# 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:** 68
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1341 "2011-08-01T19:59:35Z")
**Normal** , In response to your Post 1328, I’m not going to attempt to put all of the quotes back together by hand in order to respond to them item by item. Basically, it boils down to this… Of the possible explanations I could think of to describe how the events point to \*\*ShadowFacts \*\*being Scum, all but one are so unlikely as to be discarded out of hand. the one remaining scenario is this: Shadowfacts was a Scum Power-stealer, whose power was such that he stle the abilities of the first Town Power to die. In essence, his power was exactly as he claimed; his alignment was the only thing he lied about. I think such a Scum is less plausible than the Town Backup power that **Shadowfacts** claimed. This is my opinion, as I pointed out. Your opinion may vary (which apparently it does). If you think that there is no basis for my argument, then you are free to disregard it. As for my speculation about \*\*ShadowFacts \*\*possibly being 3rd-Party, I considered the possibility, discarded it, and said so in my post. What was wrong with 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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1342 "2011-08-01T20:14:00Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Oh. That could be. However, if you accept that possibility you have to also accept “both town” on Shadow and Red. which I’ll pretty much jump off a cliff myself if that’s the case. Paranoid docs are pretty rare. (both town a possibility because my main reason for thinking Shadow scum if Red is town and vice versa is there being only one visible kill atttempt last night. If in fact there’s any reason to think there could have been two, the whole thing falls apart. Agree? The very fact of Red Skeezix either being forced to use his power like a second lynch means that he’s either got to murder who we say, like… suspects, for example… or he is lynched, means if he’s scum we have him by the _gonads_, and we will soon have his entire team by the gonads. If Red is townie, he either gets free shots at the scumbags, the scumbags murder him, OR the scumbags _have to prove Red is not one of them_ by performing a second murder! Lynching a claimed assassin when we still have time, is nuts. We have this whole situation by the balls, and people are all too eager to release the grip. You have to twist them until they’re blue. I’m going to say it one more time: **balls**. And the Lords don’t \*have \*two murders or we would have seen two murders this whole time, save last night. So what does Red do if he’s scum? He either murders who we say, or he gets lynched the very next day. So, we can direct him to murder someone, and we can try to lynch someone else, giving us \*two \*shots at a scumbag today instead of _one_, and allowing for the possibility that \*Red gets murdered \*because we had him target a Lord of Slaughter, or _Red gets murdered_ simply because he’s too dangerous to be left alive, or _ShadowFacts (or someone else gets murdered_ while Red murders someone else, proving Red Skeezix was not the Lord of Slaughter, saving us a bad lynch, and _allowing Red Skeezix to perform an ADDITIONAL murder attempt the next night_, and somewhere during all of this, Lightfoot and the paranoid doc (maybe) get more chances to investigate people like septimus, or myself if need be. Basically, you toss all of these claims at one another until one of them cracks like a rotten egg, and then you make them die. @Normal- > [@](#): > > Septimus’ claim > a) is that he will die next time, if he’s been attacked once; and > b) leaves no traces in the writeup for proof, if you believe Red that he was attacked at all. Okay so you have to make Red Skeezix attack someone besides septimus is all. That’s still a fairly good gamble, because if he’s townie, that’s like an extra lynch, and gives us a much better chance of hitting scums today (anything is better than zero if Red is innocent). Anyhoo, back to that special ed-finding mission I was on. I sound excited because I think I’ve got a halfway decent plan in there somewhere, and you guys can suggest improvements. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1343 "2011-08-01T20:17:19Z")
I see no reason to lynch Red Skeezix at this time. A town vig is a threat to scum and if he’s telling the truth, he’ll end up dead soon enough. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1344 "2011-08-01T20:17:56Z")
Keep thinking, but none of these will work as described. > [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > [ul] > [li]Well, if \*\*Red \*\*is mafia, we can lynch him unless he hits septimus, and if he continues to fail, septimus is under no threat from Red Skeezix. And, if Red continues to do this, then the scums will have to murder him eventually because we’re not lynching him. Or, we could have him kill a specific person other than septimus. Especially if this is a person we would be lynching anyway.[/li][/ul] Red killing Septimus. As stated, if both are telling the truth, then Red’s second shot at Septimus will kill him. Dead townie. If Red is truthful but Septimus not (Red’s supposition about second-party protection being the case – unless it can’t be repeated), then Septimus will live with no trace in the write-up that anything happened. Status quo. If Septimus is truthful, but Red not, then Red just plain doesn’t shoot, claims protection of Septimus. You can’t distinguish the second case from the third without outside information. Red killing someone else: a ton of variables. You seem to be on the paranoid doc kick curently, but if instead it is a scum who’s been blocking Lightfoot, then whether or not Red is able to do anything (even if truthful and willing) depends on the truthfulness of Shadowfacts as to whether he leaves Red unblocked. (snip a bunch of options that all depend on Septimus having claimed a more-than-one-shot bulletproof) > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]If \*\*ShadowFacts \*\*is townie, and Red is mafia, then the above plan neuters Red Skeezix or forces him into a very uncomfortable position, and Shadow should survive the night, because the Lords of Slaughter (Red Skeezix in this case) will be too busy murdering who we suggest, or face the lynch tomorrow.[/li][/ul] I don’t see any way to avoid status quo here. If Shadowfacts is mafia, irrespective of Red’s status, then he has the capability to prevent Red from firing. Since this is the case, then if Red is mafia, irrespective of SF’s status, he can claim that Shadow did just that – regardless if the scum are killing elsewhere or not, since Shadow would have to promise to stay away from Red for this to even make sense – and return to the same he said/she said as today. > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]If \*\*ShadowFacts \*\*is scum, then we’d be proving Red and septimus at the same time, and by default probably means that Lightfoot and her investigation target and her paranoid doctor protector are all townies. And if ShadowFacts is scum, then I also win the thread, and I’d take a long, hard look at Suburban Plankton.