# 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:** 71
**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 2, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1401 "2011-08-02T18:41:58Z")
I’m trying to avoid getting too much into last night’s posts in hopes of getting some other stuff done, but despite it coming from a suspect I do think the idea of a mass claim today has some merit for the town. Doc would simply claim vanilla if nothing more complicated could be worked out. Keep the scum picking and choosing among the more confirmable roles (or shooting in the unconfirmed for the doc), while we lynch the unconfirmable ones. The huge risk (besides getting it wrong among the unconfirmable too often) is multiple of the claimed power roles (or others who plan to claim power roles) being scum. For that reason I would sort of like to see the result of today’s lynch, then do the mass claim tomorrow. But I don’t think it’s a horrible idea even for today. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1402 "2011-08-02T18:57:50Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Formal **FOS of Mentalguy**. > > I’ve been going through his posts to see whether my overall impression of “safe” and “deliberately inoffensive” holds up, and so far it pretty much does. I’m not remotely done yet. But I have to point out this post: > > There are a number of scum tells in there, but let me address the strongest one first (final paragarph). > > You do tend to think that Pizza is not scum. > You won’t argue against his lynch (this is bad enough). > However actually – you would be willing to vote for him yourself. You’re not doing it, but you’re about an inch away from it. There’s no way to take your first statement in that paragraph any differently. If one thing changed (say, Koldanar or gnarly claiming doc or some such), you’d be voting for ATPG. Who you say you think is town. Who you nevertheless think it would be just fine to see dead. > > I think this is a better example of a scummy response to the ATPG problem than Suburban’s was, and his was bad enough. > > Second issue Silver Jan. AGAIN you characterize her as more likely frustrated and inexperienced than truly scummy, “too scummy to be scum”. Yet you won’t argue against her lynch either. > > You wouldn’t do it the previous day with Kelly, either. Same thing. And you failed to comment on whether my opinion of the soon-to-be-lynched townie’s potential scum motivations had affected your own opinion of his innocence, despite agreeing with me that the motivation was plausible. First, while I obviously don’t like being called scummy, I will say that as far as my actions were concerned, you have described them accurately, so there is probably no way that I can explain that will make you change your mind. There are a couple of reasons why I may think it okay to lynch someone that I do not find the most scummy player in the game. First, I could be wrong. Maybe their scum tells are actually scum tells. I probably need to try to change my playstyle since I do my team no good by getting lynched as a Townie, but I do find it frustrating that in a game where the point is that you are playing with limited information, that acting like you are not certain about something is considered a scum tell. Second, while lynching scum would be the most desirable result, it is also helpful to remove distractions from scum hunting. I really think if Kelly or Silver Jan had survived the lynch, they would have been the focus of most players until they were dead. I do think a vig is the best way to handle these cases, but until toDay, I had no evidence there was one, and some vigs just like to go after who they think is scummy, not act as a backup lynch. Also, what would be my scum motivation for saying I think another player is more likely to be scum but I am okay with the lynch and **announcing it in the game**? Also, could you point out the post(s) you are referring to in your last sentence above. I don’t really remember failing to comment on anything addressed to me, but it is hard to remember not doing something. > [@](#): > > Finally: Skeezix’ vote on SF pings because SF’s posts don’t fit that pattern as a whole, and you think he’s cherry picking. I’m not sure what scumhunting is supposed to be if seizing on a single post that just feels wrong is somehow off limits. In fact, I’ve done just that with YOU in the past, Mental Guy, in that divided town game we played a while back. It’s absolutely valid, and you should have reason to know that it is. Thinking Skeezix is wrong in his perception (even in a scummy way), that’s one thing. Criticizing him because it’s only a single post? That’s entirely another. You are correct that I probably should not have used the phrase cherry-picking here since there are times that one post can indicate scum. I did think that post, though, was a reasonable request and suggestion in the context of all the other posts Shadow had made. That made it appear that Red was just grabbing on to something he could use to call Shadow scummy. As an aside, I don’t really think of the International game as good evidence that a single post can indicate scum(though I do believe in some cases it can), since I don’t really think I said anything in that post that