# Glasnost Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 17, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757 "2011-02-17T23:58:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/221 "2011-02-23T21:39:10Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > What? I have no idea what your explanation means and I agree with Zeriel that you seem to assume that anyone who claims to get the chicken message would be non-scum. > > Maybe if I carefully re-read your response, I’ll get it. > > No, it does not make sense to me. The thought process behind this vote made me giggle but I dislike the idea of voting for a player you simply did not understand. Is the vote intended as a poke to make **Wolverine** explain what he meant or do you think he’s scummy for seemingly being confident that anyone who claims to have been targeted for recruitment is confirmed town? On **Pleonast** , I dislike unforced claims but usually consider them a null-tell. In this particular game, due to the recruitment mechanism, I consider the claim anti-town. I also dislike the policy vote for anyone who makes a self-defense vote, it is also anti-town, leaning scummy, as I can see a scum motivation for making an easily defensible policy vote however **Pleo** has a different point of view: he sees the self-defense vote as scummy and I’m not going to vote someone based on a difference of opinion. FWIW I also disagree with his policy of lynching whoever hammers - fortunately there’s only 1 **Pleo** and 20 others. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/222 "2011-02-23T21:57:19Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > The thought process behind this vote made me giggle but I dislike the idea of voting for a player you simply did not understand. Is the vote intended as a poke to make **Wolverine** explain what he meant or do you think he’s scummy for seemingly being confident that anyone who claims to have been targeted for recruitment is confirmed town? Scummy for being confident anyone who claims recruitment is confirmed town…and his weak explanation. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/223 "2011-02-23T22:23:24Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Point of clarification: we know the setup, but we also know there are three options for the way the sleepers resolve: > > At beginning, sleepers are worth 2 points as vanilla townies. > Option 1: If neither sleeper is killed and neither is recruited, they stay town: 2 town points > Option 2: If one sleeper is killed before either is recruited, the other becomes a survivor: 1 town points in aggregate (since the sleeper prior to killing functioned as vanilla his/her entire lifespan, s/he is scored as such. Lose a vanilla, gain a survivor (as 0)) > Option 3: If one sleeper is recruited before either is killed, he becomes scum and the other becomes a doctor: -3.5 town points in aggregate (lose two vanilla, add doc, subtract scum). So lynching a sleeper is actually a plus for Town. However, finding the sleeper is probably more difficult than finding Scum. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/224 "2011-02-23T22:25:43Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > So lynching a sleeper is actually a plus for Town. However, finding the sleeper is probably more difficult than finding Scum. NETA, that is compared to having him recruited. And it also applies if the sleeper dies via NK, Vig, or explosion as well. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/225 "2011-02-23T22:33:16Z")
I re-read the sleeper exchange and I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing. I think the offending post is here: > [@Wolverine](#): > > You’re right that somebody that posts the message is confirmed. I was wrong about that. Based on context Wolverine clearly meant to say “You’re right that somebody that posts the message is [not] confirmed.” Earlier than the quoted post Wolverine opined that those who receive the sleeper message are not scum. OAOW responded and pointed out that scum could not recruit and claim to have gotten the sleeper message. Then Wolverine responds with the quoted post where he clearly states that he was wrong earlier. His mistake is leaving out the “not,” which to me is no big deal, but the mistake led to much confusion and gnashing of teeth. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/226 "2011-02-23T22:44:55Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > [COLOR=“Green”]\*\* > > 1. The scum team may attempt to awaken a sleeper on any Night, the only exception being Night 0. I still agree that the Town sleeper will need to judge whether claiming is good or not, but based on this post by Red it seems that scum can attempt to awaken a sleeper even after the sleepers have been affected. Thus a report of “I got the sleeper message” after a no message night could be a fake attempt. In other words, the Town sleeper must account for Town accurately knowing when the scum sleeper was awakened when considering claiming or not claiming. It probably isn’t as dire as I’m making it out to seem. It’s just that I figured this out and thought we all should be aware of it. In truth, as long as we keep getting “I got the sleeper message” without an unaccounted night, then we can still assume no recruitment has taken place. The problem only arises if we have a no claim Night followed by claims. We can deal with it later. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/227 "2011-02-23T22:59:34Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > It probably isn’t as dire as I’m making it out to seem. It’s just that I figured this out and thought we all should be aware of it. In truth, as long as we keep getting “I got the sleeper message” without an unaccounted night, then we can still assume no recruitment has taken place. The problem only arises if we have a no claim Night followed by claims. We can deal with it later. Unless the scum get preternaturally lucky and manage to awake one sleeper while killing the other the same night… Assuming the actions stack like that. Mod question PM time… ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/228 "2011-02-23T23:06:02Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > **Nightly Order of actions** : > Town Jailing > Scum Roleblocking > Bomb Detonation (Being in jail does not prevent death by explosive) > Bomb Deployment > Town Cop > Town Doctor > Scum Kill > Town Vig > Sleeper Awakening No, sleeper is the last action so I imagine the death of the other sleeper will have caused the remaining one to become non win-stealing survivor. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/229 "2011-02-23T23:06:55Z")
