# 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:** 41
**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 21, 2011, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/801 "2011-07-21T08:41:02Z")
Were you going to add actual reasons to why I look scummy or is it still just because I’m comfortable lynching you and… > [@Silver\_Jan](#): > > I still don’t get your reasoning as to why I would be coached and still look scummy, as you said, you have played with me before. BTW this is is not an OMGUS if it was I would have voted for **choie** again. ---
**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 21, 2011, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/802 "2011-07-21T08:43:05Z")
PS, yes, apparently I don’t sleep. I’ve been fighting with my garbage disposal after it exploded, and I’ve got the broccoli bits in my hair to prove it. ---
**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 21, 2011, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/803 "2011-07-21T09:33:48Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > PS, yes, apparently I don’t sleep. > > I’ve been fighting with my garbage disposal after it exploded, and I’ve got the broccoli bits in my hair to prove it. I lost. Plumber is going to have to come after the sun rises. ---
**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 21, 2011, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/804 "2011-07-21T13:26:52Z")
Broccoli bits? Yuck. ---
**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 21, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/805 "2011-07-21T13:51:26Z")
Jan – did you recognize that there were differences between your PM and Kelly’s at the time he posted his PM? ---
**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 21, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/806 "2011-07-21T14:05:23Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Considering that I’m pretty convinced that SJ is scum, I don’t think Scum would unvote a vote leading Scum at this point in the day. It just doesn’t fit. The unvote itself comes into question (especially given the distancing and undistancing from pizza), plus any later votes would be super suspect. I just don’t see scum making this kind of risky play this early in the game. Plus it would be hugely inconsistent with the other pieces that seem scummy to me that you have posted. > > unvote ShadowFacts You know, this thought process makes sense on some level (hugely suspicious guy you’re voting, but he’s probably not scum with the other guy you’re voting, and you suspect the other guy more, so it makes no sense to vote for both of them). Ok, fine. But what makes the case against Jan so much stronger? You’ve listed a ton of things that make ShadowFacts scummy, and spent a lot of effort in doing so. This is what you have on Jan: From day one: > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > [OOG]Congrats on becoming a grandmother.[/OOG] > > That said, I have problems with the rest of your post. > > 1. You have voted with reasoning that absolves you responsibility for your vote. > > 2. Your interaction with Normal Phase from previous games has no bearing on this game whatsoever. > > 3. You have not provided any sort of defense of the position on which Normal Phase has criticized your play. Instead deflecting the points, rather than addressing them. > > 4. You are asserting that you are “definitly Town” and that any suspicion of your play, is therefore suspect. > > vote Silver Jan From day two, post 601 (snipped because the vast majority of the post was not about her): > [@](#): > > I thought we shoulda lynched her yesterday, and she’s done nothing to change my mind today. > > vote Silver Jan And that’s IT. I agree with you about ShadowFacts. Your day one case on Jan is fine. I even follow your reasoning about them not being scum together. But there is a weird disproportion in effort here. If you’re unvoting someone who’s demonstrably scummy because he is not scum with someone you suspect even more, you’d expect that even-greater suspicion to be justified with at least equivalent effort, and it’s really not. You have a day-one case and a casual comment that you’re voting her a second time. What’s damning enough to choose Jan over your really excellent case against ShadowFacts, here? ---
**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 21, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/807 "2011-07-21T14:32:14Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > And that’s IT. I agree with you about ShadowFacts. Your day one case on Jan is fine. I even follow your reasoning about them not being scum together. But there is a weird disproportion in effort here. If you’re unvoting someone who’s demonstrably scummy because he is not scum with someone you suspect even more, you’d expect that even-greater suspicion to be justified with at least equivalent effort, and it’s really not. You have a day-one case and a casual comment that you’re voting her a second time. What’s damning enough to choose Jan over your really excellent case against ShadowFacts, here? “Really excellent”? :dubious: Since I’m obviously still your #1 target, perhaps you could spend some time on the questions I asked you yesterday. Thanks. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/808 "2011-07-21T15:08:42Z")
\*\*Silver Jan (6): specialed, Choie, Suburban Plankton, Red Skeezix, Inner Stickler, Weedy Askthepizzaguy (4): pedescribe, pedescribe, Spetimus, USCDiver Septimus (4): Askthepizzaguy, Askthepizzaguy, Normal Phase, special ed special ed (3): Silver Jan, Silver Jan, Texcat ShadowFacts (1): Normal Phase Normal Phase (2): Choie, gnarlycharlie Hirka T’Bawa (replacing Koldanar) (2): Mental Guy, LightFoot MentalGuy (1): Stanislaus gnarlycharlie (1): Mental Guy TexCat (1): Suburban Plankton USCDiver (1): gnarlycharlie pedescribe (1): ShadowFacts SilverJan is currently up for the lynch.\*\* ---