I would not have said as Town. I think you were just lucky in that game. > [@](#): > > And if you want a pattern, there it is above. It’s only day two and already three times you have sat by allowing someone you claim to believe more than not be lynched or come close to being lynched. Protesting you think the lynches are probably wrong on their merits, but refusing to act on the basis that you can’t argue against others’ perception of their scumminess. Your own votes exclusive (and much more notably on day two) on those who are nowhere NEAR lynching. (Day one MG wound up with just a vote on Koldanar; day two on Koldanar and gnarlycharlie at this point.) You have convictions of probable innocence three times. Three times you refuse to act, even give your blessing to the lynch against your stated opinions of probable towniness. > > The only reason I’m not voting you right now is I’m not sure which of my other two votes would be better given up. Diver is up next; I may or may not finish the entire commentary on MG first. And again, what would be my scum motivation in posting that I think one player is more likely scum, but I am okay with someone else’s lynch? As far as the votes are concerned, I can’t really say much about that other than when I cast my votes, the players I voted for still had some chance of being lynched (I think, I didn’t really go back and check on that, but I don’t remember placing any one off votes when others were vying for the lynch). It is true I did not change my votes, but the Town has generally been going after players that I did not think were scum. I will say that I think that if I had gotten on an hour or two earlier near the end of Day yesterDay, I would have probably switched my vote to ShadowFacts (not that it would have had any effect), not because I really believed he was scum, but I think I would have realized what potential his powers would have had as scum, and not wanted to let him live. So that would have been another case of me advocating the lynch of someone I did not think was the most scummy. ---
**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 2, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1403 "2011-08-02T19:26:03Z")
Here: > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I don’t know about “great”, but you are right that it makes more sense from a standpoint of getting compensation. I was thinking of the more straightforward goal of trying to save Kelly. The context of this is that you had first voted Kelly, then changed your mind after his handshaking attempt, saying essentially that scum woudl have warned him that was a badbadbad idea, and that you thought him likely town because of that. I argued instead that it would have been a good (“great”) idea. You acknowledge that I am right in one aspect (meaning your own reasons for dropping your suspicion might have been undermined), but you don’t go on to say what that does or does not do to your opinion of Kelly. I found that potentially a telling omission, especially in the context of Kelly being a townie and at that point still very likely to be that day’s lynch. Your move away from voting him was to the “right” side; it would be all but impossible for a scum to force himself to move back to the “wrong” one, whatever argument was presented. So you just ducked the implications of me being right on one potential motive. At least that’s how I’m seeing it right now. I wish people in general would not defend themselves with “why would I do such a scummy thing if I was scum”. If scum didn’t have tells teh game wouldn’t be a game. If you are scum, you did it because you didn’t want to vote for Jan, Kelly, or ATPG (because wrong, wrong, and undetermined), yet didn’t want to dissuade the lynch either (because mislynch, mislynch and undetermined). And there’s not very many ways to accomplish such contrary goals at the same time. Your internal conflict is all over the screen there. And I think that most townies would not be conflicted so consistently, on so many “behavioral” cases on lynch leaders. (Take me: I was very comfortable with Kelly’s lynch, very opposed to Jan’s, and opposed to ATPG’s. Take me on someone like Septimus who I have serious conflicts on. I might be all over the place, but I’m not trying to justify his lynch while simultaneously saying I think he’s a townie.) And finally – lucky with you in the International game or not, I was town, which is closer to the point. What do you think of Skeezix’ unvote of Shadowfacts later that day? ---