Sleeper Awakening is the last action to resolve. Killing the other sleeper will turn the first into a survivor before it can be turned into scum (At least if I’m reading Red’s order of action resolution post correctly). Also, the dead sleeper will be revealed as such. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/230 "2011-02-23T23:15:50Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > The more I think about **Pleonast** , what concerns me much more than what he said is what he didn’t say. That is, he hasn’t said anything about the goings-on in this game. He started out with his by-now-traditional Vanilla claim, and he reiterated his stance on self-preservation votes, and made a few comments about the setup, but had no comment on anything that actually happened in the game itself. He then spent the rest of the day arguing about his earlier statements, and then announced he would be away from the game today (Wednesday). > > Hopefully he will be back to make some sort of contribution to the discussion soon. it would be nice to have some relevant content to consider, rather than being restricted to only making ‘policy-based votes’. yaknow this is a pretty good point that doesn’t seem to be addressed. i mean **pleo** is doing what he is doing and setting policy because he feels that helps town. but a lot of what he seems to argue is that by not following policy then suspicions can be muddled if not even ignored. isn’t that to a great extent what he is doing? i mean where do his suspicions lie (other than on someone who votes to save themselves). i don’t think he has voted and near as i can tell i don’t see anyone that he seems to be suspicous of. **vote pleo** ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/231 "2011-02-23T23:16:15Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > Scummy for being confident anyone who claims recruitment is confirmed town…and his weak explanation. So, you suspect **Wolverine** is scum who is attempting to convince the rest of us that a claim of a failed recruitment attempt means the claimant is confirmed Town so we all blindly agree and ignores any alternative scenarios therefore allowing him and his fellow scum buddies false claim and gain Townie cred in the process? Or he was just mistaken and the mistake says nothing of his alignment? And if he gave a clearer, more articulate explanation, you would not have voted him? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/232 "2011-02-23T23:17:33Z")
_facepalm_ I went back and looked at that, and then totally forgot I’d done so and posted what I did. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/233 "2011-02-23T23:19:11Z")
\*\* 1. The scum team may attempt to awaken a sleeper on any Night, the only exception being Night 0. There are no other restrictions on the use of this power (ETA: Nights only). 2. I seemed to have come to an oversight on my part. Here is the order of resolution of Day Actions: Lynch Dead Man’s Switch (triggers bomb detonation, anyone targeted who is alive dies at this point). Triggered Sleeper Awakening (by death of other sleeper). 1. The jailer does not have a Day Action. The jailer has a power restriction on his or her Night Action requiring early submission of target. 2. The sleepers start the game as Town and will be revealed on death as such, unless their alignment changes. 3. If a sleeper dies during the resolution of night actions, the other sleeper would become a survivor before any actions later on the Nightly Order would be processed and after the conclusion of the current action, ie simulataneous unawakened sleeper death results in both dying as town.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/234 "2011-02-23T23:41:00Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > So, you suspect **Wolverine** is scum who is attempting to convince the rest of us that a claim of a failed recruitment attempt means the claimant is confirmed Town so we all blindly agree and ignores any alternative scenarios therefore allowing him and his fellow scum buddies false claim and gain Townie cred in the process? Or he was just mistaken and the mistake says nothing of his alignment? > > And if he gave a clearer, more articulate explanation, you would not have voted him? Dude, it’s an early Day One vote. It’s not the strongest in the world, but it wasn’t a “me too” either. - I think his comment may have come out of his own knowledge of who is Town and that his statement could be the result of him not thinking “townishly”. Not an attempt to cause us to blindly agree. - If he had explained better or clearer and I was satisfied, yeah, I’d unvote him. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/235 "2011-02-23T23:46:21Z")
Day 1 Vote Tally Pleonast(7) :Zeriel[162], Mental Guy[187], Drain Bead[202], Gadarene[208], septimus[212], pedescribe[216], peekercpa[230] Mahaloth(2) :Idle Thoughts[159], Suburban Plankton[217] Wolverine(1) :[del]Zeriel[137-162][/del], Mahaloth[147] One and Only Wanderers(0) :[del]pedescribe[138-216][/del] Did Not Vote:Wolverine,Manwich,Astral Rejection,storyteller0910,Tom Scud,Pleonast,One and Only Wanderers,ComeToTheDarksideWeHaveCookies,special ed,guiri,sachertorte With these votes, Pleonast will be lynched. Note: Day ends is about 24 hrs. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/236 "2011-02-24T00:05:32Z")
