# 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:** 50
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/981 "2011-07-25T22:39:02Z")
It occurs to me that if me and septimus were both Lords of Slaughter, we probably wouldn’t have been busy formatting the data in two different ways at the same time. Boring, tedious work for one scumbag is plenty, making it \*redundant \*and having two teammates do it is absurd. Of course I probably wouldn’t have been trying to lynch him all game either. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/982 "2011-07-25T22:46:34Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > It occurs to me that if me and septimus were both Lords of Slaughter, we probably wouldn’t have been busy formatting the data in two different ways at the same time. > > Boring, tedious work for one scumbag is plenty, making it \*redundant \*and having two teammates do it is absurd. Or you could have done it and given it to him to post. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/983 "2011-07-25T22:48:24Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > Or you could have done it and given it to him to post. I am very comfortable with my \*\*base one \*\*format without fancy schmancy tables, thank you very much. Only Lords of Slaughter use the number two or above. 😃 ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/984 "2011-07-25T22:53:03Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > **Could we get a vote count please?** No. Just kidding! Septimus (5): Hirka T’Bawa [885], Inner Stickler [888], Stanislaus [893], gnarlycharlie [959], Mental Guy [968] Choie (2): Askthepizzaguy [905], Weedy [923] ShadowFacts (1): Hirka T’Bawa [885] pedescribe (1): Weedy [923] Normal Phase (1): Choie [930] Mental Guy (1): gnarlycharlie [959] gnarlycharlie (1): Mental Guyu [968] With these votes, Septimus would be lynched. Day ends in 3 days on July 28th at 6pm central time. As always, please check for errors. ---
**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 25, 2011, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/985 "2011-07-25T23:19:14Z")
I have to say I do like the questions SP is asking today. They seem to be the right ones to ask. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/986 "2011-07-25T23:47:33Z")
Ok, here’s some quick things I jotted down while doing my name count. > [@](#): > > Stanislaus post 443 > TexCat 529 > Suburban Plankton 541 > Stanislaus 548 > ShadowFacts 576 > Stanislaus 591 > Suburban Plankton- 594 regarding Koldanar > Suburban Plankton- 595 votes choie, Jan, defends ShadowFacts > TexCat 600 > Stanislaus- 659 > Suburban Plankton 697 > Suburban Plankton 722 > ShadowFacts- 770 vote pedescribe > Suburban agrees with Pizza on choie 914 > > Normal Phase- post 579 (post actually reads as scummy) > Red Skeezix, 790. Ask him to review his stance on ShadowFacts. Now I have to go and see what these posts were. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/987 "2011-07-26T01:02:24Z")
Now I have to figure out exactly what I was thinking when I wrote these down. Not all of them are because I find them scummy, but because there seems to be an interesting thing to note happening, like one of my suspects is accusing another. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > It’s late here and I don’t have a lot of time so quickly: > > I’m a bit worried by the sudden rush to Silver Jan. They’re by no means baseless votes but they’ve come pretty close to saving Kelly. My quick count suggest Kelly is now on 9 and Silver Jan on 7, so we’re not that far from a tie. > > Also, would all the people who are now rushing to second vote just because they can, please stop. I’m going to call out USCDiver in particular: you voted for the vote leader and the runner up. This has made _absolutely no difference_ to the eventual lynch. > > Confused and fraught though recent posts have been, I haven’t seen anything to make me change my vote. And I certainly haven’t seen anything to make me put on a second vote, because as discussed at length earlier, _they should only be used with exceptionally good reason._ IIRC this is where I began to think about Stanislaus as more suspicious than others. Jan and Kelly both flipped townie, but what I really feel was happening here was Stanislaus attempting to get suspicion on Jan voters, hinting that they were probably trying to save Kelly. While what he’s saying doesn’t work in the long term as both of them flipped townie, at the time, it could have been a useful tactic to keep suspicion on folks, by bringing up an idea that could have distracted them into accusing one another of being Kelly or Jan’s partner. I don’t really believe Stanislaus feels that there’s a serious attempt to save a scumbag by their partner here. I think it’s just a short-term tactic to keep the town divided while also appearing to be thinking tactically for the town side. There’s also a hint of lecturing. One of the things a scumbag likes to do when town is shooting themselves in the foot, or they’re under no real suspicion, is play the helpful townie and suggest certain courses of action are mistakes. And he’s right, voting both kelly and jan doesn’t do much except ensure one of them gets lynched, it doesn’t decide between them. The problem is, that speaks more of a townie who isn’t thinking about the tactical ramifications of their actions, than a calculated move by a scumbag. It doesn’t even speak of a mistake by a scumbag either. The wording used here “Calling out” Diver feels Stanislaus is clucking his tongue at behavior I’d identify as a townie who isn’t paying close attention. I really don’t buy that he finds it in any way scummy. The way things are going, why would Stanislaus as scum make any waves by changing votes? Both Kelly and Jan are a bad lynch, so he feels comfortable to just comment on some of the obvious mistakes townies are making and wax philosophical about the double-vote option. I don’t get the feeling he’s seriously hunting scums or giving an effort. I think it’s acting. At least, that’s the impression I got from reading that post. Let’s move on to the next one that catches my eye. > [@TexCat](#): > > Huh? I guess all of these words were just a bunch of hooey. Seems to me that you have pretty severely limited your options now, PizzaGuy. Willing to to consider other alternatives? Uh, huh. Need time? Four days left in Today, but I guess you chose not to use that time. Care to tell us why exactly were you in such a hurry to lock in your vote? TexCat pipes up to cluck her tongue at me for making an ill-advised move. If you imagine TexCat is scum, and she was just sitting there watching the discussion, making a comment here or there, and then pizza double-votes Koldanar (now Hirka) and feels the need to take advantage of this. So, out she comes, and points out that I can’t take it back, that I was being hypocritical, and drops a sack of rhetorical questions on me. Scoring easy points, is how I read this. I also noted in the last sentence “care to tell us”, it feels like she’s appealing to the crowd. I’ve got to explain myself to the crowd, not to her. She might as well have been telling the crowd to “sic” me. I feel there’s opportunism afoot. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Well, they certainly weren’t obvious to me. > > Well, you’re certainly not helping your own case along here. Explain why we shouldn’t follow your own direction and execute you now? Or do you feel that “for obvious reasons” qualifies as a logical reason for your double vote? And I know that 2 votes does not a bandwagon make, but considering that they were among the first 3 votes of the Day, I’m not sure how else you can logically explain them. And they certainly do seem to “limit your options” for the Day, don’t they? > > I have found your play in this game to have been contradictory, inexplicable, and just plain bizarre. I think it has definitely not been pro-Town…I’m just not sure if it’s intended to be anti-Town or not. Scoring easy points, while trying to appear impartial. The argument is I’m a bad townie at the very least. I’ve noticed Suburban Plankton’s overall strategy toward me has been to just paint me as a bad townie and wash his hands of the matter. It could indicate he’s eager to discredit someone, and eager to get others to agree that I’m a bad role model, thereby dividing the town. He doesn’t even need to get me lynched, just discredit everything I’m doing, thereby rendering me ineffective. It’s scummy because if he really found me anti-town or scummy, his first reaction (as a townie) should have been to kill me, not cluck his tongue at me. Instead, he’s just trying to take advantage of a bad move I made, and thus, make me look bad and make himself look better. Remember what I said earlier- the primary strategy of a scumbag is to make themselves look less bad than everyone else. It’s not a matter of behaving perfectly, it’s a matter of making fewer mistakes, and being a less easy target to make cases against. That way, they have ammunition on townies and the townies don’t have much they can hook onto in response. Meanwhile, the strategy divides and discredits the townies that do live. It’s not as simple as killing/silencing or lynching ATPG. Here, I’m being far more useful as a distraction, and I’m being further declawed by being openly chastised and discredited. That’s the sense I get from these moves. They’re calculated. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > Well, yeah. Either you were questioning him because you thought his votes for Red then Koldanar were worth exploring in a “Hmm, there’s something a touch scummy about this” kind of way, in which case the rapidity with which you backed off any suggestion of that is kind of milquetoast, or you were really just having a cheerful little tete a tete with him in which case it’s a somewhat banal conversation. It seemed like you were posting for the sake of posting, not because you had any great point to make. > No, no, no. I see why you stopped the discussion of the vanilla PMs. I see that your contribution was carefully couched to avoid that, either from yourself or anyone else. Except that simply by keeping asking questions you kept the topic alive, and your warning about revealing details of PMs only came - alas! - after a couple of people arguably had. You’re smart enough to have seen the danger early on, so I’m wondering why you didn’t make a big deal with your first post on the topic to warn everyone of the risks. And the little suspicious part of me that won’t ever let me get truly close to anyone says it’s because you wanted to give people a chance to slip up before stepping in with your big pro-Town warning. > I have to go now - time and tilde wait for no man. The above quote makes little sense unless you click the arrow and read it in-context with special ed’s quote intact. I’m already raising an eyebrow at Stanislaus, and for the moment, I am assuming special ed was innocent. Here, I find that Stanislaus is smudging special ed. He’s content to make these sorts of posts and then fade into the background, not raising any hackles or causing much of a disturbance in the force. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > NETA: > > Also, I am increasingly convinced by the case against **AskthePizzaGuy** and his excuses are less convincing toDay than they were yesterDay. Yeah, this would be a better example of Snrubbing than what choie was doing, simply because with choie, that’s her whole personality. She seems to be habitual in her behavior to compliment and make a point of stating an agreement with someone who states ideas she agrees with. Here, ShadowFacts is "me-too"ing the growing consensus against myself. Just feels slimy and opportunistic. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > Yeah, well, that’s because… I mean obviously you would… balls. > > **unvote special ed** This feels like pure acting. I think Stanislaus figured special ed wasn’t being lynched anytime soon, and later, he winds up dead via murder. He doesn’t appear to be hunting very hard for suspects. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I’m not sure I’m interpreting this correctly, but if you have something to say about **Koldanar** , then by all means don’t let this stop you. > > whatever role \*\*Koldanar \*\*has, it;s not going to change just because he isn’t around to post anymore. whoever takes over for him will have the same role, and will have to answer for all of \*\*Koldanar’s \*\*actions. So it benefits nobody for you to be silent just because he won’t be around to personally address your points. > > It might seem a bit cold, since he won’t be able to ‘defend himself’, but that’s how it goes sometimes. > > If I’ve completely misinterpreted what you meant, then ignore everything I’ve just said. I’m already suspicious of Suburban Plankton, why I noticed this post was because it did appear as though SP was demonstrating that he wouldn’t be averse to Koldanar dying. He’s not making a big show of it, but he is actively trying to convince LightFoot to continue to consider Koldanar a suspect, thereby revealing potentially his true motives. If SP is scum, Koldanar probably is not. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > **vote Silver Jan** > **vote choie** > > Because they both seem to be trying to one-up each other with their “I am just a poor sweet aVanilla townie, who could never hurt a fly” routines. > > I’ll admit it’s unlikely that they are _both_ Scum and both taking the same approach to the game, but there’s still plenty of Daylight left. > > I still think \*\*Normal’s \*\*case against \*\*Shadowfacts \*\*is a bad one, but it’s not enough to cause me to think he’s Scum. > > I think **Askthepizzaguy** , if he is as Townie as he claims, might help out the rest of the Town by actually doing some analysis. > > I think \*\*Ed \*\*might be a clever Scum skillfully maipulating the rest of us, but that’s only because I _always_ think that of **Ed**. 1. The reasoning given on Jan and choie seems exceptionally weak. One of them already flipped townie. 2. Seems to be distancing himself from blame if one of them flips town by saying “unlikely BOTH of them are scum”. If so, why not pick one you think is scum, and vote for them AND their potential partner? 3. Defending ShadowFacts without going into reasons why. 4. Suburban prods me to do some analysis. Well I was probably well off the mark at the time with my suspects, so he probably figures that my analysis will result in further condemnations of fellow townies. It could be subtle nudging to make mistakes. 5. What he says about ed is remarkably ambiguous and slimy. And of course, ed turns up dead later. > [@TexCat](#): > > I am a little concerned about the coziness I see in the posts between **septimus** and **choie**. > > OMGUS votes haven’t worked out for you in the past? And yet you, PizzaGuy, choie, and Silver Jan seem to be caught in an endless OMGUS loop. Scum try to act agreeable? Hmmm, looks like you might be working on that one. > > The original post that septimus liked, raised my eyebrows: > > First the newbie card, then the excuse for being quiet. When she talks about “the innocent town folk on my team”, it seems a little too much to me. Particularly when one of her reasons for voting Silver Jan were Jan’s constant proclamations of towniness. Then the pre-excuses for the “crappy rationale-less vote”. Not much to like for me. What in particular did you like about it, **septimus**? So, look at the names being dropped. septimus has a rather good claim for his behavior, maybe 50/50 he’s scum or not. ASSUMING he’s town, that’s Jan, Pizza, septimus, and choie that TexCat is smearing all with a couple of strokes. I noted this post because it does appear to distance TexCat from each of these candidates, and potentially reveals true motivations to see all of them die in one form or another. I already suspect TexCat because very few people are talking to her or mentioning her, and my theory is that she could be scum and her teammates are avoiding the subject. Viewing things from that angle, she’s lobbing rotting cows at several townie targets all at once, and then vanishing back into the shadows. The deliberate attempt to paint a whole swath of people scummy at once is lazy, non-specific, and indicative of a scumbag not wanting to give concrete reasons why people should die, yet “me-too” anyone who suggests they should be lynched. I don’t like it, it raises the hairs on the back of my neck. It’s subtle and manipulative, and most of all, SAFE behavior for a scumbag. I really feel the Lords of Slaughter could be playing things very safe, given the town’s apparent early game collapse in-progress. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > I’m not any more convinced by the Silver Jan case than I was yesterDay. I said in reference to pedescribe on Day One that unvoting when called on bad votes is a null tell. Silver Jan does have a tendency to make bad votes and retract them but I’m having difficulty seeing what the scum motivation behind her overall behaviour is. The impression I get is of someone who was confused about the gaming terms “level cap” and “NPC” and who hasn’t developed a scum-finding toolkit yet so tends to vote for inconsistencies rather than scum behaviours. (I wouldn’t worry about the latter - those of us with lovingly developed theories about what scum do and don’t do and don’t don’t do tend not to boast a 100% success rate, to put it mildly). > > Pizza is next on the chopping block. This is more complex so I’m going to try to break it down for myself: > > **Against Pizza:** > Essentially, the whole “I look like scum, but if you vote for me you’re the real scum” schtick. Hypothetically, a scum Pizza who adopted this pose would have a) given himself licence to be as inconsistent and hypocritical as he wanted and b) pre-emptively deterred anybody who considered voting for him with the threat of an aggressive OMGUS campaign. By contrast, if your whole plan is to look scummy in an attempt to lure scum votes, it would be best not to loudly announce this plan to all and sundry. At this point, I’m wondering if there’s a super secret real plan which is to lynch people that _don’t_ vote for him on the grounds that scum would be afraid of drawing his fire. > > There are other inconsistencies which have been pointed out by others (e.g. over double voting) but inconsistency isn’t necessarily scummy. (Although at root, all scum are forced to be inconsistent - to pretend they want what Town wants when they don’t.) It’s the overarching justification for any and all vote-drawing behaviour, coupled with the pre-emptive UberOMGUS that really give me pause. > > **For Pizza:** > His analysis of Silver Jan. It’s long and detailed. It concludes that she’s likely Town. Given that she’s his close rival for the lynch, it would have been more self-interested to do a long analysis that concluded she was scum, or if he wanted to conclude she was town in order to look selfless and noble, to do so without putting all of her posts in one place to be read and going through them in detail to make his case. He wouldn’t, after all, want to be too convincing. Reading back, he did something similar with Kelly when he was close to him for the lead. > > His self-confidence. He comes across as a player who’s backing his own play pretty heavily, and who isn’t going to modify that to keep people sweet. Scum tend naturally to be circumspect and avoid tall poppy syndrome. The attitude could be an elaborate bluff, as I discussed above, but I doubt that anyone could keep it up too long. We’d start to see some self-preservation behaviour at some point with the vote pressure, and there doesn’t seem to be any. (I don’t mean the “ok, lynch me if you have to” stuff, I mean a genuine change of pace or tone.) > On balance, I’m leaning slightly town on Pizza. It’s tough, because not having played with him I have that itchy feeling that I might be being suckered, but I think that most of what he’s done to raise my hackles has been due to play-style rather than any pro-Scum behaviour. > So who does that leave? > > I didn’t like USCDivers’ votes before, and I don’t love his fairly unreasoned, non-scum-hunting vote for pizza now. But I really don’t like Mental Guy’s case on gnarlycharlie. Gnarly did a good job of refuting it, and the fact that Mental’s case can be so easily reflected back on him makes me wonder if there’s an element of transference: > > **vote Mental Guy** It’s a lot of words which reveal not a whole lot of thoughts, motivations, or intentions. It straddles the fence a bit, and does not make waves. Here, he distances himself from Mental Guy and Diver. From my perspective, pizza is definitely townie as that’s me, and Diver, I’m getting the impression is another easy target to pick on because he’s voted for me on bad reasoning. That feels like a real attempt to sow suspicion on Diver, indicating they’re probably not on the same team. Mental Guy and Stanislaus are also probably not on the same team, as Stan’s attempts to void Mental Guy from existence also appear genuine. We’ll see if that holds up in future rounds. CONTINUED IN PART II ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/988 "2011-07-26T01:03:32Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I don’t see where this sentiment is coming from at all. > > In[Post 525](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14034115&postcount=525) \*\*Septimus \*\*says about **Askthepizzaguy** , “I’ve mixed feelings about whether to renew my vote against you. I have no other strong scum candidates, but some of your zaniness and reversals do not seem like what Scum would do. I’m sure you’re capable of a deep double-think “wifom” game as Scum, but would you attempt that in your first game as a relative newcomer to SDMB?” As I read it he’s saying that \*\*ATPG’s \*\*behavior does not seem ‘like what Scum would do’, which is not quite the same as saying \*\*ATPG \*\*is ‘not Scum’. \*\*Septimus \*\*is expressing suspicion of \*\*ATPG \*\*here, but he also has some reservations. > > **Septimus** ’ next post was [Post 572](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14038200&postcount=572), in which he votes for **Askthepizzaguy**. \*\*Septimus \*\*never uses “for obvious reasons” as part of his justification for his vote. He dioes explain his reasons for his vote, however; “He’s never made a real case against me, but he wants others to think he did. Maybe he’s “just being anti-Town” but we can’t give that a completely free ride. (Otherwise, Scum could get credibility by acting anti-Town! )” > > Maybe it’s an OMGUS vote, maybe it’s a weak vote, but he definitely gives reasoniong besides “for obvious reasons”. > > While I’m on the subject of **Askthepizzaguy** , let me say that I very much dislike the approach he has taken to this game. Personally, I have a gut feeling that he is Town. Unfortunately, he has provided a fair number of good reasons why he should be lynched (e.g. hypocritical play, unjustified votes, bragging about what a fantastic player he is as Scum). He would have us believe these are designed to make himself an irresistable target for the Scum to vote, but it also makes him a pretty tempting target for town as well. And since he’s told us how nearly unstoppable he is as Scum, can we trust him here? He seems to be playing WIFOM with Town. > > As I say, my gut feeling is that he’s Town, but a part of me wants to see him lynched anyway, because I don’t want to implicitly approve of his playstyle by allowing him to continue it. And whether he winds up Town, Scum, or 3rd-Party, I’m afrain that he has painted himself such an attractive target that we will ultimately learn nothing from the votes against him. I’ve already quoted this post multiple times. It reeks of wanting me dead without having any of his own fingerprints on it. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I’ve had the time to go over a few players’ posts in detail. Briefly, > > **choie** > > She started off by pushing the “I’m just a newbie, and I don’t know anything” angle hard, but has backed off on that in recent days, probably because several people had mentioned that it was off-putting. Really, that’s a null-tell. I don’t see anything terribly off-putting in her voting history so far. > > **Septimus** > > He didn’t like \*\*Askthepizzaguy’s \*\*voting on Day 1, or on Day 2. Other than that, hasn’t even attempted to make a case against anyone, other than a smudge on \*\*LightFoot \*\*in [Post 2-525](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14034115&postcount=525): “Lightfoot’s claim might be a beautiful ploy if she were Scum” > > **texcat** > > I took a look at \*\*texcat \*\*because it was his post [D2-600](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14040873&postcount=600) that seems to have given the \*\*Septimus \*\*bandwagon new life. I didn’t find a great deal: > > He was suspicous of \*\*KellyCriterion’s \*\*claim on Day 1. > He thinks \*\*Scathach’s \*\*non-reveal indicates the presence of 3rd-Parties > He was very critical of \*\*Askthepizzaguy’s \*\*double-vote on **Septimus** > He thought \*\*Septimus \*\*and \*\*choie \*\*have been too ‘cozy’ > > **unvote choie** > > I was put off by her emphasis on her newbieness, but looking at the pattern of her posts I think now it had more to do with her being new than being Scum and trying to project an image. > > \*\*Septimus \*\*seems to be laying low. He was rather active early on in discussing the voting mechanics, but doesn’t seem to be trying hard to locate Scum. > > But I am more bothered by **texcat**. He had essentially nothing to say on Day 1 until \*\*Kelly’s \*\*claim, which he criticized, then voted against, and then he disappeared. Day 2 he criticized \*\*ATPG’s \*\*votes against **Septimus** , then his next post was a criticism of **Septimus** which fueled the subsequent votes, such that \*\*Septimus \*\*is now one vote away (\*\*texcat’s \*\*perhaps?) from being tied for the vote lead. > > **vote texcat** There’s a lot to get into here, but briefly, it was nearing the end of the day and TexCat has no other votes. I have to check and see if there was any follow-up whatsoever. What I’m saying is that TexCat could be scum with Suburban Plankton, and this was pure distancing. Or, if TaxCat is innocent, that still doesn’t clear Suburban Plankton, because there’s no way TexCat gets lynched here, and I don’t see any pressure on TexCat as it stands. I’d be interested to challenge Suburban Plankton on this point, and see if he REALLY wants TexCat dead or not. I’d like to see where he stands if TexCat was nearing the vote lead. Would he push her over the edge, or find a way to weasel out of it and change the subject? > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > OK, I took a look at **pedescribe’s** contributions to the game to date. Here they are: > > 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. pedescribe is similarly not going to be lynched. I’m not feeling the same suspicion on pedescribe as I was before. I don’t feel that this vote was a serious attempt to find scum. “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.” Attacking hypocrisy is a scum’s best friend. And, since pede isn’t anywhere near death, he’s not going to flip town or scum anytime soon, and therefore, ShadowFacts won’t have to answer for it. In fact, he’ll get a chance to follow up on pedescribe in future rounds, thus giving himself something to do. I got a sense from reading this that I should pay closer attention to ShadowFacts over pedescribe. I think pedescribe is being used as a safe whipping post for Shadow to direct his not-useful scum vote against, so he can claim to be looking for scum while not attracting attention or causing damage he has to answer for. That’s how I am picturing it. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > \*\*Askthepizzaguy’s \*\*case on \*\*choie \*\*is worth a closer look. I had similar feelings about her on Day 2, and had voted her at one time, but I later decided it wa no longer worthy of a vote. I need to go back and figure out why I thought that. > > Regarding **Septimus** ’ claim, I’d call his role ‘Scotsman’ rather than ‘Bulletproof’. I’ll admit I hadn’t considered that as a possibilty when he was hinting at his role. I find his late action less justifiable given his current claim than I did when I thought he was claiming a more ‘active’ Power. Suburban does seem to approve of choie being a suspect, and possibly, her death. I currently find Suburban more scummy than choie. I think I have it backwards, choie could be townie and Suburban is launching missiles at her with intent to either waste the round on choie, or keep her in the spotlight and discussion so that we keep missing Lords. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Too much of a temptation. > > I had a feeling you and Ed would get along like a house afire. > > Keep in mind when you’re playing this way that we can’t talk after death here, ok? If you want to nail any of your accusers to the wall you’re going to have to buckle down and point fingers while you’re still alive. 1. The running gag is that Askthepizzaguy always gets rolleyes directed at him, and 90% of the time, it is scumbags doing it. And this is a true story. Normal is under zero pressure from me whatsoever and she knows that I am her lifelong snuggle bunny. Here, she could be very much using the inside joke for her own amusement, as a scumbag. That’s not evidence of scum, but… 1. She’s actively encouraging me to go guns blazing. This distances her from any of the people I had been suspecting, and currently, I think I could have been wrong on those suspects. I feel she’s actively encouraging me to go get some townies dead. I can’t read Normal Phase very well at all, I’ve let her slip through my fingers many a time, but on re-read, I felt that if she were scum, she just revealed herself and her motivation with this post. She’s happy watching pizza accuse townies here. _Maybe_ Still not sure on Normal. I think she could be the active scumbag in the group. My personal request: \*\*\*DO NOT LET NORMAL PHASE SURVIVE THE GAME. * * * Let her live a little longer, hope I’m incorrect, and hope she bags some scumbags. I’m willing to adopt wait-and-see. But I don’t think she should legitimately survive the game. She’s gotta die, hopefully she will get murdered and prove me wrong, but if she doesn’t, she must eat a lynch. She’s too prosecutorial and aggressive. If she doesn’t die that obviously indicates the scumbags don’t find her to be a threat. If she’s townie, SHE IS A THREAT TO SCUMS. She cannot be allowed to survive this game. End of Story. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Hmm. Well, let me take a look back at what you claim is plenty of analysis, votes and concrete opinions. (spoilered, so It doesn’t take up a whole damn page). > > A quick break in the review, just to jot down my thoughts. > > You spent enough of day 1 thinking that pizza was town that you felt the need to distance yourself from that position today. > > You say you think Kelly is leaning town at one point, but keep your vote on him anyways. > > You try to take both sides on whether Lightfoot should reveal results. I see some possiblities for this: > Lightfoot may not understand implications, so you are trying to encourage good play. > > You are trying to defuse your own attempt to change Lightfoot’s mind. > > Side note: Personally, I am of the opinion that Lightfoot should reveal results on the outside chance that Lightfoot is scum, and gets caught in a lie. Posting results at end of night seems to alleviate this. Especially since I believe there to be third parties in this game. In a game with no third parties, it’s possible for scum to claim cop, and give truthful results. It’s much harder if there’s third parties floating around. I do however, think that Lightfoot’s claim is unlikely if Lightfoot is scum, since it would be a very risky play indeed. > > You have made a couple of posts which the entire point seems to be to make yourself look more like town directly (as opposed to indirectly, by simply doing townie things). You have gone far enough to imply that both doing what you suggest is pro-town, and suggesting what you suggested is also pro-town. > Then there is this post: > > 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** I wanted to prod Red Skeezix to review his stance on ShadowFacts given the events that followed. I think ShadowFacts is a good candidate presently. I wanted to hear Red Skeezix’ thoughts on the subject. Okay, so here’s what I’m going to do. Benefit of doubt for a round or two: choie Needs to be scanned, can’t be allowed to survive the game: septimus **unvote: choie** **vote: Stanislaus** **vote: TexCat** **Finger of Suspicion: Suburban Plankton** Prove yourself, demonstrate you really think TexCat is scummy. **Finger of Suspicion: ShadowFacts** Powerful you have become, shadow. The \*dark \*side I sense in you. 😃 I hope this post hits you like a **pun** ch in the face, “my Lords”. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/989 "2011-07-26T01:51:30Z")
