# 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:** 52
**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 27, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1021 "2011-07-27T02:41:30Z")
One more thing: > [@TexCat](#): > > > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > > > Later in Day 2, he tells us that he was suspicious of \*\*Ed \*\*on Day 1, despite the fact that he never mentioned it at the time..and since \*\*Ed \*\*is voting for **Silver Jan** , who he thinks is Town, he votes **Ed**. We’re not sure why he thinks Silver Jan is Town, because he has also never mentioned this before. > > Here we can really tell that you are not following along closely. I voted Ed, in part, because he chided her all day, and did NOT vote her. That’s not what I said here. You told us, on Day 2, that you had been suspicious of \*\*Ed \*\*the previous Day. Except you had never mentioned any suspicion of \*\*Ed \*\*on Day 1. You voted for \*\*Ed \*\*because he had been chiding **Silver Jan** all Day long, and you thought she was Town. Except you had never commented on **Silver Jan’s** Towniness before that post. You seemed to be inventing your thoughts on people on the spot in order to support the cote you were making. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1022 "2011-07-27T03:07:47Z")
I did not try to reinsert my quotes back into this. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > I have already mentioned how being equivocal is just part of who I am. As far mentioning the re-read, I just think it may be useful for players to know if what I am saying is just a first impression or if I have spent some time studying it. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > I thought the scum leveling mechanic might be something that players wanted to consider. I also often feel that other players may have better insight into some of these things than I do, so I mention them to hear what others have to say. If it looks like I am distancing myself from scum, so be it. There is not a lot I can do about that (well, obviously not bring that stuff up, but I don’t like that if it something I am truly interested in hearing about). > > I generally think misrepresenting someone is scummy, but I will admit, that it is not as accurate a scum tell as it feels like it should be. I did feel that Kelly was misrepresenting Normal there. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > I liked the arguments others made in this case, and nothing was standing out to me at the time. > > > [@](#): > > > > More “Scum? Who can say what may or may not be the case with scum? Not I!” stuff. > > This seems like a misrepresentation to me. I think I made it clear that I did not think Kelly’s actions were that of a scum. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > 1. I agreed with the case on Koldanar. > 2. Suburban had said I did not explain what I liked about the case. The “I just felt” was because it was not a complicated case and I felt it was logical. I did not say “I just felt” that Koldanar was scum, which is what your statement implies. > 3. Yes, it is equivocal. > 4. Maybe it is a terrible idea. I don’t necessarily think so, but that is just a difference of opinion. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > I don’t really object to the lynch of players that are obviously going to draw a lot of suspicion because 1) it removes the distraction and 2) I could be wrong, but that does not mean that it is my first choice. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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: > > > > 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. > > 1. I am not sure how you consider this a snuggle (an accusation that I feel you are overusing) of Pizza. All I said was that I didn’t really think it indicated he was scum. > 2. And if I state what I think without even mentioning that it is the same think Suburban said, then it looks like I am not even really reading the thread. > 3. It is not a complicated or sophisticated case, but how is it weak? And the vote was in the sweet spot of being able to go either way. > 4. As I said earlier, when I first commented on the double votes, it was because I thought any time you had two votes active, you were locked in. I am not near as concerned when votes can be changed. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > In regards to Red, you are right. I do need to take a closer look at him. I also need to go back and review some of the other cases I found plausible, such as those against TexCat and choie. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > 1. There wasn’t a lot of reason to mention it. The case against me wasn’t gaining traction. Again, just agreeing with something you said is not snuggling. > 2. Because I thought the case against septimus was weak. Only a slight defense because I haven’t really seen anything that tells me he is definitely a townie. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > I did not realize I had clarified that “for obvious reasons” quote two different times. I must have forgot I had actually posted it once. > Maybe I can’t be objective at this point since I am the focus of all this, but this last part sounds like you know your scum-mate septimus is about to bite it and you want to use it to make a case against someone. > > 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. I went back and read all of stanislaus’ previous posts and I reviewed the case Pizza made against him. I did not find Pizza’s case all that convincing and stanislaus would not have been in my top list of suspects from a read of his posts. This case against me does bother me, though, since it seems in several spot to misrepresent things and often overstates things (like the constant accusations of snuggling). And saying my defense of septimus is vote worthy if septimus flips scum just seems over the top. If he thinks being equivocal is scummy and wants to vote me for that I can’t really say much, but it seems to me like he is stretching to make a case against me here. I may change my vote to stanislaus, but I want to look at the others I mentioned first. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1023 "2011-07-27T05:36:54Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Yes, well obviously, my case against Ed had flaws, namely that he flipped town. There are some other things in that post that ping me, but this one could be a slip of knowledge we don’t have (knowledge given only to the “Janitor”?). Ed has not “flipped” at all, town or otherwise. Even if we assume Vig missed and Scum hit last Night, might there not be a Redirecter or something? And even in the absence of any such mechanic, we can only assume Ed was Town or 3rd Party. I know that my chief suspect is presently voting TexCat but she moves her votes a lot and it will be interesting to see how this develops. A point in TexCat’s favor: it would be logical to _assume_ Ed is town or 3rd party, just based on the fact that there was only one Kill last Night, so it might be more of a skim-tell than a scum-tell. Nevertheless \*\*Vote: TexCat \*\* Speaking of Night-time killings, I have to wonder about players who worry that my actions showed no fear of a Scum NK. My reputation for Town suspicion against me has the “fringe benefit” that I need worry very little about Scum Killing me unless I’ve claimed an important Power role. This is especially true in this game, where I’ve been a strong Lynch candidate. ---
**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 27, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1024 "2011-07-27T05:56:27Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > 1. You’re right - I wasn’t sure whether there was an attempt to save Kelly. > > [SNIP for space] Click the arrow in the quote to get the full context. Okay here’s my reply: This all comes about because I’m running on a theory that septimus is who he says he is (for now) and so is choie. The reason why is because septimus isn’t going anywhere and hopefully Lightfoot can get a scan off on septimus at one point, or, the scums will waste a murder trying to hit Lightfoot thinking he’s going to do that. Hopefully the townies guess right and the scums guess wrong, and they miss a murder or we get a result on septimus. Either buys us time and avoids mistakes. Secondly, I’ve already seen people react to the idea of septimus’ death, and I’ve seen people consider the case against choie. With those reactions on record, I felt like too many people were eager to just drop septimus today without discussing alternatives. As far as I’m concerned, we can lynch him today. If I am right about him, then great- I wasn’t wasting my time in the early game. And since he’s probably still up there as a lynch leader, I’m not too worried that he won’t be the default lynch if we don’t have something better. My quest is to find something better. If I were to assume septimus were innocent, I tried to picture where the scums were and who they could be. During my re-read of the game, several posters jumped out at me as potentially taking advantage of the situation… not doing anything to halt the town’s destruction, taking advantage of weaknesses displayed by the town, sowing division, and not using their votes effectively, or wagoning now known townies. But the biggest thing I was looking for was the likely scenario of distancing between scums, and also, silence between scums. I don’t think that there’s a major feud happening right now between the Lords of Slaughter for show purposes. Town is nice and divided and lynching themselves off too well for that, except, it’s possible one or two of them placed a meaningless vote on the other when it wasn’t going to affect the outcome. Working from that premise, and just using my gut, I arrived at TexCat, Stanislaus, Suburban Plankton, and ShadowFacts… and I am pretty darned sure one of them is guilty, given the likely number of lords of slaughter or third party folks. I am not looking at a bloc of 4 townies, I’d wager my hat on that, MOST ESPECIALLY if septimus is innocent. Somewhere in that group, I have a very strong feeling, I am pointing at a scumbag. My objective for the rest of this round is to see what these suspects think of one another, see what the rest of the players think of these suspects, and see if we can’t find at least one of them that we’re pretty sure are Lords of