As much as I’ve been trying to set Pleo aside for now, I cannot deny that he is a very prickly pear that is hard to ignore. Annoyance, frustration, and disagreement together are a powerful and volatile trifecta on a Day when there is little to go on. For me, the nail in the coffin was his exchange with me here: > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > So as long as some seemingly heart-felt reasoning and analysis comes with the vote it is no longer considered a self-preservation vote? > [@Pleonast](#): > > Yep. I want players to vote for who they find suspicious. If they do so and explain why so, then they are being pro-town. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Well that’s easy then. We just all have to agree on what counts as heart-felt reasoning and analysis, and then everyone can toe the line in an informed manner. :rolleyes: > [@Pleonast](#): > > Why roll your eyes? Trying to determine what is heart-felt reasoning and analysis is the whole point of playing Mafia! Why circumvent that with simple self-preservation votes? > > Seriously, why are some of you so much in favor of players mechanically placing their votes on the player rivalling them for the lynch? We gain nothing from such votes! They cancel each other out. They tell us nothing about who those players truly think are suspicious. They give an easy out for the players to avoid giving any analysis. > > On an out-of-game note, I’ll be out for most if not all of tomorrow (Wednesday). Up until that point, it seemed like the whole debate might very well just boil down (yet again) to semantics, and that if Pleo was using a very specific definition for the behavior that he found suspect while others were using the term very generally, that all sorts of misunderstanding and paranoia might ensue. But then his response just attempts to spin the criticism into a double standard. He’s advocating a mechanical vote policy while admonishing mechanical vote policy. **Vote Pleo** Onto other matters… I did not view Wolverine’s statements as nefariously as Zeriel and Mahaloth apparently did, and it does ping me as potentially opportunistic, but I don’t really see how Zeriel comes out smelling any better than Mahaloth in the whole exchange, just because he voted first? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/237 "2011-02-24T00:35:05Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I did not view Wolverine’s statements as nefariously as Zeriel and Mahaloth apparently did, and it does ping me as potentially opportunistic, but I don’t really see how Zeriel comes out smelling any better than Mahaloth in the whole exchange, just because he voted first? Normally I try to be the one who makes an early-day vote on whatever suspicions I can get, because I have found that doing so can “shake the tree” so to speak and get some discussion going. As it happened, Pleo got that done all by his lonesome–but then again, we will have to have SOMETHING else to talk about tomorrow, too. * * * Anyone who hasn’t voted by now needs to weigh in. It is, in my opinion, generally scummy to end the day with no votes out. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/238 "2011-02-24T00:58:49Z")
I’m finding the whole **Pleonast** thing an enormous null tell; I think he’s pretty much wrong on all counts, but I don’t see any reason why his wrongness is inconsistent with his play as a town player in other games. I was tempted to go after **sachertorte** for playing kick-the-Pleonast but not voting for him, but then I remembered the bitter bitter argument **sach** and **story** (both of them Town in that game) carried on for multiple days in On Cecil Pond Mafia. I hate it when we get into the rut of finding an annoying player and turning the entire Day 1 conversation into how annoyed everyone is at that player, because scum can hide pretty much anywhere; feigning annoyance but not voting; feigning annoyance and voting; defending the guy they know is going to flip Town (which is what I did, vis-a-vis peeker, in the game where I was scum); and so on. If Pleo flips Town (as I think is likely, based on the odds and on the fact that I have a null tell on him), it’s going to be hard to extract any information from the day’s lynch. That said, in my third re-read looking for anything, anything at all, I did notice this: Post 189: > [@septimus](#): > > Despite that **Pleonast** ’s argument seems wrong to me, I’m not ready to vote for him. @ Other players: Has he made a similar argument in previous games where he was Town? > > I’m only two away from lynch lead myself, but not yet ready to cast a self-preservation vote ( 😃 ) … Post 212: > [@septimus](#): > > I’m suspicious of **Pleonast** – he objects to votes which “don’t provide information”, yet proposes to apply his own automatic lynching rule, which will therefore provide no information. A rule, no less, that would allow scum to jump on a bandwagon against a Townie with no justification other than “he tried self-preservation.” I hope a growing bandwagon doesn’t curtail discussion but > **Vote Pleonast** Intervening posts by **Pleonast** : zero. What happened to change your mind there, sept? **vote Septimus** ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/239 "2011-02-24T01:03:22Z")
