 24 hours before the official deadline. If we agree to this in advance, any Lynch targets that want to claim would do so before the pre-deadline, and at that deadline the Lynchee would be determined. (4 days should be enough time to pick Lynchee.) > > _After_ pre-deadline has passed, everyone could move their votes to the agreed Lynchee, to take advantage of the power-enhancement rule. At that point, I don’t think it would matter whether players just move their one vote, or place a 2nd vote (though we should agree which will be done). I tried to organize something like this in one of my first games here (may even have been the first, I can’t remember). It was impossible, because it only works if everyone does it, and not everyone will do it. And it’s impossible to enforce, because there are a host of reasons - often involving real life - why one might not make the deadline(s). Based on my experience, I just don’t think it’s feasible. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/203 "2011-07-12T17:27:38Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > **unvote** > vote: KellyCriterion\*\* > > Essentially the same “crime” as pedescribe, over-reacting to “hi townies”, however states it as merely a FOS instead of a vote. I’m pinged especially by him for the following reasons: > > 1. Has to point out, with his FOS, that he wasn’t influenced by pedescribe’s post in doing so. Why is this something that needs to be said? (And the “bandwagony” comment afterwards, too. Too much like trying to pre-empt criticism, and worse, the criticism probably wasn’t even coming. It feels like a guilty conscience.) > > 2. When his reasoning (but not, directly, he himself) is called out as being scummier than the original offense, his wording of his reaction is aggressive. (Compare what he actually said to what he could have said, something like “I’ve never heard of this being common. Can you show me some examples?”) Why such a strong reaction to the rationale behind a mere FOS being questioned? It’s not like Kelly is so convinced of choie’s scummitude that any attempt to deflect such should get a huge stink-eye, right? > > 3. The “un-FOS” has an air of resenting having to take it back (“I’ll pay the effort if nothing else”), plus the bit I underlined looks a heck of a lot like a subtle attempt to get a dig in at Stanislaus as a potential scum partner of choie’s. That he doesn’t say so outright makes the whole thing look dishonest. > > In summary, Kelly looks like a scum who thought his FOS was a whole lot more supportable than it was (minus a potential bandwagoning allegation which he was sure to deflect from the outset), and who was very much not happy to find out otherwise. He looks angry about it, and I don’t see why a townie would be, over a mere FOS. I agree with this case, and want to emphasize the part that I see as the most damaging: \*\*Kelly \*\*demands examples (in an fairly aggressive way), then blames \*\*Stanlislaus \*\*for going through all of the “effort” of providing those examples. Don’t ask for cites, then use the fact that someone provided them to try to smudge them further! Not cool. **[COLOR=“Red”]Unvote Vote KellyCriterion** ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/204 "2011-07-12T17:42:56Z")
I find Normal’s case on Kelly very interesting. I admit that I had a response to the request for cites, but I put that down to aggravation with the search process and didn’t want to fall into OMGUS style thinking. However: the reasoning behind the FOS was the same pede used; the “lot of effort just to get me to remove a FOS” line smacks of an overestimation of how much others are focused on his play (typical of self-conscious scum) - in fact, as my vote suggested, I was focused on pede; the attempt to compliment me while equivocating on my alignment looks like both snuggling and fence-sitting… **unvote pedescribe** **vote Kelly Criterion** ---
**Author:** ![Koldanar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@Koldanar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koldanar)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/205 "2011-07-12T18:35:51Z")
Now we’ve got the ball rolling! RE : **Kelly** - I’ve since forgotten who said it, but I believe someone had mentioned once in one of the games here that it’s usualy more likely that the second or third or fourth (etc…) person on a bandwagon is more likely to be scum than the person that started, as scum will see a stone at the top of the hill and want to nudge it away from themselves. Kelly didn’t vote, but did FOS, with a weak argument. **Shadow** and **Stanislaus** : Possible scum amongst the two of you, but only because of what I noted above. This is no where near enough to even suspect either of you, however. Voting history, and your actions during this game, will tell better. Kelly does seem best as a good first day target, but he/she hasn’t even mounted a defense yet. Let us see what comes. ---