**Author:** ![gnarlycharlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@gnarlycharlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnarlycharlie)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1404 "2011-08-02T19:26:39Z")
i’ve done just one read so i’ll comment on what i could digest immediately. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > OK, more “professionally”: > > I used my BLOCK power last night on **Red Skeezix**. Here is the message I just received: > > I am 100% positive that \*\*Skeezix \*\*is Scum, he was trying to kill me, and I BLOCKED him. > > **Vote Red Skeezix** > > (I am sure that I will double that up later.) if you’re sure why not do that right away? > [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > I am banking a lot on Lightfoot’s innocence. That’s either the ballsiest move I’ve ever seen a scumbag play that early in the game, a game which she also cleverly pretended to not know she was playing, or she’s innocent. > > I trust her with the additional vote power, and the only one I’d trust with that vote power besides myself, or whoever Lightfoot claims to have scanned as innocent. > > snipped for what it’s worth, **Lightfoot** and i are both in a game where the cop claimed right away so the vig wouldn’t accidentally get him. there was also a doc so the strategy was sound. however that was an open setup while our game isn’t. so for now, i’m leaning towards her being town. now, while i still find **USCDiver** and **MentalGuy** suspicious, my attention will be on **Red Skeezix** and **ShadowFacts**. i thought that an assassin role had to be scum based on my experience in the RPG but i realized that was a unsound assumption to make. although i like that **Pizza** is discussing possibilities (as are others like **SP** ) and considering other options, i think we must accept that ShadowFacts is unlikely to do anything we tell him to. we have to work with that assumption. if we’re concerned with his voting power, he has to be forced to use it. **Vote ShadowFacts** i too will wait for **Lightfoot** before using my second vote. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1405 "2011-08-02T20:21:55Z")
I’m not caught up only on page 26. I was blocked last Night (not sure how long I can be on this computer) apologies ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1406 "2011-08-02T20:38:03Z")
Well, I’m going to do something that will probably mark me down as the scummiest scum that ever scummed, but just because I feel like being controversial… **vote LightFoot** I think she’s been absolutely _useless_ as supposed Cop or Doc or whatever the heck role she claims to have. For someone who’s supposed to be an investigatory aid, she’s given us bupkis, but all the loudest posters are paying her obeisance and demanding **ShadowFacts** give up their votes to her for no reason that I can see. Now, for all I know having a hobbled, untalktative, not-very-aggressive investigator is exceedingly common in these games. But I don’t see anything pro-town in her behavior, and I’d like others – well, anyone but **Normal Phase** , please, because she thinks I’m scum and I still don’t trust her either – to explain to me what is so freakin’ great about the role she supposedly has when _we don’t seem to have learned a damn thing from it_. Do I think **LightFoot** is scummier than everyone else? No. Nor is it likely that anyone will follow my lead and lynch **LightFoot**. But let’s just say I’m taking a page from **Askthepizzaguy** ’s book of “let’s vote for someone and put pressure on them just to stir up trouble and see what develops.” What the hell, it’s not like I’m any more certain of anyone else. (Ooops sorry, apparently being uncertain and lacking confidence is a huge-ass scum tell. Which I guess really _does_ make me the scummiest scum that every scummed, considering how confused I’ve been.) ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1407 "2011-08-02T20:44:52Z")
Here’s the post that started me wanting to look at MentalGuy, IIRC. For context, he had mentioned gnarlycharlie being he scummiest out of a bunch of several unspecified light posters (and had separately spoken of wanting to review choie). ATPG challenged him to give his opinions on those players. 1062 > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I did a reread of posts by Red Skeezix, stanislaus, TexCat, and choie last night. > > It did seem that Red cherry picked one post by ShadowFacts to use as basis for a vote, but that was really the only thing I saw suspicious by him. I know he has intentionally used lurking as a scum strategy before, but he has not posted at all toDay, so he seems to be absent entirely instead of lurking. > > I don’t really buy into the case on choie. She has mentioned being a new player often, but it does not seem nearly as much as Jan protested she was Town. I don’t really remember all the other points against her by Pizza, but I remember as I was reading that I did not really find it all that convincing. > > TexCat’s voting of Ed partially based on previous suspicions that she had not mentioned does seem odd, but based on the timing of the vote and the fact that scum apparently killed Ed last Night, I am having a hard time seeing a scum motivation for her vote (though I do need to go back and review this again, I may be misremembering exactly what happened). > > stanislaus is the one I find most suspicious, but honestly, it is based almost entirely on the fact that I know his case against me is wrong so I find it contrived. If I had to put a vote on one of these four, it would be stanislaus, but I am not going to now. > > I haven’t really seen anything from any of these players that has me thinking they are definitely Town, but I feel my votes are better placed outside this group for now. Red Skeezix: no additional pings. Has lurked as scum before, but appears to be genuinely absent so maybe not. choie: not buying pizza’s case, but only mentions the “new player” thing, relating it to Jan (by now known town) TexCat – one odd thing, but can’t figure scum motivation. must review stanislaus – suspicious, but it could be baseless OMGUS Four players and not the remotest sign of a tip toward scum for any of them (and only one tip toward town – at a stretch – with choie. Almost straight down the middle on all four. You cannot get less risk of offending anyone than this. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1408 "2011-08-02T21:00:20Z")