@ \*\*Askthepizzaguy \*\* I find your recent analysis reasonable and (to me) helpful. I’m unable to track your vehemence (not the right word) at \*\* Normal\*\* Why are you so adamant that \*\* Normal \*\*should not survive ? On the one hand I see where a player that ‘sounds’ uber Town helpful and sane and wearing a LoS costume under the Townsperson hat is a threat to us. On the other foot if \*\* Normal \*\* is a townsperson (I have not seen her undergarments) your request for death could be counter-productive. I “get” some of what you are saying but this last question I would like a bit more information about. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/990 "2011-07-26T02:00:20Z")
Lightfoot- Like yourself, I find Normal Phase extremely helpful, dangerous to the scums if townie, and an excellent ally when you need to lynch someone. She’s not one to just ignore the game. That said, I detected a whiff of a hint of malevolence behind her brilliant mind and ravishing good looks. I think she wants me to cause some destruction and mayhem before she puts me to bed for good. It could just be my imagination. I’d like to see her go all wrecking crew on the Lords of Slaughter, and if she continues on this pace, she’s gotta hit some of them. But if the Lords of Slaughter leave her alive, over and over and over again, and she isn’t a top candidate to be lynched soon, then they don’t find her to be a threat. I just don’t buy that. She is a threat and a damned good one. I’m essentially proposing a game of “chicken” with her life. Should the scums never kill her off, okay lynch her. But while she lives, if townie, she’s probably going to tear them a new corn chute. I think if you observe her carefully over the course of the game, you’ll be able to make that determination and judgment call for yourself. I don’t want to go after her now. But if I die, and she doesn’t die, keep your eye on her especially. Question her, see where she votes, don’t let up. When the time comes, peek under her skirt, even if it costs her her life. That’s my recommendation. You do know better than I what’s going on because of your one successful scan, so overturn anything I say if it goes against what you know. Hopefully I’m picking correctly enough that it shouldn’t be an issue. ---
**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 26, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/991 "2011-07-26T02:22:24Z")
PizzaGuy, you can add my rolling eyes :rolleyes: to your case on me. Good grief, you’ve gone from some one who voted with no apparent reasons to the Berlin wall of words and charts. What caused the drastic change? I’m not sure that I disagree with your stance on Normal: > [@](#): > > She’s too prosecutorial and aggressive. If she doesn’t die that obviously indicates the scumbags don’t find her to be a threat. If she’s townie, SHE IS A THREAT TO SCUMS. However, I find most of that statement to be more true about you than about her. Yes, I am generally a quiet player. I pop in and add my two bits when I see something of note, whether or not that’s worthy of a vote. So, yes, I’ve come in to “cluck my tongue” at you a few times. Surely that’s not a surprise; you must think some of your actions worthy of a tongue cluck or two. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/992 "2011-07-26T02:27:44Z")
Not as true about me as Normal, because I’ve already soaked up tons of votes and come close to being lynched every day, and caused averse reactions from townies and scumbags alike. Normal is more likely to be a threat to the scums than me, if townie. The only way that’s not true is if my votes and big accusations land on actual scumbags. Could you do me a big favor, o quiet kitten, and tell me if you think Stanislaus, ShadowFacts, or Suburban Plankton are vote-worthy? Or was rolling your eyes at my case the only purpose for your dropping in? You can say this for what I’ve done, it’s gotten your fingers typing and graced us with your presence. Don’t be shy, point some fingers, discuss. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/993 "2011-07-26T02:30:57Z")
Something that just recently occurred to me ( duh moment) My comments could be taken sometimes like I know more that the average Tom Dick or Hairy Townsperson. Most of the time I don’t. I know of ONE living Townsperson. My attempt to scan one I thought could be a LoS was blocked (I really wanted to pop in here and say----near EOD) “ Look what I found!” No such luck. I’m contemplating revealing who I did try to investigate near EON IN case my point #3 was valid but if they are Town that would be counterproductive so I probably won’t. My other observations are purely with the glasses that everyother Townsperson was fitted with. I don’t wish for them to be given too much weight (experienced players know that but I wanted to be clear- I’m new to a lot of you folks.) I am doing my utmost to be as productive as I can be here. And I will admit (again I think) that the format makes it difficult for me to research the way I am accustomed to… ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/994 "2011-07-26T02:46:47Z")
Wait until just before end of night, if possible… that way the information leaks even if you die, but not swiftly enough for the _LOS lonely boys_ to take advantage. If you cannot be at your computer at the time, it depends I guess on if this person is a power role or not. If this person is a power role, let the scums have to go hunt for this person on their own; if they’re up for a lynch, you can stop us before it gets too far, or they can claim. It’s still early enough where I wouldn’t press the issue; the longer you leave it ambiguous the better the chances they have to stay alive at night. The day is not the threat, as there’s a fair chance anyone could die any day, but at night, the lords of slaughter aren’t going to kill themselves and they’re probably going to avoid hitting known NPCs unless they’re a pain in the buttocks. That’s my suggestion. Nothing is served by revealing during the middle of the day except to void a lynch on them, don’t do it if you don’t have to. Revealing at night should be done only if you’re concerned you’re going to die. We haven’t seen a dead doctor yet, so I wouldn’t be so concerned. My issue is… a doctor and a bulletproof; that would seem to be a lot, unless the one-shot bulletproof is the extent of that power. Especially when there’s also a claimed detective. That implies 4 lords of slaughter most likely, or one of these claimed power roles is really scum. Time should tell on that. I give claimed power roles the benefit of the doubt because they’re such high priority murder targets. It gives the scums a chance to kill them for us, instead of wasting our time lynching em. Later on we can determine if that was a wise idea or not. I’d like to see some more detective scans from you; if you get another one off successfully, maybe reveal both scans during the earliest part of the day so we can discuss, absorb, and accuse. That means whoever is blocking you should only continue to do it if they’re a paranoid doc. And even so, at some point, they should relax and let a second investigation through. But that’s a guessing game and I don’t want to publicly discuss strategy there; make up your own minds about that. If they don’t stop blocking you at some point, to let you scan again, they aren’t a paranoid doc. That indicates a scum roleblocker. Let them waste time blocking you if so, instead of killing you. You’re obviously not getting lynched anytime soon, and that means that you pose a threat to them during the day by narrowing down our lynch choices while adding to the vote. I think best play for you is to keep attempting to scan, and I’d scan anyone you think is likely to not be lynched anytime soon. The reason being, you’ll have a detective scan on someone who is alive, and you won’t have to claim their innocence to spare them from death. But choose the scans yourself. Then, spare your votes for making decisions near the end of the round, it reveals less about who your scanned townie is. You’re not going to vote for the scanned townie, so just use your vote to decide the lynch against someone you DO feel is scum. My 2 cents. ---