Slaughter. If that be the case, then that player will be a better lynch than septimus. As of right now, I’m willing to lynch any of these 4. Now, my response to your response is, in short: 1. Yes, I accept that at face value, if you’re town. If you’re scum, however, my explanation fits what your behavior was. I have no proof, I’m just offering a theory and trying to see if anyone can poke holes in it. 2. And that’s fine, again, if you’re town. In my experience, scumbags like to look less bad than townies. They like to offer advice and lecture and avoid making mistakes and they like to point out mistakes in others. They want to draw attention onto townies and away from their partners unless they’re pulling a gambit. The “I voted and accused my partner” gambit doesn’t persuade me anymore, so I welcome scums killing other scums to try to fool me. On the chance they’re playing it mostly straight, the main strategy is to just drift through the game as townies massacre one another, or prod them into voting each other, or just make them the subject of conversation. I don’t think enough people have accused you or made you the subject of conversation, and I don’t really get the sense that you’re hunting the scums very hard, and I do get the sense that you’re falling back into classic scum strategy of pointing out ineffective townie behavior simply to make others the subject of conversation and to make yourself look less bad by comparison. As such, my opinion is you’re acting like a scum and there’s a good chance you are one. I’m not locked in on you because I’m not certain. I want to see who else wants you dead, if anyone, and I would really like to hear which of TexCat, ShadowFacts, and Suburban Plankton you think are probably scumbags. **Do you think there’s anything to the cases on these people?** The other major points in your response are “I don’t agree with your logic” and generally just holding a different view or opinion. I can’t really budge you nor would I try. I’m just stating for the record why I don’t think you’re townie, albeit not certain you’re scum either. ---
**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 27, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1025 "2011-07-27T06:00:07Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > 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? Because as good as you are as townie, you’re pulling off what appears to be a classic performance. It will be really hard for anyone to make a case against you unless you slip up and obviously try to spare a scumbag’s life, and they get exposed. And I also think you’re too clever for that as well. I just want to be on record as saying I cannot read your p-p-poker face, but I do get the slightest whiff of deviousness behind what you’re doing. Lynch a Lord of Slaughter and maybe I’ll reverse that opinion. Pressure’s on you. I also don’t think we’re seeing eye-to-eye on these suspects. It’s possible I am arguing for the death of one of your partners. We’ll see if that’s nonsense or correctness in due time. ---
**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 27, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1026 "2011-07-27T06:08:23Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > This last bit is the only part I don’t like. If there are any enterprising scums out there, you’ve handed them license to have a go at me by killing you. I would welcome such a move because it will make whatever cases I’ve made more credible and I will finally be a known quantity as a townie, which will end all the debate on that point, even if people seem to be leaning townie on me now. I still said they should leave you alive for a bit so you could do what you do best. You seem a bit too perturbed by my plan for my liking. My objective here is to point my fingers correctly, take out at least one LOS before I die, and if not, make sure my fingers were pointing at the right people on the time of my death. I’m willing to toss a little heat on you in exchange for that. ---
**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 27, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1027 "2011-07-27T06:12:26Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I was responded to your point about Ed being dead and Septimus still alive. I found Ed to be a particularly strange choice for scum. > > Yes even at 6:59 and 55 seconds. I think self-preserving votes are a null tell. Disagree, and that’s why I think he’s an okay default lynch. It’s not just the self-preserving vote, it’s the lack of claim, and the timing of the self-preservation. He should have claimed something\* that would have gotten him murdered,\* if he is indeed what he’s claiming to be. He should have claimed the doctor role. It was too late in the round for any real doc to pipe up and counter-claim, and if he survived a murder attempt in the night, he could then claim bulletproof and that he was not a doctor immediately the next morning. I still get the feeling there’s something askew. However, I’m willing to hedge my bet and pressure others. I feel there’s a good chance we can get Lightfoot to clear or condemn him, and if he’s townie, that’s a good hedge bet since he will die anyway