> [@choie](#): > > Well, I’m going to do something that will probably mark me down as the scummiest scum that ever scummed, but just because I feel like being controversial… > > **vote LightFoot** > > I think she’s been absolutely _useless_ as supposed Cop or Doc or whatever the heck role she claims to have. For someone who’s supposed to be an investigatory aid, she’s given us bupkis, but all the loudest posters are paying her obeisance and demanding **ShadowFacts** give up their votes to her for no reason that I can see. Now, for all I know having a hobbled, untalktative, not-very-aggressive investigator is exceedingly common in these games. But I don’t see anything pro-town in her behavior, and I’d like others – well, anyone but **Normal Phase** , please, because she thinks I’m scum and I still don’t trust her either – to explain to me what is so freakin’ great about the role she supposedly has when _we don’t seem to have learned a damn thing from it_. > > Do I think **LightFoot** is scummier than everyone else? No. Nor is it likely that anyone will follow my lead and lynch **LightFoot**. But let’s just say I’m taking a page from **Askthepizzaguy** ’s book of “let’s vote for someone and put pressure on them just to stir up trouble and see what develops.” > > What the hell, it’s not like I’m any more certain of anyone else. > > (Ooops sorry, apparently being uncertain and lacking confidence is a huge-ass scum tell. Which I guess really _does_ make me the scummiest scum that every scummed, considering how confused I’ve been.) LightFoot has not played her role well, but I am also assuming she is telling the truth. Almost every game of this magnitude has an investigator role. The fact that no one has counter-claimed means that apparently no one else has that role. The scum would be taking a big risk making the claim she did on Day 2, since they would be risking getting exposed by a counter-claim. Now LightFoot should not have claimed, since she has not been the target of a roleblocker (or maybe protected by a paranoid doc) every Night since, but I see no reason to doubt she is the investigator. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1409 "2011-08-02T21:43:15Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Here: > > The context of this is that you had first voted Kelly, then changed your mind after his handshaking attempt, saying essentially that scum woudl have warned him that was a badbadbad idea, and that you thought him likely town because of that. I argued instead that it would have been a good (“great”) idea. You acknowledge that I am right in one aspect (meaning your own reasons for dropping your suspicion might have been undermined), but you don’t go on to say what that does or does not do to your opinion of Kelly. I found that potentially a telling omission, especially in the context of Kelly being a townie and at that point still very likely to be that day’s lynch. Your move away from voting him was to the “right” side; it would be all but impossible for a scum to force himself to move back to the “wrong” one, whatever argument was presented. So you just ducked the implications of me being right on one potential motive. At least that’s how I’m seeing it right now. I agreed that it made more sense with the motivation you suggested, but I still did not really think it that good an idea or something scum were likely to do. However, I will grant you that I did not specifically say that here. > [@](#): > > I wish people in general would not defend themselves with “why would I do such a scummy thing if I was scum”. If scum didn’t have tells teh game wouldn’t be a game. If you are scum, you did it because you didn’t want to vote for Jan, Kelly, or ATPG (because wrong, wrong, and undetermined), yet didn’t want to dissuade the lynch either (because mislynch, mislynch and undetermined). And there’s not very many ways to accomplish such contrary goals at the same time. I agree that just letting a lynch go through that I didn’t think was the best could have scum motivation (though, really I think in that case I would be happy with almost any non-scum lynch). But why would I not just make the case on who I was voting for and not comment on the others? Or just agree with others and vote the lynch leader? > [@](#): > > Your internal conflict is all over the screen there. And I think that most townies would not be conflicted so consistently, on so many “behavioral” cases on lynch leaders. (Take me: I was very comfortable with Kelly’s lynch, very opposed to Jan’s, and opposed to ATPG’s. Take me on someone like Septimus who I have serious conflicts on. I might be all over the place, but I’m not trying to justify his lynch while simultaneously saying I think he’s a townie.) My internal conflict is all over the screen because I am internally conflicted. How you