**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 26, 2011, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/995 "2011-07-26T09:40:00Z")
OK, I had this half-finished before I had to leave work last night so I’m going to finish it off now before I address Pizza’s vote on me. [spoiler] > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I agree that the double vote could lead to scum manipulation, but I also agree with those that say we should just try to make sure player’s votes are well justified. I believe the possible benefits of allowing our power roles to level up makes it worth the risk of having double votes. > > The most suspicious thing I have seen so far is pedescribe’s vote on Choie for the apparent slip, but I also know pede generally votes very early with very little reason just to get a vote down, so I don’t find it as suspicious as I might for some other players. > > I just got home a little while ago and have only read through once quickly. I will try to reread more thoroughly tomorrow and see if anything jumps out at me. There’s a lot of fence-sitting and equivocation in a short post: he sees both sides of the argument about double votes, but to be fair, does pick a side; goes both ways on pede; instantly disclaims all these thoughts pending a re-read. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > 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** Three things here: The speculation about scum levelling up. This could go both ways: it’s probably worth us remembering that scum will level up, so it’s pro-town to bring it up. But, it’s all empty speculation. We don’t know how they do it, so we can’t guard against it. What we could do is worry fruitlessly about it, and second-guess ourselves and each other. But more to my concern, is that Mental Guy is visibly and pre-emptively distancing himself from scum. “Look how I know nothing about how scum level up. Nothing, I tell you. Why, how could I, good townie that I am?” Second: A list of people he might also vote for, at the same time as a vote. It’s more caution and fence-sitting. Third: The vote: Kelly did accuse Normal of mis-reasoning. But itself isn’t a good reason to think Kelly would be scum. Even town can make bad arguments against cases. It looks like Mental Guy was looking for any reason to put a vote down, not a good reason. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I am not going to quote askthepizzaguy but I do agree with his last point. I have been able to read the thread at various times today but not post and this latest move by Kelly just does not seem like something that would come from scum. If scum are not allowed to talk privately during the Day (and I don’t think I have seen this stated one way or the other), then I guess it is in the realm of possibility, but I still think rather unlikely. > > **Unvote KellyCriterion** > > I still like Scathach’s case on Koldanar better than any other case made or anything I have been able to spot myself. > > **Vote Koldanar** > Askthepizzaguy, none of us are saying that a Day 1 case is going to meet the same standard as, say, a Day 3 case, but we would like to know why you think the person you are voting is more likely to be scum than the other players. I think most of us just feel that if you are not giving a reason for voting for us, then there is really no need for a response. Your vote on Red Skeezix did not gain any traction because there was nothing really there to respond to. > > On preview, I see charlie has also replied, but I will just keep this like it is. Here we’ve got more in the “See how I have no idea whatsoever about scum” vein, which is the rationale for the unvote. The unvote is also basically following someone else’s lead - and the same is true for the vote. There’s a limited amount of responsibility being taken. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > Each Mod makes their own rules, but the standard operating procedure here is to give them accounts on a separate board where they can talk. It is fairly common to only allow the scum to talk privately at Night (but allowing communication any time is not unusual either). > > If Kelly is scum and in contact with his partners, then I think they would have convinced him that the “hash-tag” post was not a good thing to do. If Kelly is scum and not in contact with his partners, then he may not have realized what a bad idea it was. So, I think his actions are slightly more likely (as scum) if scum are not allowed to communicate with each other during the Day, but I find it unlikely to be something done by scum either way. More “Scum? Who can say what may or may not be the case with scum? Not I!” stuff. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I just felt that the accusation of Koldanar just posting to be saying something rang true givent the content of Koldanar’s posts. His posts have been better since then, but that could be because he got called on it. > > I will not be around at the end of Day, so I am going to go ahead and cast another vote > > **Vote Silver Jan** > > I feel her confusion has more probability of being being caused by her being scum than Kelly’s. I am not really opposed to a Kelly lynch, though, since as someone else said, he will continue to receive suspicion if he does survive, so it might be best to go ahead and eliminate him (though at this point, I think the same argument applies to Silver Jan). This is another very equivocal post: 1) His vote for Koldanar was following others’ accusations. 2) “I just felt” is very soft language to support a vote. 3) Voting for Silver Jan while not really being opposed to a Kelly lynch - very equivocal. 4) Both of them should die not for being scum, but for having received suspicion. As Pizza pointed out to Suburban Plankton, this is a \*terrible \*reason to lynch someone. And to set up both lynch leaders for that treatment toMorrow is unbelievably bad logic. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > crap > > **Unvote Silver Jan** In any case, he immediately unvotes Silver Jan, having not seen the vanilla claim on preview. This somewhat contradicts his immediately earlier statement that she should be lynched for being suspicious (which is actually good). But he still said that stuff before he realised he was posting in the teeth of a backed up vanilla claim. The unvote itself is a null tell. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I agree with most everyone that Lightfoot should have given it more thought before deciding to claim, but given that she did, I think Ed’s plan of having her reveal her info as close to the end of Night as possible is a good one. > > I don’t like ATPG locking in his vote this early, but I can’t really say that I think it makes him likely scum. (On preview, I see Plankton has addressed this, and I agree with the problems he has with it.) > > Since I haven’t really found the cases against most players really convincing, I picked a few random players to go back and read their posts (and I plan on doing some more when I have time). > > Here are the posts since the game started by GnarlyCharlie. > I feel Charlie is trying to post enough to seem engaged in the game, but what game discussion there is is almost all generic strategy or game mechanics. I can’t really say that his one vote was a bad vote in the circumstance, but at the time it did look like it might lead to an easy bandwagon on pizzaguy. > > **Vote Gnarlycharlie** > I am also going to repeat my vote on Koldanar from yesterDay. This is for similar reasons to Charlie, in that Koldanar seemed to be posting just to be posting without really saying anything. I also feel that Scathach may have been killed to try to have the case against his main suspect forgotten about. > > **Vote Koldanar** > There are a few other players that I am going to try to look at, but I am not sure when I will be able to do that. A few things here: 1) This is the second snuggle of Pizza (1st being the “I won’t quote but I agree” over Kelly’s handshaking.) 