[/li][/ul] I’d snip for the same reasons as above, except that I want to point out that if SF is scum, _I_ win the thread and the potential Cassandra crown, not you. Credit where credit is due, ATPG. > [@](#): > > I see what Shadow and Suburban Plankton are doing, and if they’re townie, great. But if either of them are scum, they’re holding up their big lie next to the truth, speaking calmly and at length, and saying “our lie is simpler than the truth, because the truth is too coincidental, Occam’s Razor, lynch your own pro-town assassin.” SP is scummy to me regardless; his logic isn’t what it’s purporting to be whether it’s in support of a scumbuddy or a townie. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1345 "2011-08-01T20:21:25Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > OK, I finally see what you’re saying, sort of. I didn’t envision SF powering up LF _after_ she’d placed her votes. I envision him doing it before she votes at all. OK, I see where we were at cross purposes here. In my mind, the power worked by charging the votes that the target had already cast. I see now that there’s nothing in the claimed ability to necessarily suggest that. > [@](#): > > B) VOTING - You may increase the voting power of any player, duplicating their votes. This is a day ability. Your argument is that we should take the extra votes out of **Shadowfacts** ’ hands in order to make absolutely certain the Scum have no chance to use them for their own purposes; this is a valid point. I was under the impression that several players had expressed the ides that \*\*ShadowFacts \*\*‘giving up his votes’ would help to ‘show his Towniness’. In particular I \*thought \*that I had seen this from **Askthepizzaguy** , but upon review the only place I can find this explicitly stated is in this post from **Septimus**. > [@septimus](#): > > Are you suggesting both Red and Shadow are Scum? And Pizza seems to make the same suggestion. I’d like to hear your comments on Red’s #601, which Shadow considers scummy. > > I do assume there’s a Vig and may reconsider Red in the absence of a counterclaim. But what I think now is that among {Shadow, Pizza, Red} either Shadow is the only scum, or both Red and Pizza are scummy. Assuming this is true we have two choices: > [ul][li] Lynch Shadow and either get 1 Scum for 1 Lynch, or 2 Scum for 3 Lynches.[/li][li] Lynch Pizza or Red and either get 2 Scum for 2 Lynches, or 1 Scum for 2 Lynches.[/li][/ul] > But this doesn’t make it clear which way is best and, anyway, you and Normal seem to think (or pretend to think) that Shadow and Red both being Scum is a possibility. > > I tend to agree that Shadow should probably double someone else’s votes (presumably LightFoot’s) real soon; that would go a long way to affirming probable Towniness. So perhaps I was arguing against a specific individual’s idea rather than a widely held one. I still think it’s wrong. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1346 "2011-08-01T20:24:12Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I think such a Scum is less plausible than the Town Backup power that **Shadowfacts** claimed. That is in fact what it boils down to. And it’s just an opinion, and may be right or wrong depending how Astral likes his mafia games. What I question is all the verbiage, much of it beside the point, surrounding that opinion. And I’m going to leave it at that. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1347 "2011-08-01T20:26:10Z")
SF giving up his votes would remove some of the sense of impending doom I have from his likely survival today; it wouldn’t in itself clear him as town in my mind. But it would make me more comfortable looking elsewhere for a time. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1348 "2011-08-01T20:45:46Z")
I’m not fully caught up, but I wanted to respond to the following, since it was helpfully underlined. > [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > I challenge you, ShadowFacts, Get rid of your extra voting power for today, and let’s put the test to Red Skeezix instead of lynching him. There’s that, or if Red Skeezix flips town, I’m going to vote for you until you die, and if I am murdered, my final wish will be your head, and I won’t regret it either way because you were unreasonably stubborn about Red Skeezix, there were some late voting shenanigans to save your life, and there was a way to prove a lot of townies’ claims while also getting additional lynches and shots at the scumbags without letting Red Skeezix get away. I reject your challenge, Askthepizzaguy. As I clearly stated earlier, I am convinced that **Red Skeezix** is scum and I plan to spend the Day ensuring that he is lynched, using my Vote power if necessary. I will not be pestered, pressured, threatened, or challenged into changing this goal. I am a Rock in the Weary Land. 🆒 If, against all odds, **Skeezix** turns up Town, I am _obviously_ going to be lynched. I have basically staked my reputation on him being Scum, and there is _no way_ I will survive if he is not. So your threat of persecution is not only meaningless, it’s no different from what you’ve already been doing. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1349 "2011-08-01T20:48:08Z")
**The great wall of special ed, part I** > [@special\_ed](#): > > PS, still suspect Silver Jan. However, I feel there is a potential for good info to be gained off of a septimus lynch and there’s no point in voting for both of the lynch leaders. > [@special\_ed](#): > > **unvote SilverJan** > **vote Septimus** > off to softball. I think I finally got all the broccoli out of my hair. > [@special\_ed](#): > > I lost. Plumber is going to have to come after the sun rises. > [@special\_ed](#): > > PS, yes, apparently I don’t sleep. > > I’ve been fighting with my garbage disposal after it exploded, and I’ve got the broccoli bits in my hair to prove it. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Were you going to add actual reasons to why I look scummy or is it still just because I’m comfortable lynching you and… > [@special\_ed](#): > > We’re into the next Day already. > > I think you have about 17.5 hours. I don’t think you have any votes on record for toDay > [@special\_ed](#): > > I was just kidding, see the hehehe? > [@special\_ed](#): > > flip > . > . > . > . > . > . > flop > > hehehe > [@special\_ed](#): > > This forum does have a strong history of lynching loud players. > > I’d also like to encourage Silver Jan that despite my vote on her, I enjoy playing with her and hope she doesn’t take any of this personally. > [@special\_ed](#): > > and, obviously, I must be sticking my neck out to prevent a lynch of…? someone else? > > It is true, I never said handshaking wasn’t going to work. > > So, was my devious plan to encourage a known Town player to handshake so that I could jump out and attempt to stop any one from commenting on the handshake and also attempt to put an end to it. > > How devious of me to answer Kelly’s questions in such a way to encourage him to actually try to handshake. That’s it! My role must be Scum Brainwasher! > [@special\_ed](#): > > Imagine this: > > Someone claims with Vanilla with a PM that is different from your Vanilla PM but identical to the sample one (aside from the order of info). > > You don’t notice the glaring difference between your Character Class and his. > > Then, it’s pointed out to you. > > You say you didn’t notice, but you believed the claim anyway. > > Another player claims with a PM very similar to yours to back you up, but different from the other player. > > Much suspicion is cast on the other player for this glaring difference. he, in fact, gets lynched. > > You still don’t comment on the glaring difference, but attempt to get Townie cred because you were right. > > ```auto > > So, in short, I would have expected her to, at some point, at least make a comment on the difference in the PMs. She just completely ignored the topic (as far as I can tell. I didn't find any comments on it other than that she didn't notice it) > > ``` > [@special\_ed](#): > > but I had a reason for voting Silver Jan. > > it was that icky post I quoted when I voted for her. The one asking for Townie Cred for being right about Kelly as well as saying that she moved her voted because she’s powerless Town, oh and by the way, she’s Vanilla Town > [@special\_ed](#): > > To clarify, here are my initial votes, bleached. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Well, here’s the thing: > > Their player classes didn’t match. > > I asked Normal about it. She replied that it did cause her concern, since hers was similar to Silver Jan’s but she still wasn’t sure how far the handshaking remedies went. > > I asked Silver Jan, she replied that she hadn;t noticed, which is why she believed KellyCriterion. And now that it was pointed out…nothing. No “They are different…hmmm” “No, I think it’s still likely we’re both Town.” No anything. > > It seems unusual, and it leads me back to thinking maybe she had no reason to doubt KellyCriterion because she knew Kelly wasn’t Scum, and she had a Vanilla cover role. > > Now, yesterDay, with the similarities between normal and Silver Jan, I believed them. Obviously that was wrong as Kelly was telling the truth. > > While that doesn’t mean Silver was lying, it still surprises me that the difference in the PMs was so unimportant to her. > > couple that with what I’ve pointed out toDay and her desire for Townie cred for being right about Kelly, and it leads me to suspect her. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Wait, so I’m suspicious for having 2 votes, but I’m not suspicious now because I’ve had 2 votes for most of the Day? It’s only suspicious that it’s septimus and Silver Jan, not if it’s AskThePizzaGuy ad Normal Phase? > > Even though my first 2 were part of what was (hopefully obviously) tongue-in-cheek > [@special\_ed](#): > > But I had 2 votes long before I voted for either septimus or Silver Jan. Did you notice that? > [@special\_ed](#): > > I honestly believe she might be Scum. You might notice that in the posts where I state that I believe she might be Scum. > > what you’ve quoted isn’t my vote or where I clarified the reasoning for Normal Phase. > > Can you show me where? I may have missed it. > > So are you going to assume all of the double voters are Scum? or just me? > > And to be clear, your reason for voting me is that I’ve cast 2 votes, correct? > [@special\_ed](#): > > all over me. Can I get a towel? > [@special\_ed](#): > > Well, I didn’t mean to upset you. However, I’m not going to respond to an emotional appeal. > > I honestly just believe that it’s quite possible that you are Scum (and at this point, more probable than anyone else in the game), and as such, I’ve placed a vote on you. That’s how we play the game. > > it’s not like I jsut drew your name out of a hat. > > But, this is an interesting change in approach. I guess the calm and reasonable defense wasn’t working, eh? > > Please do keep in mind that this is a game, and it’s nothing personal. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Why should I be uncomfortable? > > Someone needs to die. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Unless you have some new information, there’s really not much you can do. > > Good night, Silver Jan. Good work. Sleep well. We’ll probably kill you in the morning. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Do you think I’m swayed by comments like this? > > I mostly ignore comments like “I only do this when I’m town.” or “When I’m Scum I wouldn’t do this.” They are as meaningless as “I’m a helpless Townie.” > > Do I still think you are Scum? I think it is quite possible though I am far from certain. > > Each time I think about unvoting you, I think back to something that was mentioned only briefly, and that I asked you about directly, but don’t recall you answering. Your PM was noticeably different from KellyCriterion’s and yet you were fairly certain that he was Town, even as Normal discussed the difference in the PMs and her similarity to yours. It bothers me still. > > I’m not going to follow your lead and vote for choie. I’m not going to vote for me. I’ve got a vote on septimus. The comments on Shadowfacts and Suburban I haven’t really followed all that closely. > > I do need to take an in depth look at all of the players in the game. I have a feeling I’ve been concentrating only on the loud and the ones that have interacted with me directly. I just might not be able to handle two games at once with my current addiction to Tiny Towers. > [@special\_ed](#): > > you were coached to say that “for obvious reasons” > [@special\_ed](#): > > NETA being coached and acting Scummy are not mutually exclusive, btw. She could be coached or even independently attempting to change her playstyle and still act Scummy. > [@special\_ed](#): > > huh? Did I give off the indication that I was wondering why people are still bringing it up? > > I was pointing out the reason for me making the comment. Here’s a chronolgoy maybe to keep it all in perspective, as it actually had nothing to do with my vote: > > 1. I voted for Silver Jan for acting Scummy > 2. AskThePizzaGuy did an analysis of Silver Jan and made some comments on how her behavior appeared to be Town-like > 3. I pointed out how her behavior might appear Town-like to a player new to her style if she were being coached. Just a possibility. > > No where did I insinuate that her behavior was perfectly Townie. My reason for voting was not that I thought it possible that she were being coached. I continued to answer questions about my comment while indicating that I was not backing up that comment with the strength of too much evidence, just listing it as a possibility. > > I do quite frequently make comments on things that are possible so that we don’t close our minds or go off treating what is an assumption as a fact. > [@special\_ed](#): > > @AskThePizzaGuy and Normal Phase > > How would your individual play be different if you were on the Scum team together? > > I’m not insinuating you are. In fact, I think it quite unlikely. I’m just curious to see your responses. > [@special\_ed](#): > > I can imagine her being coached not to vent her frustration at the votes she’s getting inn the thread, but just to respond to them calmly. That would be very different to how I remember her reacting to pressure before. > > When I was talking about “reasonable” I was using the phrase as AskThePizzaGuy used it in his analysis post of Silver Jan’s posts. It really had little to do with her votes. And I’m not accusing all of her response as being coached, just that it’s possible that she’s getting some coaching to appear more reasonable. > > I’m puzzled by the insistence on evidence of this coaching or how it is happening. I’m not privy to it if it is occurring. It’s a thought. It’s quite possible that she’s getting coached. I’ll admit it’s also possible that she’s not being coached and is genuinely Town. I’m just not going to take at face value AskThePizzaGuy’s assertion that her arguments seem reasonable for a town Silver Jan, especially given my experience with her play. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Well, I caught up to the end finally, and now there are more posts… > > Hopefully my style of posting as I cattch up and responding to individual posts is at least annoying someone. > > When I’ve seen Silver Jan play, as both Town and as Scum, she gotten quite defensive under pressure. And she’s certainly felt the pressure. > > She seems much more calm now. Granted, this could be due to experience. As you play mroe games, pressure, dying, and even losing don’t seem as important as they do in early games. You’ve been there already. > > However, Silver Jan is also one who asks for help in a Scum thread. I can see her getting a few ideas to make her appear more calm and reasonable. (And maybe venting her frustration in the Scum thread instead of the game thread.) > > It’s nothing concrete, just a little ping I’m getting. > [@special\_ed](#): > > mostly, what AskThePizzaGuy described as ‘reasonableness’ > > Most of her playstyle seems quite similar to other games. > > And, yes, to fool contrarians like you. When a newer Scum posts in the Scum thread, they’ll often post their ideas there first, and through comments from Scumbuddies, solidify their reasoning, or they may get some clarification from a Scumbuddy and come back in and explain themselves better. > Granted, I’m not fully vested in the Silver Jan bandwagon , though I do like the conversation it has generated among quite a few players. Hopefully, at some point in the game, these discussion might prove useful. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Nope, I had just read his post and his lack of desire for a Silver Jan lynch and expressed my own opinion about the bandwagon on her. > [@special\_ed](#): > > _subscribes to Normal’s newsletter > \*\* > unvote: Normal Phase > vote: septimus_\* > [@special\_ed](#): > > The parts I’ve bolded below > > I especially didn’t like the “I was right about the mislynch and you were wrong part.” Scum have a much greater ability to be correct about lynches than Town does (since they already know who is Scum), and so might use their ‘good’ voting record as evidence of Towniness > [@special\_ed](#): > > However, by his own admission, he tends to survive games better ass Scum than as Town, which means he must appear to be Town quite well in games in which he is Scum, probably playing with people who are familiar to him. > > So, your opinion may be tainted. I’m curious, in games in which you two have played together, how good are you at determining when he is Scum in general? > [@special\_ed](#): > > No, But Scumbuddies might coach you to try to look Townie in the ways that AskThePizzaGuy saw…and maybe it just wasn’t a perfect job, eh? [quote=“special\_ed, post:641, topic:588052”] Personally, I appreciate your jerkbagginess (which I truly don’t find jerkbaggy at all) and find it potentially useful in finding Scum. Of course, I don’t have the best reputation, though I like to think I’ve mellowed. However, you did encourage me to crunch some numbers on my own gameplay. Looking beyond just the record. So I looked at all games which were o the more standard 1 Scum team variety (I basically took out 3 handed and Conspiracy games none of which I’ve ever won). My record on just Giraffe, Idlemafia and here. My record in those games is 17-25, which is actually much better than my over all record. We don’t have records overall for all players, but still [spoiler]42 games (17 wins, 25 losses) - Survived 8 times Mafia: 7 games (1 wins, 6 losses) - Survived 0 times Neutral: 3 games (0 wins, 3 losses) - Survived 0 times Town: 32 games (16 wins, 16 losses) - Survived 8 times Survival: 0.190 Wins 0.405 Which basically leads me to believe that I rarely survive. That probably has some influence over my 14% Scum record and 0% 3rd party record. [/QUOTE] > [@special\_ed](#): > > Um, since other have given you a rep as a flip-flopping arrogant jerkbag, that’s not really much to risk, is it? 😃 > > I kid, I kid. > > However, I will point out that you aren’t familiar with Silver Jan’s style of posting. > [@special\_ed](#): > > I understand that opinion. > > I’ve played with Silver before, and I’m not as certain that she’s not just playing a well coached game. > > P.S. VT is either Vodka Tonic or Vanilla Town > [@special\_ed](#): > > Yes, they are multi purpose tools. The drawback is protecting an investigative type. No drawback to protecting masons and/or Townies confirmed via investigation (and sometimes even themselves) > [@special\_ed](#): > > By that same measure, isn’t anyone who is Town, even if they assume the Night Kill as done by the Scum, also going to have to assume that it’s possible that the victim was 3rd party? > [@special\_ed](#): > > huh, I’ve never heard of a janitor that doesn’t learn the identity of their target as well. I stand corrected. > > Are you looking for people who have mentioned 3rd party in case we eventualy find out that Sachatackarack or whatever was 3rd party? > [@special\_ed](#): > > Posting as I catch up > > Despite my presence on Silver Jan’s wagon. I’m currently aware that it is an appealing place for Scum to place a vote currently if any of the other vote getters are Scum. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Bah! > > **Unvote: AskThePizzaGuy > Vote: Silver Jan** > If you’re Town, please stop acting like Scum. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Posting as I catch up > > We can discuss this stuff. What we shouldn’t discuss is anything that we know because of what is in our role PM. We can freely discuss all public information while avoiding comments that indicate that our own PMs are similar or different. > > To answer your question, Scum will sometimes defend each other, but I think rarely will they do so early in the game. Normal claimed a PM that was similar to Silver Jan’s. Had we lynched Silver Jan, we’d all be looking sideways at Normal right now. It’s too risky. Scum will often jump on each other’s bandwagons to earn “Townie Cred” > [@special\_ed](#): > > @ choieThe thing is, if they are both Scum, why did Normal come to Silver Jan’s aid? > > Normal knows well enough that once Jan is dead, she’s exposed. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Do you think anyone else is still playing? Or are they just watching us? > [@special\_ed](#): > > If only there were a happy medium somewhere between the 2 options. > [@special\_ed](#): > > pity, I was really looking forward to the whimsical voting to apply pressure strategy lead us to a triumphant victory. > [@special\_ed](#): > > No, no,no! You’re doing it all wrong! React to the vote pressure! make a slip! something. Come on! > [@special\_ed](#): > > Or maybe I wanted him to express an opinion on our lynch leader, since his votes while designed to apply pressure to others, were also providing a potential out for KellyCriterion. > > Oh, you mean post something like the following in bold and large font immediately following KellyCriterion’s handshake attempt? > > Now why didn’t I think of that? [/spoiler] ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1350 "2011-08-01T20:49:11Z")
**The great wall of special ed, part II** > [@special\_ed](#): > > That should have read Cop. > > and I don’t know that Scum have a roleblocker, but my scenario is one we can add to the list of possibilities and the list of reasons why Lightfoot revealing who she investigated has drawbacks. > [@special\_ed](#): > > ~ > > 😃 > > [SIZE=2]Nothing to see here, folks. > [/SIZE] > [@special\_ed](#): > > **Vote: Normal Phase** > solely because she scares me > > oh, and to use the ever-so-powerful vote pressure to make her slip. > > Wait, what do you mean voting for people who I’m not making a strong case against is pointless? it’s pressure, isn’t it? She’ll be sure to crack if a few more of you follow my suit. But not too many, or we’ll have a bandwagon. > > Besides, she claimed Vanilla with absolutely no provocation. Perhaps she’s just Scum who had fake Vanilla claims and she was trying to back up a Townie Silver Jan and earn herself some cred should Jan die. (Hey, it’s a real reason for a vote, eh? Now she’ll really feel the pressure.) > > ```auto > This section is for those who will take me literally: > > Idiot > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > **Vote: AskThe PizzaGuy** > > because this game isn't pressure packed enough. > > Oh, wait, I think vote pressure is probably just for the other guys. You know, the ones who close off their options by joining a bandwagon. > > or locking their votes in early in a Day > > ``` > > look! tiny tildes! way kewl! > [@special\_ed](#): > > Or the Scum could just block Lightfoot for 1 Night and kill whoever she investigated. then we’ve got a claimed Doc and no confirmed Town by Day 3. > > There certainly are drawback t identifying your results as an investigator. The primary being they become targets of the Scum. > > However, in a closed game where the death of a claimed investigator is always possible, there are benefits to identifying them as well. > [@special\_ed](#): > > But we’re still applying a system of some sort in deciding how we vote instead of making a case and backing it up with an easily identifiable vote. > > If my list of probability of Scumhhod goes: > Player A 70% > Player B 50% > Player C 40% > > If player A already has a 2 vote lead, I’m hesitant to vote for him. So I’m stuck voting for Player B Or maybe even Player C if Player C is 3 votes behind. with very little support for my vote. > > So I’ve created a system, albeit a complicated one, which dictates my voting. > > And, of course, I can still express my high suspicion of Player A, but then, doesn’t everyone know I’ll just switch my vote to Player A later in the Day, and as such, I’ve really applied very little pressure to Player C, as well as provided Scum with ample opportunity to switch votes late in the Day to their ‘real suspect’ > [@special\_ed](#): > > no, wait, I’ve got more than bah! to say. > > It’s an interesting twist you’ve taken on my conversation with AskThePizzaGuy. > > 1. I initially questioned him on his voting strategy. > 2. I later stated that I understood his approach, and sometimes even use it under different circumstances (one of which Normal later poitned out) > 3. I then asked his opinion on the vote leader at the time. > > And this is somehow wishy-washy? > > ```auto > And also, somehow you characterize my answering questions abot handshaking that KellyCriterion asked as somewhat sinister as well. And even related a discussion about the sue of a term in general with the talk of the Vanilla PM.Ignoring the fact that discussion the Vanilla PM could potentially give useful information the the Scum, while discussing handshaking in the abstract could not. > > Or maybe you still fail to see why discussing the Vanilla PM in such a way that you give away details of your own PM is bad. > > ``` > > bah! > [@special\_ed](#): > > @ Stanislaus, without a major quote. In regards to the discussions about the Vanilla PM. There are ways to discuss a PM \*\*without \*\*indicating if it is similar to your own or not. I’ve learned this lesson through experience. Some players were unable to do so. Some players clearly, through their comments, indicated that their PM was either similar to Silver Jan’s (or KellyCriterion’s) or different. > > If the format of the PM is useful to the Scum in figuring out who is a power role or not, then that type of discussion can be hurtful to Town. > As I pointed out, I directed my questions directly at Silver Jan and Normal in regards to how they felt about the differences in their PMs and KellyCriterion’s because those 2 had claimed Vanilla with a different format to their PMs. > as to the rest of your comments: bah! > [@special\_ed](#): > > I can’t wait for the explanation of why this move is also superior to how we play the game here. > [@special\_ed](#): > > While I understand the desire to keep the voting close because it causes more pressure to be applied to more people. I completely disagree on it allowing Scum to escape accountability in their voting. > > Yes, Scum can easily join a runaway bandwagon with little accountability. But doesn’t restricting them from doing so also allow them to escape accountability? Somewhere along the lines of, “Well, I’d vote for Player A for such and such reasons, only I don’t want to bandwagon to get carried away, so I’ll vote for Player B for these other reasons.” > > Is that really any better? No, it only adds confusion when looking at voting patterns. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Do you have a reason to believe that there aren’t any 3rd party players? > > Until proven otherwise, I think it’s quite likely we have 3rd party players. > [@special\_ed](#): > > You are correct. > [@special\_ed](#): > > How could you have posted a result before you had one? > [@special\_ed](#): > > early on in my career, I modded a game with a janitor. There was no coroner role, however, I did provide all of the details once the janitor was killed. > > But I agree, hopefully we have a coroner. > [@special\_ed](#): > > @Lightfoot > > since strategy is allowed at Night, I would suggest that you reveal what you know within 1 minute before Dawn. > > That way, if you die, we’ll still have your results.And if you live, it exceptionally unlikely that the Scum will be able to target the person you reveal. > [@special\_ed](#): > > And you realize that if you die, you take your results with you. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Crap, This is what I get for putting my wuotes in new tabs and never checking to see if they made it through the 60 second waiting period. This post was supposed to be made earlier. > > ```auto > > Of course, if the Scum have a Janitor, they will have learned the role and alignment of the dead person and can use that information for fake claims and such. > > ``` > [@special\_ed](#): > > yes, but that was an open game with a Cop, Doc, and no Scum powers. > > There was no way for the Scum to kill the Cop until the Doc was dead. Therefore, the Cop always had another Day coming to reveal his results. > > We don’t know that this is true for you. You could very well die toNight. > [@special\_ed](#): > > and if the Scum have a strongman or a roleblocker, then you’ve effectively either killed yourself or neutered yourself. > [@special\_ed](#): > > sometimes there’s a game mechanic where there is a no reveal. Usually in that case, Town has a power role who can discover the roles and alignment of the dead. The benefit in that case is that the Scum won’t know the role of the dead player either. > [@special\_ed](#): > > great, a Scum Janitor? or a no reveal Night Kill? > [@special\_ed](#): > > You have no reason to fear me, I’m doing my best to save your life. So bah! to that then, eh? > [@special\_ed](#): > > it’s quite simple, really. > > Do you notice that I’ve directed the same question at 2 claimed Vanillas, but not at anyone else? > > I asked them what they felt about the fact that their PMs were similar to Kelly’s only without the NPC Townperson Class. > > By using the lack of NPC Townperson class in part of your reasoning, you’re basically outing yourself as either Scum or Power Role or 3rd party. (or, as Normal pointed out, hopefully some Vanilla Town do match Kelly’s NPC Townperson) > > In any case, it’s a discussion that needs to stop. > [@special\_ed](#): > > it was more discussion of the subtleties of the Vanilla Role PM. We’ve had enough of that. > > I have a softball game toNight, so I’ll be gone. > > Since there’s no real danger to Suburban and some to jan, I’m going to lock my vote in > > **unvote: Suburban Plankton > vote: KellyCriterion** > That should do it for me with 2 votes for Kelly. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Interesting. Why don’t you describe what else about Silver Jan was bothering you? > > Also, it’s not your vote of Silver Jan than made me go ‘bah’ > [@special\_ed](#): > > I found this in a tab somewhere. I obviously meant to post it a long time ago.I don’t think it’s very relevant, but there it is anyway: > > ```auto > > That's the understanding that I had. > > And I'm content with those 2 votes. > > However, I wanted to be certain. > > ``` > [@special\_ed](#): > > bah! > > **unvote: special ed > vote: Suburban Plankton** > [@special\_ed](#): > > Let me ask you a question, however, what did you initially think when Kelly’s claim matched the Class of the sample PM knowing that yours did not? > [@special\_ed](#): > > Thanks. > @ Everyone, so all this fretting about not casting our second votes is for naught. Unless we cast them for the same person. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Non Player Character. > [@special\_ed](#): > > What did you think about the fact that your character class didn’t match kelly’s? > [@special\_ed](#): > > I’m just trying to clarify the rules. It’s never a bad time to do that. > [@special\_ed](#): > > In searching for "simultan’ just now, I came across this post from a mod, which seems to indicate our votes are only locked if we vote for the same person twice. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Now to test something: > > **unvote: septimus > vote: special ed** > In no way do I suspect myself of being Scum. This is a test. it is only a test > > **Vote Count, please** > [@special\_ed](#): > > Is your PM identical to KellyCriterions? Or is it more like the one in the OP? > > ```auto > > On a completely unrelated note: > > **Vote: Septimus** > > I agree with ATPG's suspicions to some extent, though I am still quite displeased with Kelly's handshake debacle. > > ``` > [@special\_ed](#): > > Fair enough, let me ask you a question. When you asked that, did you at all consider it likely that there would be other duplicate roles aside from vanilla? > [@special\_ed](#): > > I agree with Normal. There really aren’t many instances where there would be a large number of the same role that didn’t know each other except for Vanilla Town. > > Scum will know each other, even if they all share the same role. masons usually know each other. It’s very rare that we have ‘a lot’ of cops, docs, watchers, etc. > [@special\_ed](#): > > There was obviously much snippage in my previous post > [@special\_ed](#): > > So, where did you learn about handshakes then, if not from the OP? > [@special\_ed](#): > > **Under no circumstances should anyone respond to this post with information from our own PMs. There is a chance it could differentiate power roles and non-power roles.** > > Also, the sample PM does not match this same hash tag. > > This seems very odd after the discussion about handshaking. Especially given the fact that, if there is a universal PM, then with the moderators assurance that handshaking was taken into consideration, we must assume that the Scum are aware of this PM. > > So, what is the point in attempting to handshake when we know it’s something that the moderators have made every attempt to nullify? > > I’ve certainly learned my lesson to be careful about handshakes less you out power roles, and I’m exceptionally surprised that you’ve done so after the discussion earlier. > > **Vote: KellyCriterion** > [@special\_ed](#): > > That is one of the few valid reasons for not participating. > [@special\_ed](#): > > After a while, getting voted just doesn’t seem as important. > > Of course, to a newer player it really is. And to a newer Scum, it can induce real panic. > > Even with all the games I’ve lost as Scum, I still get a little irritated when I’m Scum and someone votes for me for reasons that I know just aren’t right. > [@special\_ed](#): > > fair enough, of course, I’m a little surprised when you state that the pressure Kelly is under shouldn’t influence reactions from Kelly. > > I’m left to infer that you think that pressure can create discussion and worthwhile reactions, but not vote-leading pressure? (unless a player is bad) Or do you mean that applying pressure only results in useful reactions from bad players, and you don’t expect Kelly to be a bad player, but others possibly are? > [@special\_ed](#): > > What is your opinion on Kelly? > [@special\_ed](#): > > The more I read, the less I’m suspicious of askthepizza. > > I often love to vote just to get reactions. I’ve learned to only do it when I’m confirmed Town, however, as it does garner much suspicion. But the reactions are worthy. I can understand the rationale. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Maybe after you re-read this, you can do this in red? > > 🙂 > [@special\_ed](#): > > Here’s why this is so wrong. > > Your stated reason is that the original person you voted for doesn’t appear lynchable. So, instead, you’re voting for someone who does appear lynchable. > > Now, if our goal was to lynch someone, that would be efective. However, our goal is to lynch Scum. You’ve given no indication why one is more likely to be Scum than the other. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Posting as I catch up > > Yes, I often point things out and don’t vote. Sometimes it’s interesting to see the reactions. > > When I’m ready, I’ll vote, though it is getting later in the day than I expected. > > [6 PM CDT tomorrow](http://timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?msg=&month=07&day=14&year=2011&hour=18&min=00&sec=00&p0=2036) > [@special\_ed](#): > > Your reasoning seems unreasonable > [@special\_ed](#): > > And the Scum and 3rd party players were provided with some of those PMs as cover roles. > > In addition, somewhat controversially, we agreed to create fake PMs for any players who wanted one. They just provided the role and the powers they wanted, and we created them. > > handshaking would have been impossible. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Yes, if that’s the method they chose. I did that in a recent game I co-moderated on a different board > [@special\_ed](#): > > were handshakes a topic of conversation? > > a handshake is where people attempt to confirm similarities in roles (usually in their PMs) to confirm they are aligned with Town. > > For example, if all of the Vanilla roles had the same exact PM and it was not made public or provided to the Scum, then the players could each reveal info from that PM and confirm each other. > > This has been done by reveal the number of a specific letters in a win condition, for example. I would say, I have 7 e’s and smeone else might respond that they have 4 t’s and one of them is capital. Without access to the actual PM, one couldn’t participate in the handshake. > > However, most mods counter that by either: > > 1. Providing a copy of the Vanilla PM to everyone publicly. > 2. Creating unique PMs for each player. > 3. Giving Scum access to a Vanilla and perhaps other cover PMs privately. > [@special\_ed](#): > > It’s not that complicated. > > How many people are going to suggest that we justify our votes? > > I mean, really? > > I’ve been a little busy, has someone looked at who is and isn’t posting? > > I’ll admit that Normal’s case is intriguing, but she always scares me. > [@special\_ed](#): > > I read it as De en dee or DND > [@special\_ed](#): > > And this is supposed to do what? > > Prove my point? 😃 > [@special\_ed](#): > > Bah!! > > Smells like death! You like the smell of death? > > and Bah!! > > On behalf of my fellow Townies, I greet you Scum. edit: This is in reverse chronological order, because his more recent stuff is probably more relevant. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1351 "2011-08-01T20:51:03Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I’m not fully caught up, but I wanted to respond to the following, since it was helpfully underlined. > I reject your challenge, Askthepizzaguy. As I clearly stated earlier, I am convinced that **Red Skeezix** is scum and I plan to spend the Day ensuring that he is lynched, using my Vote power if necessary. I will not be pestered, pressured, threatened, or challenged into changing this goal. I am a Rock in the Weary Land. 🆒 If your vote power hasn’t been spread out to someone else by the end of the day, I will have two votes on you, and I’ll actively encourage everyone else in the weary land to do the same thing. You’re a caught scumbag, and THAT is why you’re able to take these risks with your life. You don’t want to compromise with me because it will weaken your position. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1352 "2011-08-01T20:51:50Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > SF giving up his votes would remove some of the sense of impending doom I have from his likely survival today; it wouldn’t in itself clear him as town in my mind. But it would make me more comfortable looking elsewhere for a time. I will happily make a deal with you: lock in your votes for **Red Skeezix** and then I will vote charge YOU. It’s a delightful compromise: the power is disposed of for the Day and you are happy, and I maximize the votes on the person I am certain is Scum. What do you say? ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1353 "2011-08-01T20:56:33Z")
That’s a bad deal, reject it, NP. There’s no point in accepting it, it is the exact same thing as if Shadow were keeping the power, except now he also has two further additional votes to add to the pile. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1354 "2011-08-01T20:58:47Z")
No. I want you to vote charge LF, knowing there’s a risk she could turn around and lynch you with the power. And I won’t consider voting Red myself before I’ve wrung as much as I can out of his own responses. Much less locking myself in. That you even want me to is dubious. Why are you so sure of Red? Arguments have been presented, but never in your words. Who is scum with Red if he is? Nobody’s done this. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1355 "2011-08-01T21:00:39Z")
Further, who is scum if Red is not? It’s sloppy in the extreme to not allow for the possibility of being wrong. Even with my crusade against you, I’ve allowed for that possibility and am attempting to formulate a plan that allows for a townie victory even in such an event. You should not be so stubborn if you’re townie, because the truth is more stubborn and always wins. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1356 "2011-08-01T21:10:18Z")
I have a different deal for you, ShadowFacts: Give your vote power to Lightfoot, and Lightfoot promises not to use the additional votes except in say, an extreme circumstance like last minute scummy vote switching from others. Or, even say she can’t use it. Then, feel free to vote for Red Skeezix, lock in, if you like, though there’s no reason to do that so early, case in point my own votes for septimus early on in the game. I’d also feel more comfortable voting for Red myself if you did such a thing. You’d get a lot more credit from me if you simply make that compromise. And I’d be willing to not lynch you today. Hanging on to the 4-vote thing only makes you look less credible to me. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1357 "2011-08-01T21:37:17Z")
I can think of two other holes in Pizza’s plan: 1. The scum do have a one-time second kill. I’ve seen it before. I’d have expected them to have used it before now, but if they’ve got it then they could happily have scum-Red kill a Town nominee and carry out another kill to boot. (Actually, what if they get another kill for levelling up? If we accept that possibility, the absence of a second kill so far means nothing.) 2. The nominee is the Doc, Paranoid or otherwise. They’ll self-protect if they can, or claim in the Night thread if they can’t. (Actually, this goes for any other power roles who might get nominated. We can hardly expect them to keep quiet at that point.) Actually think about it this way: Let’s say we lynch me, and I nominate pedescribe, just in case mentioning his name summons him. Scenario 1: In the morning, pedescribe and one Townie are dead. What do we know? Red was either telling the truth, or is scum with a bonus kill. I suppose if pedescribe flipped scum, that would tend to back up Red’s story - unless we immediately WIFOM that statement. Scenario 2: In the morning only pedescribe is dead. What do we know? If he’s scum, then yay, we nailed a scum. No small thing, but do we trust Red now? If pede is Town, then either the Scum were blocked again, or Red is scum and they were happy to take the Town kill we gave them. Scenario 3: Pede lives, but a Townie is dead. Red says he was blocked. Shadow says he didn’t block him. What do we know? We’re just guessing again - Red is lying scum, Shadow is lying scum, scum have another blocker who’s framing Red… Scenario 4: No kill. As above, Red claims block and Shadow says not. Did Red hit a self-protecting Doc? Is he lying scum? Did the scum forego an NK to frame him? Talk me through what we do in these situations. If it gives us an edge, I’m for it but right now it looks like we’ll be left guessing. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1358 "2011-08-01T21:39:04Z")