felt about each lynch has very little to do with me, we are obviously very different people. If you think most players would not be so conflicted, then at least you’re basing it on a general group instead of just yourself, but even if what you assume is true, there would still be a group of players outside that “most” category. > [@](#): > > And finally – lucky with you in the International game or not, I was town, which is closer to the point. What do you think of Skeezix’ unvote of Shadowfacts later that day? But the problem with you getting lucky there is now you think you can read when I am scum and it is leading you down a wrong path. I am afraid the answer to your last question is just going to make me look wishy-washy again. While I thought it could be a scum player just trying to back away from a tactical error, I thought it more likely that it was a player who realized the complaints about his vote had some validity and decided to look into things closer. ---
**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 2, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1410 "2011-08-02T21:50:28Z")
You know, it’s so obvious to me that **Red** is lying, it blows my mind that others are giving him credence. So I’ll lay it out. To believe that **Red Skeezix** is Town claiming truthfully, all of the following must be true: [ul] [li] **Red** was unable to kill _three nights in a row_. (Once because he “missed the deadline.”) Three in a row!![/ul][/li]AND [ul][li]Someone protected **septimus** on Night Two, after **Lightfoot** claimed Detective. [/ul][/li]AND [ul][li]Two kill attempts were thwarted last night (or scum decided to no-kill).[/li][/ul] I don’t think I’m being controversial in saying that all of those things \*must be true \*in order to believe **Red’s** claim. Now, ask yourself: is it more likely that all of that is true and I am lying, or is it more likely that I simply used the powers I claimed to block a scum kill? (Remember, **Red** says he was blocked). That simple question is what toDay’s lynch comes down to, despite all the smoke and mirrors. ---
**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 2, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1411 "2011-08-02T21:53:18Z")
MG post 1064: > [@MentalGuy](#): > > > [@Shadowfacts](#): > > > > Someone else said something similar to this earlier, but I can’t remember who and I don’t want to go back and track it down. Anyway, this sentiment makes no sense to me. septimus came within moments of being lynched yesterDay, and only avoided the noose with a last-minute vote switch that was sure to be controversial. It makes perfect sense to me that Scum would skip him and assume that there was a high probability of him being lynched today. Why bother killing him when he’s garnering tons of suspicion and likely to die the following Day? > > You are correct, and while I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that, I do seem to be taking the existance of a vig for granted. I do still feel that lynching him toDay is the best play. Indeed he is taking the existence of a vig for granted. His initial argument against Septimus was that he must have been attacked (vig or scum), and his claim not to know whether or not he was, was suspicious. SP pointed out that there was no evidence of a vig. MG acknowledges this, wants to consider implications later. SF points out a scum attack was no slam dunk either. MG acknwledges this as well, but thinks Septimus is still the best option. **Why**? His entire case against Septimus is Septimus must have been attacked, and is claiming not to know whether he was. If MG has other reasons he doesn’t much emphasize them. (I think he does mention the last-second vote change in passing, as context for when his opinion of Septimus changed from “weak case” to “worth voting for”.) Now even with it thoroughly undermined that Septimus was attacked at all (meaning his rationale is shot), MG still clings to the vote. **Why?** I have a huge suspicion right now that this is the inverse of the Kellywagon interaction with me. Then, Mental Guy knew a vote on Kelly would be wrong. Here, in some sense, MG must know that a vote on Septimus would be right. I don’t see why else he would cling to a vote that’s virtually indefensible on his own stated grounds. He’s so careful to be fair-minded everywhere else. It’s a total house of cards, though, nor can I link it to any specific additional player necessarily being scum if MG is, so I’ll just leave it at that MentalGuy’s rationale for voting Septimus has been undermined, but he keeps the vote there. ---
**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 2, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1412 "2011-08-02T21:56:53Z")
I think Suburban Plankton, who has been my number two suspect for a long time, who goes I’m scum then I’m not scum then I’m scum, and reads things into my posts which aren’t there, and is all cuddly with ShadowFacts and did half of his arguing for him, would be the best lynch besides ShadowFacts today. Although Diver still pings me. **unvote: Diver vote: Suburban Plankton** I’ll post more when I get back from work. ---