2) But he then immediately equivocates by saying that he agrees with SP’s problems with Pizza’s early double vote. It smacks of trying to be friends with everyone. 3) The case against gnarly is weak. Especially the analysis of his vote: it might be good or it might be scummy. 4) Mental Guy double votes. Earlier he had said: > [@](#): > > 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. It’s not a close vote. We don’t have an investigator results. Yet he double votes. Double votes are a boon to scum. That’s why I made a big deal about it earlier - it’s way too easy to muddy your vote record when you get to spread votes about. And Mental Guy seemed to agree - until now. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I want to say that I have had the majority of the following post written since this morning (or maybe early afternoon), but wound up away from the computer and now is the first chance I have had to post it. I have read what has happened in the meantime and the only thing that has pinged me since then is Red’s vote for ShadowFacts which I felt was weak. If ShadowFacts had very few posts or all his posts were of that type, then I could see it as a plausible case, but Red seems to be cherry picking a post here to make a case on. > > I have reviewed several other players’ posts and I am going to keep my votes where they are for now. > > I can’t really argue against a lynch of askthepizzaguy or Silver Jan and I am also a bit suspicious of Suburban Plankton. > > Suburban has seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time locating apparent PISes, and I feel in each case they were very weak. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that he did not vote for them, but he may have been hoping someone else would jump at the bait. > > I agree that Silver Jan’s string of OMGUS votes and “I am Town” proclamations are inherently scummy, but reading her posts I get the feeling she is a frustrated inexperienced player. There are also so many OMGUS votes and “I am Town” statements that it starts veering into “too scummy for scum” territory. That being said, Ed’s admonition not to act like scum if you are not scum is a good one and I can’t really argue against her lynch. > > If I were to change one of my votes it would be for ATPG. Playing directly opposite the strategy you lay down is the height of hypocrisy. It may draw scum to vote for you, but it also is likely to get you lynched. If you truly think your analysis would help us later, then it behooves you to play in a manner that would make it likely that you would be alive later. Also, from your posts, I get the feeling that you have a large enough ego to think that you could play like you are as scum and still be able to avoid the lynch. All that said, I do tend to think you are not scum, but I can’t really argue against your lynch, either. Not one but two players who Mental Guy doesn’t think are scum, but against who’s lynch he can’t really argue. It’s equivocation again, coupled with setting up players for the lynch. He also joins in having a go at Pizza, as others are at this point. His point against Red seems like a good one, but he doesn’t follow it up, then or later. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > While, like Stanislaus, I feel we might be getting suckered, I do tend to think that Pizza is Town. > > At the time of your [_gnarlycharlie’s_] vote, I had reviewed the posts of several players, all of whom had about the same number of posts as you and me. I felt yours looked the most like scum trying to hide in plain sight. Since then, I have reviewed some other players including our lynch leaders. I still feel you are more likely to be scum than they are. > > Let’s point out that at the time we tied you for the lynch lead, that meant you had a total of 2 votes, with over 3 days left in the Day. I wasn’t trying to save septimus (although I do find the case against him weak), I was just voting. Two interesting things here. 1) I had a vote on Mental Guy by this point, but he doesn’t mention it - nor has he. He does, however, snuggle me a little. 2) There’s a slight defense of septimus. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I am not sure if you mean to imply that Pizza’s vote was justified because of what septimus said, but to clarify, septimus never actually used the “obvious reasons” phrase as a justification. He said it looked like he should have said that since he got heat for his case being overkill. > > In a case like this where it is actively being discussed it will be on the scum’s mind and not be as useful, but I don’t think it is outdated. Mental Guy offers further clarification on septimus, pointing out that septimus never actually voted “for obvious reasons”. This is true, but it’s his second mentino of the case against septimus, and how he thinks it is weak. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > Since I had to leave for a while this morning, Suburban has already addressed this, but septimus did not vote “for obvious reasons”. He just said he should have said that since his case was called overkill. It was Pizza that voted “for obvious reasons”. Third time he clarifies the septimus case. This could be a townie just trying to keep everybody on the straight and narrow, but given my own suspicion of septimus I find it suspicous in it’s own right. If septimus flips scum, I will find this vote-worthy.[/spoiler] So in sum: Lots of equivocation, lots of protests about how little he knows about scum, lots of condoning of lynching people for being suspicious or noisy. Some defense of septimus which I am quite suspicous of, but will wait for a role-flip before judging. I am voting for septimus; if I were to use a second vote, it would be on Mental Guy. ---
**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 26, 2011, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/996 "2011-07-26T11:14:41Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > [Oh if we had multiquote] > > IIRC this is where I began to think about Stanislaus as more suspicious than others. > > Jan and Kelly both flipped townie, but what I really feel was happening here was Stanislaus attempting to get suspicion on Jan voters, hinting that they were probably trying to save Kelly. While what he’s saying doesn’t work in the long term as both of them flipped townie, at the time, it could have been a useful tactic to keep suspicion on folks, by bringing up an idea that could have distracted them into accusing one another of being Kelly or Jan’s partner. > > I don’t really believe Stanislaus feels that there’s a serious attempt to save a scumbag by their partner here. I think it’s just a short-term tactic to keep the town divided while also appearing to be thinking tactically for the town side. > > There’s also a hint of lecturing. One of the things a scumbag likes to do when town is shooting themselves in the foot, or they’re under no real suspicion, is play the helpful townie and suggest certain courses of action are mistakes. And he’s right, voting both kelly and jan doesn’t do much except ensure one of them gets lynched, it doesn’t decide between them. > > The problem is, that speaks more of a townie who isn’t thinking about the tactical ramifications of their actions, than a calculated move by a scumbag. It doesn’t even speak of a mistake by a scumbag either. The wording used here “Calling out” Diver feels Stanislaus is clucking his tongue at behavior I’d identify as a townie who isn’t paying close attention. I really don’t buy that he finds it in any way scummy. > > The way things are going, why would Stanislaus as scum make any waves by changing votes? Both Kelly and Jan are a bad lynch, so he feels comfortable to just comment on some of the obvious mistakes townies are making and wax philosophical about the double-vote option. > > I don’t get the feeling he’s seriously hunting scums or giving an effort. I think it’s acting. At least, that’s the impression I got from reading that post. Let’s move on to the next one that catches my eye. 1. You’re right - I wasn’t sure whether there was an attempt to