as scum and we’ll have him on record as supporting or opposing certain people for death. ---
**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 27, 2011, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1028 "2011-07-27T06:15:33Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > I’d like to know what you think about Mental Guy, because “safe” was my primary impression of him. Right now I haven’t examined him very closely. I still have to look at Stanislaus, TexCat, Suburban Plankton, and ShadowFacts in detail, and see if I can’t reverse some of my own logic against them. Remember, my original cases on these people were based on a skimming re-read, lots of gut, and no fact-checking. If I review these cases I might find something which changes my mind or makes me put someone else in as their likely partner. Once I’m satisfied I’ve examined them closely, I can take a look at Mental Guy. But I can only do so much in a day, and he’d have to wait until tomorrow even if I thought he were scummy, just because I cannot pressure everyone in the game at once. It’s not effective. ---
**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 27, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1029 "2011-07-27T06:25:16Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Reading the discussion between **ShadowFacts** and **Normal Phase** it is, as with Normal and Pizza, pretty easy to be sure that at most one of them is Scum. This is a good tactical reason to Lynch Normal. When she flips Scum, ShadowFacts and probably ATPG become semi-confirmed Town. (If Normal flips Town after all, we can look harder at ShadowFacts and ATPG.) I don’t really agree with this. Neither Shadow nor myself should be confirmed town if Normal flips scum because Normal has never been under serious pressure, and ShadowFacts has not been the lynch leader either. Any interaction between myself/Shadow and Normal could therefore be innocent or WIFOM. Since this forms much of the inner meat of the logic for your case against Normal, I don’t agree with it. And I think you’re pulling the trigger too soon on Normal, because you should be able to pattern her votes, examine her interactions, and question her deeper into the game. Some players seem to be playing to avoid such analysis, and would be better choices if you think they are also scum. > [@](#): > > I just do not think Shadow’s posts warrant the extreme suspicion that Normal has (or pretends to have). > > **Vote: Normal Phase** > > If I’m right, and Normal flips Scum, we’ve semi-confirmed two likely Townies: Shadow and Pizza. How about lynching Shadow and using that to determine Pizza and Normal? I want Shadow dead, Normal wants Shadow dead. Let’s get Shadow! Why does it have to be Normal? 😛 I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for Normal if it came down to Normal versus someone else, but I find your conclusion to be kinda sketchy and I’d flip Normal and Shadowfacts, then I could agree with it more. > [@](#): > > I am content to lay down my Life for the cause. _Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant_. **I want you to rank the following in order of who you want dead:** ShadowFacts, Stanislaus, TexCat, and Suburban Plankton. Do that for me, if you would please. Apparently ShadowFacts would be at the bottom? ---
**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 27, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1030 "2011-07-27T06:37:55Z")
**unvote: texcat** **vote: ShadowFacts** 2 things: TexCat is finally getting some pressure (great) but also seemed to be misinformed about special ed not having flipped yet. Something I think the Lords would remember so they avoid such a mistake. ShadowFacts is long due for more pressure as well. Now, I’ll actually re-examine the four people I’m talking about and try to view each from both angles and see if what I come up with changes my mind. For the record, TexCat is still a fine idea, but I’m switching her to a Finger of Suspicion and bumping Shadow into the line of death. ---
**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 27, 2011, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1031 "2011-07-27T07:05:09Z")
Also, if I’m not just sitting here talking to myself again, please speak up. I’ve got many hours before sleep and I’d rather not waste them talking to the wall. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1032 "2011-07-27T08:53:50Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > Any interaction between myself/Shadow and Normal could therefore be innocent or WIFOM. > > Since this forms much of the inner meat of the logic for your case against Normal, I don’t agree with it. And I think you’re pulling the trigger too soon on Normal, because you should be able to pattern her votes, examine her interactions, and question her deeper into the game. Some players seem to be playing to avoid such analysis, and would be better choices if you think they are also scum. > … > **I want you to rank the following in order of who you want dead:** > > ShadowFacts, Stanislaus, TexCat, and Suburban Plankton. I know what you’re saying about Normal and Shadow possibly BOTH being Scum (or you and Normal BOTH Scum) but it doesn’t mesh with