**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 21, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/809 "2011-07-21T15:49:42Z")
I feel inspired to do an ATPG-style color-coded commentary on ShadowFacts. Blue for townie/honest, red for scummy/fake, black for interesting stuff that’s otherwise unclassifiable. Quotes in spoilers below. Conclusion: scummy in satisfyingly deep ways. Shows multiple signs of fake towniness. Expressions of belief in someone’s innocence are hugely more convincing than his expressions of suspicion, which are, without exception disavowed or backed away from in one way or another. (For the cliff’s notes version of this, scroll down to Shadowfacts’ three votes on Silver Jan, Silver Jan and Pedescribe; and compare to the first couple points I highlight in blue, where is he is saying he is not suspicious of someone.) He’s also willing to vote Silver Jan twice on fairly shallow grounds, but backs away from ever doing the same to ATPG; given the difference in personality between the two I see this as quite possibly being evidence of a scum not wanting to spit directly in the tiger’s eye if he doesn’t have to. And a couple other thigns nobody but me will ever see. Bottom line, if ShadowFacts is a townie he has to be: extremely confident about meta-game pronouncements and expressions of confidence in other players; un-confident about prouncements of sucpicion and extremely unconfident about votes, all at the same time. I don’t buy it. [spoiler] > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > PM received. > > I don’t have a lot of time at this second, but I did want to comment on what stood out most to me in the ruleset: the double vote plus tie-resolution mechanism could be a useful tool for us. If (and this is a big if) we can force a tie of the two most suspicious players, we can get two lynches per day. Two lynches for each Scum kill = advantage Town. > > The problem, of course, is getting a consensus on candidates and herding enough cats to arrange the tie. My experience tells me that this will be extremely challenging. But IMO it is worth a try. Anyone see a downside to the idea? > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Bummer. Now I \*know \*it was a good idea. I’m neutral on this; I can’t tell the difference between a townie ShadowFacts with a good idea and a scummy ShadowFacts suggesting something useful he thinks is unlikely to ever come to fruition. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I think the double-vote mechanism is likely more harmful than helpful, but it’s new so we’ll need to see how it plays out. That said, \*\*SP \*\*is correct on policy-based voting. Each vote (and double-vote) should be looked at independently, the voter can be questioned if you don’t like the vote, etc. No need for black/white rulesets. > > Another aspect to the double voting is that we have a hammer in this game. Double voting will allow scum to get a hammer on someone more easily (though also possibly more transparently as well). Most likely to be a problem near the endgame, I would think. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > 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. Against trying to make rulesets, which feels neutral again. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > 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. > > \*\*Unvote > [COLOR=“Blue”]Vote KellyCriterion Was there an earlier vote that I missed? Anyway, this is my case, so I can’t find too much fault with someone agreeing with me. Easy enough for scum to do, but I see no indication here that that’s what happened. Neutral. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > (snip complaint from special ed about all the justify your vote comments) > Uncontroversial, yes. Obvious, certainly. And yet some people still did not seem to get the memo. Perhaps there should have been a few more repeat posts about justifying votes. 😛 > (snip atpg’s no-direct-reason-given vote of koldanar) > A bit more directly, I find **Askthepizzaguy’s** vote here to be terrible and his follow-up explanation even worse, as others just above have already outlined. I need to review the case against **KellyCriterion** (where my vote currently sits) to see which actions I like less before I decide if I will change, though. I’m at work right now and squeezing in this game between meetings. The response to Special Ed’s complaint is mildly interesting in that nobody else who was engaged in the practice rose to the bait of defending it. The over-caution/over-explanation on the non-vote-change (especially coming in the same post where a scummy ShadowFacts might have been put on the defensive a tad) pings ever-so-slightly, but likewise nothing worth putting in red. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Just read through the most recent posts. I don’t have time for a full analysis right now, but wanted to throw my $.02 in that **KellyCriterion’s** behavior is reading like a flailing newbie right now. The question is: flailing newb town or flailing newb scum? I’m leaning town, actually. I’m going to re-evaluate my vote when I read more carefully at lunch, but for now I thought it might be useful to put my current state of mind on the record. > > I should also mention that my other suspect so far was **Askthepizzaguy** , but I find his answers to my (and others’) questions plausible. Despite his obvious Mafia Ego :p, my suspicions of him have been mostly alleviated for the moment. **[color=blue]The not-quite-unvote and “un-FOS” here read as perfectly genuine.** > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > And I’m intrigued by this comment. 🆒 Can you be more specific about why the vote changes don’t make sense to you? Do you find them suspicious in some way, or just intriguing? (context: @ SP, who was “intrigued” at votes moving off of Kelly) Almost neutral? Something feels off to me about this question, but I’m damned if I can put my finger on what. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > **Silver Jan’s** vote on **Romanic** bugged me, so I decided to use my lunch to do a review. Sorry for the Wall of Quotes, I think it’s easier to see the whole picture this way. Note: votes have been bleached, some quotes have been snipped to stay on topic. > (all quotes omitted) > **SJ** seems to be obsessed with **Romanic’s** level cap joke right from the beginning. He makes the (to me, obvious) minor joke, **SJ** asks about it, **gnarly** explains. One would think that would have been the end of it. In fact, it’s dropped for a while while SJ votes for \*\*Normal Phase \*\*(bad OMGUS vote), then retracts that, realizing it’s a bad vote. Then she gets into this weird “should I ask this question” exchange, culminating in a repeat question to **Romanic** about the level cap thing. **Normal Phase** explains that this is just a joke, **SJ** seems to accept this and move on, thanks **NP** for the explanation. Then there is a vote on **KellyCriterion** , because “after receiving a vote s/he asked about handshakes. If that had been me I would have jumped up and down defending myself (check the Giraffe boards, I was in tears cos I was called scum{silly too}).” So… because **KellyCriterion** is not reacting as **SJ** would, despite the fact that said reaction is “silly,” she puts a vote on? Later, she gets nervous about the vote, because **Kelly** is now “doing almost the same thing I have done in a different game, assuming other VT’s would understand him.” So, she unvotes and… goes back to vote for **Romanic** on the level cap thing. > > I’m trying to figure out if this is new player adjusting to the game or nervous scum flitting about trying to land a vote somewhere without taking heat for it (or both). (The vote on **Normal Phase** for **NP** saying **SJ** “pinged” her seems particularly high-strung, later retraction aside). It’s not good Town play, that I am certain of. Since this is not her first game, I am not inclined to give her a newbie pass. Let’s see where this takes us: > > \*\*unvote > \*\*[COLOR=“Blue”]Vote Silver Jan SF’s first actual case on anyone, and it is full of stuff that I find scummy. First, [color=red] **weird is not scummy**. A whole lot of this analysis is taken up with descriptions of Silver Jan’s odd attitude toward Romanic’s level cap comment. But what does that have to do with whether she is scum or not? I can’t think of a single thing. Second, **bad criticism of another player**. Silver Jan’s contention that Kelly had acted scummily in diving right into a handshake conversation after getting a single vote does make sense. Questioning your own reasoning after new information comes out is not scummy. **Lack of conviction in his own vote**. Most townies, if uncertain to the extent that ShadowFacts admits to here (maybe new player, maybe nervous scum flitting about, no indication of any basis on which to conclude it’s probably the latter), simply don’t place a vote. If they do, they don’t toss in a justification that “at any rate it’s bad town play”, or deflect it with a quasi-pressure-vote comment like “let’s see where this takes us” (much less both). > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Thanks for responding. I see what you are saying now. As it happens, I just changed my vote as well to **Silver Jan**. What do you think of it? More questioning of SP, still feels wrong, still can’t pinpoint it. Neutral-ish. Now we’re into day two and scathach’s lack of role reveal. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Well, I know my memory is not as sharp as it used to be, but I do recall there being a role reveal… sometime in the recent past. Oh yeah, here it is! > (snip Kelly’s lynch scene) > 😉 > > So, we are either dealing with a game mechanic whereby we get role reveals for lynches but not for night kills, or some kind of power was at work to disguise **Scathach’s** role. (Or some third crazy option I can’t think of). I’ve never heard of anything like that kind of game mechanic and I think “Sadly, there isn’t enough left of him to identify” points to some specific thing happening, so I say the smart money is on option 2. > > The shitty part of this, of course, is that (possible investigators notwithstanding) we know nothing more right now than we did after **Kelly’s** reveal. \*\*Conclusions drawn are too facile. They look more like scum trying to do “analysis” without betraying PIS, than like a townie trying to figure things out honestly. \*\* I’ve been over this in detail earlier. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > And here are all of **Scathach’s** posts from the game (minus two inconsequential ones about level cap - you can look them up if you feel it’s necessary). > Haven’t actually read through them yet, but here they are. **Helpful, but not on a point that led to anything useful.** > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I’m also going to make a request to all: when referring to previous cases from previous Days that you are following up on, please \*\*quote \*\*or \*\*link \*\*to the posts in question. \*\*ATPG \*\*does a summation (and expansion) of his thoughts from yesterDay, but without context, it’s not compelling. Yes, I could (and may still) go back and check it out, but I believe it is incumbent on the person making the case to show me all the evidence and convince me. It’s the pro-Town thing to do, and I think you in advance. 🙂 > > **ATPG** , in this post, your case against \*\*septimus \*\*seems particularly vague - it’s all about his wording and level of certainty. If you want to convince me or anyone to vote for **septimus** , I suggest you tell us exactly what he said that tipped your scum-meter. You know, with quotes and stuff. If you’ve already done this, that’s cool, just link us to it. **This whole post makes my teeth itch, though once again it’s very hard to explain. I _think_ it’s the last two sentences directed at ATPG that ping so hard, but whatever it is, I don’t see hard-working townie trying to get at the truth about Septimus; I see smug scum who already knows the vulnerability of ATPG’s case (that it was never very well supported with logic or quotes), and who is trying to get ATPG to have to admit it himself. I’m not sure anyone else will see this, which is why it is in black, but for me personally it is a strong tell.** > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I agree with you that the strong assumption is that \*\*scathach \*\*was a mafia kill and was thus a townie. I am proceeding on that assumption for now. That said, I don’t \*know \*any of that, so I believe my original statement was true, even if it was just a toss off comment. I hardly think it merits a vote, but YMMV. Obviously it does. (And as I’ve said before, I did mis-state my reasoning originally. I concede that what SF said was accurate. My issue is that it looked too calculatedly so.)[/spoiler] Continued in next post. ---
**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 21, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/810 "2011-07-21T15:50:48Z")
[spoiler] > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I’m trying to figure out the rationale for not revealing your info. Since you already revealed yourself, why not reveal your results? Obviously, I can see reason not to reveal a particular role, but I’m not seeing any reason not to reveal alignment. What’s the downside? > > (And let me say “reveal” one more time, because five was not enough.) :smack: **False townie perspective.** This actually pings a little bit less than the last bit that’s in black, but it’s easier to explain. Scum sometimes get caught out trying to act like they think a townie should act, and then getting it wrong, because they’re not townies and don’t have that mindset genuinely – it’s fake. This looks like that kind of fakery to me. A townie should be acutely aware that there are potential risks to revealing anyone as confirmed town. Maybe those risks are worth it and maybe they aren’t, but they are there. Shadowfacts does not seem aware that there are any at all (what’s the downside). If he is scum, I expect he just superficially equated “townie” with “no secrets”, and left it at that. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I’m obviously not as good a player as you think I am 😃 so allow me to explain my thoughts. The following assumes **LightFoot** is legit. Scum already know who is Town (or Not Scum), so revealing the Good alignment that she discovered give Scum little to no useful information, and gives Town a big whopping confirmed player we can trust. The downside, as you’ve explained, is that it paints a target on that person, who might be an important power role. I admit that I had not thought that through fully (see my first sentence). > > Despite that, I _still_ think it’s more of a benefit to reveal. Scum will have to choose who to try to kill: “confirmed” Townie who may or may not be a power role? **LightFoot** , who may or may not be protected by a Doc? Tough WIFOM. > > The downside to not revealing, of course, is that if **LightFoot** is killed, we get nothing. Absolutely nada. We’ve handed our Seer over to the Scum for no benefit. That’s a pretty big downside, IMO. > > And all _that_ said, I’ve long been an advocate of “trust your power roles.” They presumably have more info. So, I’ve made my opinion known, but **LightFoot** should play it how she sees fit. This bit is all fine. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Do you just reflexively vote anyone who has suspicion on you, or what? :dubious: > > I’ve been chewing on what to do about you for a bit. I moved my vote off of **KellyCriterion** yesterday because his reaction to being vote leader, while not wise, felt townie to me. So I looked at your posts and ended up voting for you. I felt as good about that case as one normally can for Day One. But your reaction to gathering votes felt similar to **Kelly’s** reaction, and I began to have doubts. But it was late in the Day and **Kelly** was clearly going to swing, so I didn’t remove my vote, figuring I would wait to see what you said toDay. > > I’m not encouraged so far. First, you haven’t posted anything until now, which makes me think you’re keeping your head down and lying low. (Not a townie thing to do). When you finally come in, it’s only to place a lame OMGUS vote on **choie**. You did a similar thing yesterDay, voting for **Normal Phase** because she said you “pinged” her. Your reasoning: “I am definitly Town in this game so all Normal has on me really is from metagaming…” Ugh. I gave you some credit, though, because you came back and unvoted, realizing that was a bad vote. But now you’re back doing the exact same thing! > > \*\*vote Silver Jan > > (And just to follow my own excellent advice, [here is a link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14021896&postcount=360) back to my case on Silver Jan yesterDay.) > > I am considering using my second vote to get the attention of some people who are not posting, but I’ll try some regular encouragement first: [COLOR=“Purple”]Let’s go people, it’s Tuesday, and some folks have no posts at all toDay. Lame! Another vote, another pile of scum tells. \*\* Over-explanation.\*\* SF describes how by the end of the day yesterday he wasn’t feeling the case on Jan as much as previously, but kept his vote for whatever reasons; he explains that he’s been thinking about Jan up to this point today. None of this is in evidence in writing; if it’s anywhere, it’s in SF’s head alone. Why even bring it up? Does it matter to the case he’s making? No. Does it clarify anything important that he’s brought up clearly and might need to put in context? No. It’s completely irrelevant, to anything but this: Does it put a nice soft pillow of context around ShadowFacts’ own actions? YES. He’s defending himself with these comments; it’s their only purpose. The vote itself is relatively shallow, based only on a pair of OMGUS votes, but not really bad (though I’ll note that Silver Jan’s vote of choie WAS defensible, and SF doesn’t discuss its content). Finally, **conspicuously prodding the lurkers**. Scum just adore doing this. Townies complain about lurking. Townies sometimes vote on it. But it’s generally only scum who call them out in this fashion as a group – here I am being helpful! – without any votes. I’ve seen it over and over again. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > NETA: > > Also, I am increasingly convinced by the case against **AskthePizzaGuy** and his excuses are less convincing toDay than they were yesterDay. I’ve been asked about this, and I do consider it a minor scum tell that SF is willing to vote a relatively shallow case against easy target Silver Jan, but avoids voting for the clearly much more aggressive Askthepizzaguy despite stating that he is “increasingly convinced”. **Inappropriate caution.** > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I did remove my vote from **KellyCriterion**. It was YOU I kept my vote on. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > If I may quote **special ed** : bah. > > That’s a simple request for people to engage in pro-town methods of voting. You \*might \*(and I emphasize might) have a case if that’s all I ever posted, but I’ve got plenty of analysis, votes and “concrete opinions” on record in this game. Unlike some other posters I could mention. Crap vote, in my not-biased-at-all opinion. 🆒 I’m not sure at this point whether Red’s case was truly a “body of work” case or just based on the tone of that one particular post, so I’ll call this neutral. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > As \*\*Stickler \*\*was saying, this is call a [Paranoid Doc](http://wikiguides.neoseeker.com/wiki/The_Mafia_Game/Roles#Paranoid_Doctor). > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > What, do you think you are Darth Vader? > > 😃 **Challenged by ATPG to put his money where his mouth is, avoids direct engagement with the issue.** > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Gods help me, but I have to admit that **PizzaGuy’s** analysis of **Silver Jan** was pretty convincing. \*\*Normal Phase’s \*\*addition to that analysis also makes sense (despite the fact that she is gunning for me). I still don’t think **Silver Jan** is playing well, but that is not by itself scummy, so > > \*\*Unvote Silver Jan > In related news, I am completely conflicted about **PizzaGuy**. He’s had at least two blatant examples of his actions contradicting his words. Normally, I would vote something like that damn quick and be pretty confident about it. But I can’t quite pull the damn trigger. The bandwagon that he’s on right now feels like an easy “lynch the loud” train and his participation is solid, even if I disagree with his methods. He’s driving me crazy, to be honest, but despite it all I am leaning Town on him. I don’t think I’ll vote for him toDay. (That said, I do think his case on **septimus** is really weak). > > Which leaves me with…no votes right now. Back to the drawing board. **[color=blue]Looks honest! Have you noticed that everything I’ve flagged as such is the places where SF is saying that people are NOT scummy? Much, much easier for a scum to do that, usually, than to fake suspicion.** > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Since this is the second time you tossed out a little comment about this - in response to[this post of mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14038699&postcount=576), I believe - it seems like you have a problem with it. Yet you’re being coy, for some reason. Feel free to elucidate. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > So, in your opinion, I should have voted for **ATPG** based on what I stated in that post? > > Also, was it just that one comment you were talking about, or are there more? (You seemed to be making a more general comment about my posting). Just addressed these. Can’t assign a color to such questions. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > OK, I took a look at **pedescribe’s** contributions to the game to date. Here they are: > (snipped) > I went into that search with the impression that \*\*pedescribe \*\*was lurking pretty badly, and was considering placing a vote to encourage more participation, but upon review he has contributed more than I recalled. > > I did notice a couple other things, though. First, he “vows” not to use his double vote on Day One, but then promptly uses it on \*\*ATPG \*\*on Day Two. This locks him onto someone I would consider an easy target for scum (assuming \*\*ATPG \*\*is Town). Slight scum read there. > > Second, he voted for\*\* Silver Jan\*\* on Day One (she ended up in second place), but has had absolutely nothing to say about her toDay, despite the fact that she is/was vote leader. Of course, he can’t vote for her now that he locked in his vote, but there has been no comment at all, which seems a bit odd. Possibly distancing himself from the lynch? Impossible to say right now, and only makes sense if \*\*Jan \*\*is Town, but not out of the question. > > So, not much of a case, but I’d like to prod a response so: \*\*vote pedescribe > > What changed your mind about the double voting? > What are your thoughts on **Silver Jan** toDay? > > NETA: I screwed up the coding in that spoiler box somehow so it blends quotes by \*\*pede \*\*and **NP** , but I can’t figure out how to fix it. Sorry. Same sort of stuff with this vote. First, **[color=red]A townie SF, with no votes and no suspicions on record, is considering a pure pressure vote on pedescribe, at this point of the day?** I think that’s revealing in itself; his over-explanation is biting him here. The double vote inconsistency is superficial and I can’t see it as any kind of scum tell – it’s too conspicuous. **The observation about pedescribe as regards Silver Jan IS a good one** , however, that impression is immediately undermined by SF once again **disavowing his own vote as a mere prod**.[/spoiler] ---
**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 21, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/811 "2011-07-21T15:57:56Z")
Next task, see if ATPG’s case against SP has merit or is a bunch of hooey. Ugh. ---
**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 21, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/812 "2011-07-21T16:47:35Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > I’ve been asked about this, and I do consider it a minor scum tell that SF is willing to vote a relatively shallow case against easy target Silver Jan, but avoids voting for the clearly much more aggressive Askthepizzaguy despite stating that he is “increasingly convinced”. Inappropriate caution.\*\* I don’t have time to rebut all of your errors 😛 about me, but I wanted to talk about this, since I’ve been trying to engage you about it for a while. Let’s review the sequence of events from earlier toDay: [ol] [li]PizzaGuy locks in his votes against septimus “for obvious reasons”[/li][li]PizzaGuy starts to generate a lot of votes for this, quickly becoming vote leader.[/li][li]In the midst of all this, I make my case and vote for Silver Jan.[/li][li]I also comment on how I am becoming convinced by the case(s) against PizzaGuy.[/li][li]NP immediately comments about how it is interesting that I didn’t vote for PizzaGuy.[/li][li]NP later follows this up in an unrelated post, saying that I am “commenting but not voting.”[/li][li]The comment above comes, stating that this behavior is a slight scum tell[/li][/ol] Oddly, however, NP seems to have forgotten her statement from earlier in the Day, posted in response to the “don’t build early bandwagons discussion”: > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Yes, exactly. If someone makes a case on A and you agree that it is a good one, you don’t HAVE TO vote that person, particularly right away. You can look for other candidates, to see if they tempt you to more or less the same extent. And if you find a candidate B who does, then you have the option of voting that person instead, so potentially you have pressure on two suspicious people, instead of just one. **It’s not a question of being dishonest; it’s a question of playing smart, really.