save Kelly. (I was voting for him, remember, so I rated it is a more likely possibility than other people would have.) I brought it up precisely because I wasn’t sure. If scum were adding their weight to the Kelly bandwagon then a) a post calling this out might stop them from pushing SJ over the edge and b) even better, it might cause them to feel exposed by their presence on the SJ wagon, and react by backtracking in some way. As it turned out, SJ and Kelly were both town, but at the time I thought it was a possibility worth bearing in mind, and potentially a good way to flush out scum. 2. I prefer the phrase “offering useful advice” to “tongue-clucking” but yeah, that is what I was doing. I thought that was pretty clear. I’ve played in a game with multi-voting (forced multi-voting, no less!) and found it a massively anti-town mechanic. So I’m very keen that it doesn’t become one in this game. Diver might be town who was being a bit careless in his votes, or he might be scum who saw a way to vote without making waves. My point in calling out his vote was to highlight how ineffective the vote was, and to show that I was looking out for poor multi-voting, in order to dissuade town and scum both from doing it. > [@](#): > > The above quote makes little sense unless you click the arrow and read it in-context with special ed’s quote intact. > > I’m already raising an eyebrow at Stanislaus, and for the moment, I am assuming special ed was innocent. Here, I find that Stanislaus is smudging special ed. > > He’s content to make these sorts of posts and then fade into the background, not raising any hackles or causing much of a disturbance in the force. Smudging? Obviously this means something different to you than to me. I had a vote on special ed. It wasn’t a smudge, it was a good faith case. As it turned out… > [@](#): > > This feels like pure acting. > > I think Stanislaus figured special ed wasn’t being lynched anytime soon, and later, he winds up dead via murder. > > He doesn’t appear to be hunting very hard for suspects. …it was a rubbish case. Let me give you the background: My case against ed directly followed a post in which I called for people to make more effort to make cases. So kind of feeling that shouldn’t say that unless I meant it, I picked special ed on the grounds that he can be a very dangerous scum, and had a look at him to see what was there. I started writing that case immediately as I clicked send on the last one and it took me two and a half hours till I posted it. But it wasn’t a very coherent 2.5 hours. I was at work, and flicking back and forth between my actual job and making the case. I should have spent longer at it, because it gradually became less coherent as I went through his posts. But I realised that I wasn’t get anything done, and even though I wasn’t completely happy with the case I decided to post it as it was because a) I couldn’t spend any more time on it then, b) I didn’t want to lose the work I’d done and c) I figured if I made the case and the vote, I’d get a reaction from ed and that would be valuable in itself. But I should have held back, because I missed a pretty crucial post from ed which blew a damn big hole in my case. You said my unvote was acting. It was a bit. I was kind of embarrassed that I’d made such a howler, so I tried to make a bit of a joke out of it - a sort of “Yep, I got nothin’” moment. At the point where ed quoted the very post I was saying he should have made but didn’t, there was nothing to do but unvote, and try not to feel too foolish. For what it’s worth, the way ed reacted did make me lean town on him, so there was some marginal benefit to having poked him. Also, you imply that scum killed ed because I (as scum) failed to get him lynched. I don’t follow the logic here. If I were genuinely wanting him bumped off why not discreetly NK him rather than trying to do it publicly? Especially if I’m going to back off and kill him anyhow - it just doesn’t make sense. You’re taking two facts: 1) I voted for ed and 2) scum killed him and leaping to conclusions. > [@](#): > > It’s a lot of words which reveal not a whole lot of thoughts, motivations, or intentions. It straddles the fence a bit, and does not make waves. > > Here, he distances himself from Mental Guy and Diver. > > From my perspective, pizza is definitely townie as that’s me, and Diver, I’m getting the impression is another easy target to pick on because he’s voted for me on bad reasoning. That feels like a real attempt to sow suspicion on Diver, indicating they’re probably not on the same team. > > Mental Guy and Stanislaus are also probably not on the same team, as Stan’s attempts to void Mental Guy from existence also appear genuine. We’ll see if that holds up in future rounds. Your first point I just don’t agree with at all. I don’t know how you can read that fairly long post, plus vote, and say it doesn’t have thoughts, motivations or intentions. You and SJ were tied for the vote (5-5, I think). I read over both of you, and concluded that I didn’t want to vote for either of you. I could have just left it at that, or posted a one liner to that effect. But considering you were vote leaders, I wanted to leave something on record showing my thinking about you both. Because as we’d discussed, close votes are where we can catch scum: if I’d voted, my opinion would be on record - which is what helps us analyse the situation in future Days. Not voting doesn’t leave a record - unless you detail why you’re not. I wanted to be transparent about my thoughts, motivations and intentions particularly \*because \*my vote wasn’t going to say anything about my thoughts on the lynch leaders. I am just stunned that you can read that post and think that I wasn’t saying anything when my whole purpose in making it was to be explicit about what I thought. Finally, I’m slightly suspicious of Driver, and more suspicious of Mental Guy. That’s as true then as it was when I wrote that in as many words. I reallly don’t see what your point is here, unless you think we shouldn’t say when we’re suspicious of someone. Which you clearly don’t. ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/997 "2011-07-26T13:05:10Z")
Everyone, sorry about my relative lack of participation Today. I’m in the middle of a sting of night shifts which makes it difficulty for me to do much writing/analyzing. I’m doing my best to keep up but there is a lot of material to digest. I have one more night tonight and then hopefully I’ll have a chance to make some contributions. For now, I’m going to sleep. ---
**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 26, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/998 "2011-07-26T13:27:54Z")
> [@](#): > > My personal request: DO NOT LET NORMAL PHASE SURVIVE THE GAME. Frowny face at Pizzaguy. If I do my job right that is unlikely to be an issue. But still. Since when do you advocate prophylactic lynching? ---
**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 26, 2011, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/999 "2011-07-26T13:41:42Z")
TexCat, I have a question and an observation for you in post 951 that have gone un-responded to. Stanislaus, about Septimus you said that previous experience with a PFK was affecting your decision making but I can’t place what you might be talking about. The last game’s PFK was me, but I didn’t win, and I went essentially unsuspected all game. I don’t see the relevance to Septimus right now. ---
**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 26, 2011, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1000 "2011-07-26T13:52:43Z")
It’s my experience with a PFK _claim_: Zeriel’s. I was suckered by it, whereas if I’d stuck with thinking of him as a wrong 'un, I might have actually contributed to a successful lynch. (I realise that this case is different in that septimus hasn’t claimed PFK - rather you’ve concluded he is through analysis: my position is still that it’s better to lynch someone you think is anti-Town now than try to distinguish between the two flavours). Mainly, of course, I do think he’s scum - but the possibility that he might be PFK doesn’t make me hesitate to lynch him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=51)