my intuition or limited experience. For example, if you and Normal WERE both Scum, would you be calling attention to this possibility now? Perhaps, you would – Wifom. But I haven’t noticed it in my games. I can tell you’ve played at a much higher level than I. Another thing I wouldn’t be brave enough to even think of is the Doc false-claim. It’s been drilled into my head never to lie in Mafia. I can see that by retracting the claim the very next Dawn, it might not count as a “lie” but my play is much too simple (or simple-minded ☹ ) for that ploy even to occur to me. Anyway, the reason I’m voting for Normal and TexCat is not tactics. These are the two people I find most likely to be Scum. I’d been wondering about TexCat, who’s a lurker. One of the very first strategy posts he made was the one accusing me of being “cosy” with choie for “liking” her post. I think this alleged “cosiness” has been taken far out of proportion; with all the other happenings in the game focusing on it is a scum-tell. Among the other three people you ask about, I’ve been pinged by both Stanislaus and Suburban much more than I have by Shadow. When this game is over, I’m going to study it and try to get a better grasp of scum-tells. (I can’t really do that with old games that I didn’t play in … it would all seem too diffuse and confusing.) As for me, I’m content to be Lynched or Vigged or Investigated. As I implied earlier Vigging might make more sense than Lynching. But it obviously would be a huge shame to waste Town Powers by Vigging me and Investigating me the same Night so, if LightFoot intends to Investigate me she should call off the Vig. ---
**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 27, 2011, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1033 "2011-07-27T08:56:53Z")
I agree that Lightfoot should determine whether you get vigged or investigated, and I don’t feel that telling it publicly is a bad idea. Besides, it presents another opportunity for Lightfoot to bluff intent to the mafia. You can’t really trust townies openly communicating their strategy. Some of them might be deceptive for some reason. Would you rank Suburban higher or lower than Stanislaus? For the record. ---
**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 27, 2011, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1034 "2011-07-27T08:59:29Z")
I’d prefer the vigilante, if any, pick off some of the folks I’ve voted for today. But that’s if I had my druthers. ---
**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 27, 2011, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1035 "2011-07-27T09:11:42Z")
I have insomnia, but I feel like I’ve been kicked in the head. Got any coffee? What is it with everybody outright ignoring my arguments against them? ShadowFacts finally got to most of it, but it took him a few posts. I have a long string of “FALSE” comments out there aimed at Septimus, that he is blithely ignoring. And I think that TexCat lied about her reasoning for voting Ed and not Septimus on day two – which she skipped over in favor of making her case on Suburban Plankton, who I believe by this point must fall in the “easy target” category for the scum if not one himself. Your own comments about me continue to irritate. You’re being too lecture-y about it. I agree that Texcat’s town-Ed slip (or “slip”) is less than meaningful, but a) she has other crimes; and b) I don’t see where you get it as a town tell. She’s not exactly skating through the game right at the moment, and that would be expected to raise the error rate for her, regardless of alignment. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1036 "2011-07-27T09:16:51Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > Would you rank Suburban higher or lower than Stanislaus? For the record. 😕 :smack: 😕 :smack: Pardon me if I express irritation. I already answered your question honestly. What does it matter if I assess one at 17.3% Scum and the other as 17.5% Scum when there’s an uncertainty of plus-or-minus 10% on these numbers? If and when one becomes a serious Lynch candidate I will try to study the case. It’s obvious you are devoting far more hours to the game than others are, so why don’t you list all the players in order of probable scumminess? 😃 (I don’t know how you do it; I am retired but still lack the time to read most messages more than once. I have other retirement projects and tonight will be taking my kids to a fair – pop 7 balloons with 7 darts and win a stuffed animal!) ---