** Of acknowledging that you don’t know everything, you might be wrong, and of making your vote work for you EVEN IF YOU ARE. (bolding mine) Ouch. So, despite the fact that I am practicing exactly what she preached and avoiding piling on **PizzaGuy** , she finds it a scum tell. Why? In my mind, from the beginning of the Day, she has interpreted (just about) everything I’ve said as suspicious. She’s fitting my words to an _already established_ conclusion, rather than evaluating me objectively. From my perspective, this could be a Townie exhibiting poor play, or a scum trying to make a case out of nothing. Given \*\*NP’s \*\*experience, I tend toward the latter. And since she prefers it this way, I will put my money where my mouth is: **[COLOR=“Blue”]Vote Normal Phase** ---
**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 21, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/813 "2011-07-21T18:12:52Z")
It’s not half as much fun nipping at a scum-suspect’s heels if he doesn’t fight back. Thank you for that. Here’s the whole case again, pretty much: > [@](#): > > I feel inspired to do an ATPG-style color-coded commentary on ShadowFacts. Blue for townie/honest, red for scummy/fake, black for interesting stuff that’s otherwise unclassifiable. Quotes in spoilers below. Conclusion: scummy in satisfyingly deep ways. Shows multiple signs of fake towniness. Expressions of belief in someone’s innocence are hugely more convincing than his expressions of suspicion, which are, without exception disavowed or backed away from in one way or another. > > (For the cliff’s notes version of this, scroll down to Shadowfacts’ three votes on Silver Jan, Silver Jan and Pedescribe; and compare to the first couple points I highlight in blue, where is he is saying he is not suspicious of someone.) > > He’s also willing to vote Silver Jan twice on fairly shallow grounds, but backs away from ever doing the same to ATPG; given the difference in personality between the two I see this as quite possibly being evidence of a scum not wanting to spit directly in the tiger’s eye if he doesn’t have to. > > And a couple other thigns nobody but me will ever see. > > Bottom line, if ShadowFacts is a townie he has to be: extremely confident about meta-game pronouncements and expressions of confidence in other players; un-confident about prouncements of sucpicion and extremely unconfident about votes, all at the same time. I don’t buy it. Would you like to respond to the parts of it you can’t easily turn back on me on pretext of hypocrisy? And by the way: > [@](#): > > … and making your vote work for you EVEN IF YOU ARE. You missed a part. You are not using your second vote at all, and you’re constantly disavowing your first one even as you place it. If you had stated plainly that despite your “increasing confidence” or however you put it, about ATPG, you were refraining for bandwagon reasons, that would be one thing, but you avoided the issue entirely even when both ATPG and I gave you the opportunity. You’re dodging. ---
**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 21, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/814 "2011-07-21T18:49:54Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Next task, see if ATPG’s case against SP has merit or is a bunch of hooey. Ugh. In reference to this, I went back and looked (it starts about post 705 of thereabouts) and it looks to be a perfectly adequate psychological case. No BS. And that despite that events in another current game make me almost wish that there was. Anyway – this should all get a good look tomorrow. ---
**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 21, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/815 "2011-07-21T18:53:24Z")
NETA: Actually I did think that ATPG misunderstood the “bragging” part of SP’s “good reasons to lynch” him. I think SP was commenting on the scum record revealed by that bragging (that you almost always win), rather than the bragging itself. Prophylactic lynching, hah. But that’s a side issue. ---
**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 21, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/816 "2011-07-21T19:12:44Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > It’s not half as much fun nipping at a scum-suspect’s heels if he doesn’t fight back. Thank you for that. You’re welcome. It must have been driving you crazy all Day, me not rising to your bait. That must be why you’ve had to resort to increasingly ludicrous arguments, such as calling Red Skeezix’s review of me (you know, the one that caused him to _unvote_ me) a “really excellent” case _against_ me. You jumped all over that like flies on shit. Now you’ve had to go so far as to blatantly lie: > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > You are not using your second vote at all, and **you’re constantly disavowing your first one even as you place it.