**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 2, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1413 "2011-08-02T22:00:55Z")
[quote=“ShadowFacts, post:1410, topic:588052”] You know, it’s so obvious to me that **Red** is lying, it blows my mind that others are giving him credence. So I’ll lay it out. To believe that **Red Skeezix** is Town claiming truthfully, all of the following must be true: [ul] [li] **Red** was unable to kill _three nights in a row_. (Once because he “missed the deadline.”) Three in a row!![/ul][/li][/quote] Missing the deadline is the only one of those that rings outright false to me. The Septimus one could be true, and with the one on you there are other satisfying alternatives. [quote] AND [ul][li]Someone protected **septimus** on Night Two, after **Lightfoot** claimed Detective. [/ul][/li][/quote] I agree with this one, from a bit of a different angle than you. (See my previous set of questions for Red.) > [@](#): > > AND > [ul][li]Two kill attempts were thwarted last night (or scum decided to no-kill).[/li][/ul] I think the no-kill was all but mandatory if you are scum (especially if Red is not). Otherwise you have no lynch rationale, no proof. If you are town I do accept that it’s very likely that Red is scum (paranoid doc option aside; currently waiting on Lightfoot for that one. If she’s been blocked every night I think it’s very unlikely, whatever Pizza is thinking). It’s nice (I mean this honestly, no barbs) to see you lay out your own reasons for believing it. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’m being controversial in saying that all of those things \*must be true \*in order to believe **Red’s** claim. Now, ask yourself: is it more likely that all of that is true and I am lying, or is it more likely that I simply used the powers I claimed to block a scum kill? (Remember, **Red** says he was blocked). That simple question is what toDay’s lynch comes down to, despite all the smoke and mirrors. I’m goign to hold my response to that just a little bit longer. In particular I want to hear Red’s responses to my questions. ---
**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 2, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1414 "2011-08-02T22:04:08Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > I think Suburban Plankton, who has been my number two suspect for a long time, who goes I’m scum then I’m not scum then I’m scum, and reads things into my posts which aren’t there, and is all cuddly with ShadowFacts and did half of his arguing for him, would be the best lynch besides ShadowFacts today. Although Diver still pings me. > > **unvote: Diver > vote: Suburban Plankton** > I’ll post more when I get back from work. I’d like you to have a good hard look at Mental Guy when you do, in particular his interactions with SP given your vote, but also on his own merits. And I’d like to to clarify your decision process on which players to look more closely at on day three again (or show me a link where you already did it). Danke. ---
**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 2, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1415 "2011-08-02T22:15:51Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > I agree that just letting a lynch go through that I didn’t think was the best could have scum motivation (though, really I think in that case I would be happy with almost any non-scum lynch). But why would I not just make the case on who I was voting for and not comment on the others? Or just agree with others and vote the lynch leader? Do we really have to keep doing this? – because they were the going thing and you thought that staying quiet wouldn’t look right – because you thought they were insupportable cases and didn’t think you could argue for them convincingly (for Kelly and Jan anyway. Pizza undetermined.) > [@](#): > > But the problem with you getting lucky there is now you think you can read when I am scum and it is leading you down a wrong path. This is not true, for the record. The connection to that case I made on you only occurred to me as an afterthought of finding your rationale there suspect. Up to that point it was not in my mind. > [@](#): > > I am afraid the answer to your last question is just going to make me look wishy-washy again. While I thought it could be a scum player just trying to back away from a tactical error, I thought it more likely that it was a player who realized the complaints about his vote had some validity and decided to look into things closer. “I am afraid”? Meh. Compared to everythign else it’s small potatoes, but that phrase never fails to scream “fakery upcoming” at me. On the facts – Red Skeezix did not look into things closer at all. He still found SF scummy as of that post: his own statement was that he unvoted only because he was also voting Jan, found her scummier than SF, and didn’t think they were both scum together. This is not what you truly think about Red’s unvote, because it’s not remotely what he did. I’ve been burned too recently with TexCat’s “lying” to put huge stock in this by itself, but can you try again with the right facts, please? ---
**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 3, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1416 "2011-08-03T00:45:35Z")
> [@gnarlycharlie](#): > > if you’re sure why not do that [double vote Red] right away? > > \ > > i too will wait for **Lightfoot** before using my second vote. Same as you - I was waiting for Lightfoot’s return. If he had come up with a Scum result, I would have opted to go with that and pursued \*\*Red Skeezix \*\*tomorrow. > [@LightFoot](#): > > I’m not caught up only on page 26. I was blocked last Night > (not sure how long I can be on this computer) > apologies But he did not get a result, so: **Vote Red Skeezix** ---