**Author:** ![gnarlycharlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@gnarlycharlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnarlycharlie)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/206 "2011-07-12T18:58:20Z")
my thoughts on the two-vote mechanic are as follows: 1. it certainly is new and can be unnerving for reasons already mentioned. setting a another deadline prior to the mod-imposed one looks good on paper but i agree that it’s not realistic, not necessarily because players will ignore it but things can happen in RL that require attention or a player’s computer or internet connection dies. how do we enforce the rule? do we then lynch players who do not follow the first deadline? i still would encourage though those who can vote with a day left in the Day to do so. 2. i agree with **SP** and the others who say that we should be able to justify our votes whether it’s the first or the second. those who vote after the initial deadline may well have to justify harder. 3. i would also like to add that we may also have to justify not using our second vote just as we would have to justify not voting in the traditional on-vote games. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/207 "2011-07-12T19:41:23Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Regardless of double-voting, many of us seem to agree that a pre-deadline may be needed, perhaps 12 or 24 hours before the official deadline. If we agree to this in advance, any Lynch targets that want to claim would do so before the pre-deadline, and at that deadline the Lynchee would be determined. (4 days should be enough time to pick Lynchee.) > > _After_ pre-deadline has passed, everyone could move their votes to the agreed Lynchee, to take advantage of the power-enhancement rule. At that point, I don’t think it would matter whether players just move their one vote, or place a 2nd vote (though we should agree which will be done). > > We have to make sure there’s no way scum can “game” the system, but I don’t think there is. The first 4 days of the Day would be _exactly_ the same as an ordinary 5-day Day. On the 5th day, everyone would move their vote to Lynchee. Anyone who didn’t would be scum and could be Lynched next day (or the same day by double-voting when the double-voting is otherwise disallowed.) > > We might need exceptions for the late game, both to Hammer and to prevent scum dog-piling when we’re down to less than 7 players or so, but otherwise this may solve both problems of the voting mechanics. Having a pre-deadline seems tedious, but that was being proposed in other solutions as well. No, no, no, and no. [ul] [li]It’s unworkable: there’s no way we could get everyone to agree (as we have already seen).[/li][li]It absolves people from taking responsibility for their own votes.[/li][li]It makes it impossible to use the voting record as a Scum-hunting tool.[/li][li]It’s ‘policy-based voting’, which I am steadfastly against.[/li][/ul] It’s really quite simple: Vote for the person who you think is most likely to be Scum. Be prepared to support the reasoning behind your vote. Repeat as needed. That’s it. If you need to make up extra rules and restrictions to defend your votes, then there’s probably a good reason for that. ---
**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:** [July 12, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/208 "2011-07-12T19:42:44Z")
It’s not that complicated. How many people are going to suggest that we justify our votes? I mean, really? I’ve been a little busy, has someone looked at who is and isn’t posting? I’ll admit that Normal’s case is intriguing, but she always scares me. ---
**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:** [July 12, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/209 "2011-07-12T20:05:50Z")
I’d suggest you give in to the dark side, but three votes is plenty at this stage anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/210 "2011-07-12T20:15:18Z")
I think I can safely say that Normal did not use Charisma as a dump stat. ---
**Author:** ![Scathach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Scathach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scathach)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/211 "2011-07-12T20:32:00Z")
> [@Koldanar](#): > > Allright, a recap for myself to make sure I understand : > > 1. Double voting right now can lead to bad things for town, due to possible scum manipulation of second votes. > > 2. Vote #2 locks you in. > > 3. pedescribe votes early (for Opal [sorry, had to]) > > So far, we’re not left with much today to look for. We’re calling for a vote lock in before Dusk, yes? Can we make it a 24 hour limit on day 1 and possibly day 2, since there isn’t as much information / discussion out there yet? We can bump it to 48 hours later, once there are posts to comb over, and motivations to find. This is just stating things other people have said before. > [@Koldanar](#): > > Now we’ve got the ball rolling! > > RE : **Kelly** - I’ve since forgotten who said it, but I believe someone had mentioned once in one of the games here that it’s usualy more likely that the second or third or fourth (etc…) person on a bandwagon is more likely to be scum than the person that started, as scum will see a stone at the top of the hill and want to nudge it away from themselves. Kelly didn’t vote, but did FOS, with a weak argument. > > **Shadow** and **Stanislaus** : Possible scum amongst the two of you, but only because of what I noted above. This is no where near enough to even suspect either of you, however. Voting history, and your actions during this game, will tell better. > > Kelly does seem best as a good first day target, but he/she hasn’t even mounted a defense yet. Let us see what comes. And this just screams of weak FOS’s thrown around for the sake of it. Calling out the “Being the third on a bandwagon” thing and then limply backing down on it in case it draws too much attention? Two posts that look like they were just made for the sake of posting something. Unvote Vote Koldanar ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/212 "2011-07-12T20:47:36Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > I’ve been a little busy, has someone looked at who is and isn’t posting? Skimming’s a Scum tell, Ed.[sup]\*[/sup] My unofficial Post count for Day 1 (up to and including this Post) is: ```auto Normal Phase 7 Stanislaus 7 Choie 6 Askthepizzaguy 5 Pedescribe 5 Septimus 5 Scathach 5 Suburban 5 special ed 4 Koldanar 3 Romanic 3 KellyCriterion 3 SilverJan 3 ShadowFacts 3 Inner Stickler 2 TexCat 2 Gnarlycharlie 2 Tom Scud 1 Mental Guy 1 Red Skeezix 1 LightFoot 0 ``` - No, it really isn’t. Really. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/213 "2011-07-13T02:45:52Z")