**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 27, 2011, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1037 "2011-07-27T09:55:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 😕 :smack: 😕 :smack: Pardon me if I express irritation. Yes, I know. I’m a laugh a minute, aren’t I? > [@](#): > > I already answered your question honestly. What does it matter if I assess one at 17.3% Scum and the other as 17.5% Scum when there’s an uncertainty of plus-or-minus 10% on these numbers? If and when one becomes a serious Lynch candidate I will try to study the case. I don’t expect you to have a percentile rating for anyone. If you’re townie it’s not really much of a choice, you could flip a coin and it becomes just as meaningful, probably, especially if you haven’t looked at the cases closely. It just becomes a “yeah whatever, kill X before Y, I don’t care.” But! If you’re a scumbag and one of them is your partner, it becomes a much more meaningful question, doesn’t it? Do you bluff and agree that the case on your partner is good, or do you lie and state that the case on a townie is good? Or what if they’re both guilty… I just have this feeling I’m going to die soon, 😉 and I’m trying to shake as much info loose as I can before that happens, annoy the Lords of Slaughter as much as I possibly can, and fart in their general direction. @ Renata It’s not a townie tell, it’s just that I find teams of scumbags generally make more careful moves than individual clueless townies. You know, having a team of known partners coordinating and relying on you, pressure to do well, etc… That’s why I find people picking on dumb errors that intelligent people can make when they’re not paying attention, not always productive, and usually a scumtell. ---
**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 27, 2011, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1038 "2011-07-27T11:03:35Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > One more thing: > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Later in Day 2, he tells us that he was suspicious of Ed on Day 1, despite the fact that he never mentioned it at the time..and since Ed is voting for Silver Jan, who he thinks is Town, he votes Ed. We’re not sure why he thinks Silver Jan is Town, because he has also never mentioned this before. > > > > Here we can really tell that you are not following along closely. I voted Ed, in part, because he chided her all day, and did NOT vote her. > > That’s not what I said here. You told us, on Day 2, that you had been suspicious of \*\*Ed \*\*the previous Day. Except you had never mentioned any suspicion of \*\*Ed \*\*on Day 1. You voted for \*\*Ed \*\*because he had been chiding **Silver Jan** all Day long, and you thought she was Town. Except you had never commented on **Silver Jan’s** Towniness before that post. > > You seemed to be inventing your thoughts on people on the spot in order to support the cote you were making. This is irritating. “That’s not what I said here.” It is what you said. It’s a quote from you. I guess you meant to say that you were more focused on the timing rather than the reasons for my vote. Since you have the reason entirely wrong. I didn’t invent that; it’s in your quote. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1039 "2011-07-27T11:53:13Z")
I’m voting Normal and TexCat, but ATPG is still high on my suspect list. Let’s reiterate that **Normal Phase** and **ATPG** are attempting to dominate the discussion. Most of the posts are from them, and they insist that we spend our posts answering their questions. It seems farfetched to imagine that both of them are Scum (though I won’t rule it out). More likely is that one is 3rd Party or Town and the other is Scum riding along on the other’s coat-tails. Despite that both being Scum seems extremely unlikely it might be a good working hypothesis. They’re both bussing their possible team-mate TexCat, yet when one votes her, the other quickly retracts the vote. They’re both working over-time to smudge me, yet I don’t think either actually has a Vote on me right now. They want their cake and eat it too when I’m Lynched and flip Town (“See? We told you guys to Lynch one of these other ‘Scum’.”) ATPG asked me questions and I gullibly thought he was interested in my opinion. No, it was just a play with his pretense that he finds me scummy. Apparently if I’d been an honest Townie I’d have flipped a coin to choose between two of his suspects, but to honestly find them equally Scummy (or equally Townie) is a scum-tell. :smack: > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > What is it with everybody outright ignoring my arguments against them? … I have a long string of “FALSE” comments out there aimed at Septimus, that he is blithely ignoring. My worry that SJ could double-vote me was completely honest. I’ll plead guilty to being feeble-minded but I wasn’t lying. I’m not sure what other FALSE comments you refer; they all seemed more matters of interpretation. Pick the best single example and I’ll address it next time I’m on-line, but I just don’t have the time to answer a huge litany of charges point-by-point, especially since many almost have the form (Septimus: “This seems scummy” … Normal: “No, scum-tells are reversed with me; when Scum I act more townishly.” 😃 ) [del]Other than Normal, ATPG and TexCat my suspicions are on some of the Lurkers-in-hiding[/del] Oops, I better not say that. One of our domineers has told us general condemnation of Lurkers is a scum-tell. ---
**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 27, 2011, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1040 "2011-07-27T12:56:40Z")
You’re being too sarcastic, and it’s misplaced. I’ve suspected you plenty in past games Septimus, when you’ve been town, and you’ve never acted liked this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=51) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=53)