SF voted RS, 1258 Hirka votes RS, 1260 ATPG votes SF, 1265 septimus votes RS 1276 septimus votes ATPG 1276 Diver votes RS 1280 Diver votes ATPG 1280 Stan votes RS 1282 ATPG votes Diver 1289 NP votes SF 1291 NP votes Diver 1292 RS votes septimus 1295 RS votes SF 1295 Weedy votes RS 1311 SP votes RS 1320 **Red Skeezix** : (7) ShadowFacts 1258, Hirka 1260, septimus 1276 Diver 1280 Stanislaus 1282, Weedy 1311, Suburban Plankton 1320 **ShadowFacts** : (3) ATPG 1265, NP 1291, Red 1295 **ATPG** : (2) septimus 1276, Diver 1280 **Diver** : (2) ATPG 1289, NP 1292 **septimus** : (1) Red 1295 [ul] [li] **ATPG, NP, SP, SF, Stan, septimus, Weedy, Diver, Hirka,** and \*\*Red \*\*have voted.[/li][li]Lightfoot, Inner Stickler, choie, MentalGuy, gnarlycharlie, and pedescribe have not voted.[/li][/ul] [SPOILER]Bold = who has voted today \*\*Askthepizzaguy \*\*214 (Claimed NPC) \*\*Normal Phase \*\* 211 (Claimed NPC) \*\*Suburban Plankton \*\* 114 \*\*ShadowFacts \*\*68 (Claimed backup/Jack role) LightFoot 62 (Claimed investigator) Inner Stickler 39 \*\*Stanislaus \*\*34 choie 33 MentalGuy 32 \*\*septimus \*\*31 (Claimed limited bulletproof) \*\*Weedy \*\*30 gnarlycharlie 26 \*\*USCDiver \*\*19 \*\*Hirka T’Bawa \*\* 17 pedescribe 17 \*\*Red Skeezix \*\* 14 (Claimed assassin)[/SPOILER] Check for errors. There may have been other claims, I haven’t been keeping notes on 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:** [August 1, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1359 "2011-08-01T22:02:02Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Actually think about it this way: Let’s say we lynch me, and I nominate pedescribe, just in case mentioning his name summons him. > > Scenario 1: In the morning, pedescribe and one Townie are dead. What do we know? Red was either telling the truth, or is scum with a bonus kill. I suppose if pedescribe flipped scum, that would tend to back up Red’s story - unless we immediately WIFOM that statement. Well, look at it this way- lynch Red- **Red is scum** , scum is down. Now, what are our next leads? I know you’re going to think it is me. Boy, will you ever. But guess what I am townie. 😃 _Win, due to dead scum, maybe Win-draw since I probably get lynched after._ And I’d give Shadow the benefit of the doubt for a while, just like I’m doing for the other roles. Although it might be to our benefit if Shadow blocks septimus or Lightfoot (yeah, I said it) tonight so we can feel better about them not being scumbags. Of course, Shadow probably gets murdered soon if he’s townie in that scenario. But at least he gets off another roleblock; should claim which person he’s blocked as late into the night as possible, so we know what to do the next day if he’s dead. **Red is not scum** , you just had a really lousy round and you’re down an assassin. And the Lords are at full strength, and you can probably kiss the doctor goodbye as the time is nearing for that bit of bad luck to happen. We wake up in the morning and are not only no closer to solving the thing, but we’ve shot ourselves in the foot in hardcore fashion. _Lose-Lose._ Don’t lynch red- **Red is scum** , but in order to stay alive, he’s gotta kill someone we say. Maybe someone we don’t want to waste a round on lynching. Maybe someone like pedescribe, since he’s not voting. Or, he accepts that he’s lost and violates our trust, kills whoever he wants. He’s dead the next day. Meanwhile, we didn’t lynch red. One shot at his teammate for the lynch, and tonight, he’s going to kill someone we say or expose himself, so we get a bad lynch out of the way without wasting a round of intense discussion and voting on it. The positives are, if we ask him to axe his own teammate, he doesn’t do it and exposes himself, or he does it and we’ve just got him to kill his own teammate. _Draw-win, since we get additional shots at lynching and Red isn’t going anywhere._ **Red is not scum** , he’s going to get murdered, but until then, he’s our vigilante. We don’t lynch him, so we get another lynch, a better shot at hitting the Lords. Then Red gets a free shot at the Lords himself, which is an excellent “second” lynch, and since he’s town, the odds are better we find a Lord of Slaughter dead by the next day. _Win-win._ > [@](#): > > Scenario 2: In the morning only pedescribe is dead. What do we know? If he’s scum, then yay, we nailed a scum. No small thing, but do we trust Red now? If pede is Town, then either the Scum were blocked again, or Red is scum and they were happy to take the Town kill we gave them. But, remember, we had a shot at you, and you could have been scum. That’s two lynches instead of one. Okay, we have two chances to mess up, but I’d rather lose because we messed up on our guesses than lose because we didn’t use every additional bullet we had. I like having two shots. Do we trust Red if his target was scum? I think that’s worth another chance at killing the scums the next night, don’t you? Let him kill off his own teammate. That would be awesome. He’s still going to get lynched at some point, because there’s no way the Lords allow a claimed vigilante who just killed one of their own to keep firing at them. If they do, they have massive cojones and they deserve a win like that. Do we trust Red if his target was townie? I would if there was an additional kill, but your mileage may vary. > [@](#): > > Scenario 3: Pede lives, but a Townie is dead. Red says he was blocked. Shadow says he didn’t block him. What do we know? We’re just guessing again - Red is lying scum, Shadow is lying scum, scum have another blocker who’s framing Red… In that case, we have a scumbag, and I’ll even spot you Red Skeezix as the first lynch in that scenario, because at least I got to try my plan. > [@](#): > > Scenario 4: No kill. As above, Red claims block and Shadow says not. Did Red hit a self-protecting Doc? Is he lying scum? Did the scum forego an NK to frame him? In that case, we PROBABLY have a scumbag, and I’ll even spot you Red Skeezix as the first lynch in that scenario, because at least I got to try my plan. > [@](#): > > Talk me through what we do in these situations. If it gives us an edge, I’m for it but right now it looks like we’ll be left guessing. Thanks for hearing me out. I don’t mind losing as long as we’re not being lazy and we explore additional options. Then, we simply chose wrong out of our possible choices, instead of not having a chance at choosing the right option because it was never discussed. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1360 "2011-08-01T22:19:27Z")
Also, for our lynches/vigilantism, I’d be willing to look at these folks: \*\* Diver, Suburban \*\*(from the list of folks who have voted, and I’d prefer these folks) **choie, pedescribe** (from the list of folks who have not voted) Because I have a strong feeling pede and choie are both not going to be murder targets anytime soon, and choie struck me as scummy in her behavior before. pede has been active but has chosen not to vote. Diver because I need to know if this guy is legit or not, he keeps voting for me. Suburban because he’s my number two suspect in the game after ShadowFacts. I give the others a pass for the moment for strategic reasons, not because I don’t think there’s scum among them. In order of priority: 1. Suburban 2. Diver 3. pede or choie (tied) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=67) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=69)