- I’m a **boy** townie So, the votes are a-coming. What can I say. Yeah, that was a bit aggressive the way I demanded **Stanislaus** show some cites for his claim, but I thought that was in keeping with the “everyone is a suspect tone” approach to Day 1. That I was suspicious of **choie** ’s “all the townies” comment prior to reading any post after it, is something I can merely restate as the truth, but can offer nothing more. I wanted to protect myself against “future criticism” with my bandwagony comment, yes. If I hadn’t, I’d have been accused of bandwagoning, which seems like damned if I do, damned if I don’t. So, if any of the votes I have attracted so far are from townies, then please reconsider, because I am not scum. **vote NormalPhase** , for starting a whole line of mis-reasoning that’s piled votes on someone I know to be town (me). Better not try and protect myself against OMGYS responses, coz pre-empting such criticism is apparently bad (or something). ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/214 "2011-07-13T03:17:13Z")
“Hey, who’s that?” A tired, haggard-looking man walks into town. “Sorry, sorry, lost my horse. I hear you guys are having trouble with Lords of some kind?” “Nah, already killed 'em.” The new adventurer’s face drops. “Oh. Jeez, how am I ever gonna pay for this new armor?” “Just kidding! Welcome to De’endee!” (out of color) **USCDiver is joining the game. He is replacing Tom Scud, who had to leave. Welcome, USCDiver!** ---
**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:** [July 13, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/215 "2011-07-13T03:19:18Z")
Welcome, Mr. Diver! > [@special\_ed](#): > > It’s not that complicated. > > How many people are going to suggest that we justify our votes? > > I mean, really? > > I’ve been a little busy, has someone looked at who is and isn’t posting? > > I’ll admit that Normal’s case is intriguing, but she always scares me. Yeah, it is kind of weird how some of us keep going around in circles agreeing with things that are uncontroversial. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/216 "2011-07-13T03:44:34Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Welcome, Mr. Diver! > > Yeah, it is kind of weird how some of us keep going around in circles agreeing with things that are uncontroversial. I had to laugh at this. I thought at first that we were all agreeing with the uncontroversial statement that Normal is scary. And I certainly agree with the welcome for USCDiver! ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/217 "2011-07-13T04:20:00Z")
On rereading, I was noticing how we were thinking of how we can level up Townies by them voting for scum. We were not considering how the scum level up. If the scum get experience from voting for Town, then if we lynched wrong and had everyone joining the bandwagon on that player, we would be giving the scum a perfect place to hide while they level up. This is just speculation since we don’t know how the scum level up, but I think we should keep in mind that our actions could also benefit them. For myself, there is only a couple of situations that I am likely to cast a second vote. One, when the lynchee is almost certainly scum (e.g. we have a result from an uncounterclaimed investigator) or it is a very close vote and I want to make it clear that I am voting for the person I feel is most suspicious. I think both Normal’s case on Kelly and Scathach’s case on Koldanar are good cases. I also am pinged a bit by Silver Jan finding pede’s behavior scummy but giving him a pass because he unvoted. I was thinking I was going to vote for Koldanar, but Kelly’s most recent post has made me change my mind. Normal might ultimately be wrong, but I do not see “mis-reasoning” on her part. **Vote KellyCriterion** ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/218 "2011-07-13T04:42:11Z")
What is a handshake, as far as Mafia is concerned? Couldn’t find it listed in this [Mafia glossary](http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Glossary). ---
**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:** [July 13, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/219 "2011-07-13T05:23:15Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > What is a handshake, as far as Mafia is concerned? Couldn’t find it listed in this [Mafia glossary](http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Glossary). were handshakes a topic of conversation? a handshake is where people attempt to confirm similarities in roles (usually in their PMs) to confirm they are aligned with Town. For example, if all of the Vanilla roles had the same exact PM and it was not made public or provided to the Scum, then the players could each reveal info from that PM and confirm each other. This has been done by reveal the number of a specific letters in a win condition, for example. I would say, I have 7 e’s and smeone else might respond that they have 4 t’s and one of them is capital. Without access to the actual PM, one couldn’t participate in the handshake. However, most mods counter that by either: 1. Providing a copy of the Vanilla PM to everyone publicly. 2. Creating unique PMs for each player. 3. Giving Scum access to a Vanilla and perhaps other cover PMs privately. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/220 "2011-07-13T05:31:05Z")
Thanks **special ed,** does that mean mods have been known to change up even the vanilla town PMs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=12)