**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 3, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1417 "2011-08-03T01:01:28Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > I think Suburban Plankton, who has been my number two suspect for a long time, who goes I’m scum then I’m not scum then I’m scum, and reads things into my posts which aren’t there, and is all cuddly with ShadowFacts and did half of his arguing for him, would be the best lynch besides ShadowFacts today. Although Diver still pings me. > > **unvote: Diver > vote: Suburban Plankton** > I’ll post more when I get back from work. And what exactly is your basis for this vote, other than the fact that I find your play suspicious? ---
**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 3, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1418 "2011-08-03T01:03:10Z")
One more thing, now that \*\*Lightfoot \*\*has reported being blocked. Assuming he’s telling the truth, there are only two possibilities for the results from last night if I am scum: 1. Scum have two roleblockers (me being one). or 1. There is a Paranoid Doc protecting **LightFoot**. This doesn’t \*prove \*anything, because there could be a PD. But for those who (like me) have been operating under the reasonable assumption that Scum have been blocking \*\*Lightfoot \*\* to date, it is another data point that I believe makes my claim more likely. ---
**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 3, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1419 "2011-08-03T02:47:22Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > One more thing, now that \*\*Lightfoot \*\*has reported being blocked. Assuming he’s telling the truth, there are only two possibilities for the results from last night if I am scum: > > 1. Scum have two roleblockers (me being one). > > or > > 1. There is a Paranoid Doc protecting **LightFoot**. > > This doesn’t \*prove \*anything, because there could be a PD. But for those who (like me) have been operating under the reasonable assumption that Scum have been blocking \*\*Lightfoot \*\* to date, it is another data point that I believe makes my claim more likely. Doesn’t get rid of the paranoid doc theory, which I’m convinced is the case. ---
**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 3, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052/1420 "2011-08-03T03:00:03Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > And what exactly is your basis for this vote, other than the fact that I find your play suspicious? I’ve only been trumpeting you as scum for a few rounds now, with the same reasoning each time, and I laid out a major case on you just last round when I was analyzing 4 people at once. I was more interested in keeping the pressure on ShadowFacts who I also don’t trust, but for other reasons as well; but since your vote for me is quite obviously disingenuous, you’re now back in the number two slot where you belong. You keep going back and forth on me being scum, and it’s getting tiresome. You obviously haven’t done any analysis on me, or thought about it too much. You’re only doing this because it is convenient, because I have other votes on me. You don’t like what I’m doing and you’d rather lynch me than anyone else, especially since the murders are going to be tied up on power roles for a while. I’m going to continue to be a thorn in your side until you die, and I’m either going to be a thorn in your teammate’s side or I’ll be moving my suspicions and aggressive cases onto them shortly. I am not going to stop what I’m doing, I’m not going to buy the arguments you lay down on face value, and I’m going to be skeptical and stubborn about things. As such, you realize you’d be better off without me around. And your flip flopping about as to whether I’m scum or not is finally going to be over. You’re going to say I’m scum, and you’re going to be wrong. And you won’t flip back. As such, no matter who you are, save the paranoid doctor, which I’m pretty sure you are not, you’ve just removed all your usefulness to me as a townie teammate, and you’ve convinced me that you’re scum. There’s really no reason why I would want you around at this point, because we aren’t working well together as a team if you’re townie, you’re not acting like you put any thought into why I am scum, and you don’t seem sincere. I can’t count on your support on any of the suspects I am leaning on, and you strike me as scummy, you have all game long, and it’s time for you to die. If people want, I will link back to all my previous cases on you, SP. But some of them might remember what the case was, and why I found you suspicious, and you’re doing the same stuff all over again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=70) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deendee-mafia/588052.md?page=72)