** (bolding mine) Feel free to prove this. I’ll make it easy for you: Here is every vote post I’ve made in this game, and I challenge you to find _even one_ example of of me disavowing the votes as I place them. One the contrary, every vote has a complete rationale, with relevant quotes and links, and no wishy-washiness at all. [Vote against KellyCriterion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14013663&postcount=203) [Vote against Silver Jan #1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14021896&postcount=360) [Vote against Silver Jan #2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14038690&postcount=575) [Vote against pedescribe](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14045874&postcount=770) - the vote on you, which I don’t think I need to link to. It’s all right there, and everyone can see your bald-faced lie. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > If you had stated plainly that despite your “increasing confidence” or however you put it, about ATPG, you were refraining for bandwagon reasons, that would be one thing, but you avoided the issue entirely even when both ATPG and I gave you the opportunity. You’re dodging. There is a reasonable explanation for me not voting ATPG, which I have already posted, and I know you read it. Here it is: [QUOTE=ShadowFacts] In related news, I am completely conflicted about PizzaGuy. He’s had at least two blatant examples of his actions contradicting his words. Normally, I would vote something like that damn quick and be pretty confident about it. But I can’t quite pull the damn trigger. The bandwagon that he’s on right now feels like an easy “lynch the loud” train and his participation is solid, even if I disagree with his methods. He’s driving me crazy, to be honest, but despite it all I am leaning Town on him. I don’t think I’ll vote for him toDay. (That said, I do think his case on septimus is really weak). [/quote] If you would take off your scum-colored-glasses for a second, you might realize it. His play-style is pretty crazy, sometimes he seems scummy to me, sometimes he doesn’t. I’ve updated my thoughts about him as the game has progressed. There’s nothing scummy about that, but feel free to keep fucking that chicken. 😃 I know you seem to be a “lock in until lynch” kind of player, but some of us are willing to revise our opinions of players as new information arrives. Gotta run to a meeting now, but I hope to get back to the rest of your “case” before the end of the Day. ---
**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 21, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/817 "2011-07-21T19:20:14Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > In reference to this, I went back and looked (it starts about post 705 of thereabouts) and it looks to be a perfectly adequate psychological case. No BS. And that despite that events in another current game make me almost wish that there was. > > Anyway – this should all get a good look tomorrow. “A perfectly adequate psychological case” What exactly is that supposed to mean? We’re supposed to be hunting down and killing Scum here, not discovering out how they really feel about their parents. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/818 "2011-07-21T19:30:30Z")
Is anyone around that can give me a hint how to use the ‘spoilers’ tags? ---
**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 21, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/819 "2011-07-21T19:37:07Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > Is anyone around that can give me a hint how to use the ‘spoilers’ tags? ```php [spoiler] stuff to hide [/spoiler] ``` yields: stuff to hide ---
**Author:** ![Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/db5fbb/32.png) [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirka_T_Bawa)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/820 "2011-07-21T19:43:41Z")
Sorry it took me so long to post something, didn’t get far last night before my wife yelled at me to go to bed 😃 . I’ve read through the whole thread, and I’m just not getting a scummy vibe from **ATPG** or **Silver Jan**. So I can’t get behind the cases against them. So, I’ve been trying to think of what else I saw that is worthy of a vote. First, while it isn’t something I would vote for without more evidence, I am suspicious about **LightFoot** ’s claim, coming early in the day with no pressure on them, right after a night kill with no reveal. If the scum do have a Janitor (I had no idea this role existed, I actually had to look it up), and they got the role reveal of **Scathach** , who just happened to be a cop… I could see them making a claim early hoping for it to be better believed, and knowing there would be no counter claim since they killed the cop. As I said, I’m not certain enough to vote for a claimed cop, but it does raise my eyebrows, and I will be keeping an eye on **LightFoot**. Now, while reading, I saw some of the same things about **ShadowFacts** that **Normal** did. While he didn’t disavow every vote as he placed it, he did on his first vote on **Silver Jan** and his vote on **pedescribe**. > [@](#): > > It’s not good Town play, that I am certain of. Since this is not her first game, I am not inclined to give her a newbie pass. **Let’s see where this takes us:** > > unvote > Vote Silver Jan > [@](#): > > \*\*So, not much of a case, \*\*but I’d like to prod a response so: vote pedescribe The bolded parts look like disavowing to me. **Vote ShadowFacts** Now, I need to figure out where to place my 2nd vote, going to go review a few people I don’t have a town read on. When does the Day end? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=42)