So, if Pleo votes now, would we consider that vote to be in self-preservation? I mean, unless he votes for himself. My opinion is that Day 1 has been typical. I’ve seen the usual types of comments I would expect out of the players that I know. I did note Zeriel looking for support for his vote after making it. It seems reasonable enough though. On preview. Tom has made a case that seems interesting on initial view. I’m going to check into it, and maybe d a full re-read. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/240 "2011-02-24T01:08:10Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > And as pointed out by others: you have no workable heuristic for telling the difference between a self-preservation vote defended with a sincere suspicion and a self-preservation vote defended with a contrived load of hooey to avoid tripping the Pleo-o-Meter. So what? Either of those is better than a vote defended by “I know I’m town and they’re not”. Better in the sense of giving us something to evaluate. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I would argue that’s the scummiest bit of Pleo’s plan–lacking a usable definition, he can easily manipulate his own policy by declaring explanations sufficient or not. This is bizarre. The whole point of the game of mafia is looking at players’ explanations and judging them scummy or not. Are you really saying I should not be allowed to do that? > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Force, no. But if he says that he’s going to automatically switch his vote to vote for someone who is making a self-preservation vote, then it makes the self-preservation votes pointless. It therefore has the potential of keeping others from voting the way they want to, which obscures the voting record even worse than the self-preservation votes might have. If my vote against a would-be self preservationist forces them to make a final vote where they actually have to give a reason other than “voting that player keeps me from being lynched”, then I will have made my point. > [@septimus](#): > > Suppose I find A very suspicious, B slightly suspicious and C not suspicious at all. If the Lynch vote is very close between B and C, with A not in contention, should I not move my vote from A to B to make it more likely that scum is lynched? How am I robbing Town of information if I explain, when I vote, why I vote and how suspicious I find these players? Since I am arguing players should vote for who they find suspicious, rather than simply voting to save themselves from the lynch, I am in agreement with you. > [@sachertorte](#): > > You need to explain your vote in the _context of the players involved_. If you are scum, the identities of the players involved will put pressure on you to act certain ways. Do you bus your buddy? Do you push for a mislynch? This is important information. Your Policy is cold and unfeeling. It doesn’t have shades of gray or hints of subjectivity by which we will evaluate your whether you are acting in a way that is believable or in a way that reveals you to be scum. Because your vote is mechanical **we** can’t evaluate **you**. > > Exactly. And by voting based on a Policy spelled out on Day One without context of who is involved or the circumstances of the situation you remove information from your vote – making your vote less meaningful. When you vote based on Policy, the reasoning is POLICY not “Pleonast is backing his scumbuddy.” That’s the big deal. > > I’m more railing against your Policy Vote than players voting for each other or whatever. I frankly care less about the theoretical self-preservationists because > (A) Both have a pile of votes which in and of itself generates significant and concrete data and > (B) One of them is going to die. **sach** , you’re arguing against things I’ve never said. Really. Go back and read. You say you’re against “policy” votes. Players who vote simply to save themself from the lynch, without expressing any reason other than that player has an unknown alignment and also is close to being lynched are performing a policy vote. Scum an easily make such a vote, with the excuse “everyone wants to survive”. That kind of vote gives us absolutely no information about the self-preservationist’s motives. That is why I am against letting that kind of vote continue to slide by. > [@](#): > > But we get less information about you. You keep saying that, but I’m not sure how me explaining why I am making a vote gives you less information about me. > [@](#): > > No. My stance is that this is a Team Game. We play best when we coordinate. By running off the rails you hurt your team. Perhaps your strategy is fine, however, your strategy is incompatible with the strategy and custom of the rest of the players. This is a problem. Employing a separate strategy when everyone else is absolutely fine with self-preservation votes is counterproductive. Unfortunately, I do not know who my teammates are. There is no one I can coordinate with. I do know what are good tactics and what are not. I will go with that rather than trust an unknown team. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > What if they have? > > In our last game, I was a Town power role. On - some Day, I don’t remember anymore - it was down to either me or **ushimi** , a claimed Vanilla. I had already role claimed. **ushimi** was voting for me. I knew the following things: > > 1. I was a Town power role. > 2. Ushimi was _definitely_ not. > 3. I was definitely not Scum. > 4. **Ushimi** was probably not Scum, but might have been. > > The vote was close; there were multiple votes for each of us. By voting for **ushimi** , even though I thought him very likely to be Town, I helped ensure that he would be lynched in my place. > > So here are my questions: > > 1. Was my decision to vote **ushimi** anti-Town? > 2. Were you (as Scum) happy that **ushimi** was lynched on that Day and not me? > 3. If your answer to #2 is “no” - if you’d have preferred it, as Scum, that _I_ be lynched - how then can you characterize my vote as a pro-Scum thing to do? If a player has claimed, my decision to vote them or not is based on how I interpret the claim. In your case, I never interpreted your claim, being both scum and dead. In general, if a power role believes their power is more important than the life of another townie, then they should preserve their own life. As always with power roles, they are the best deciders of their own actions. > [@special\_ed](#): > > I agree. The early vanilla claims are completely meaningless, and should be treated that way. > > On the other hand, a player who insists on posting completely meaningless comments with the intent of getting everyone to talk about something that is completely meaningless is not completely meaningless. > > So, while the claim is meaningless, the act of claiming is not meaningless. I’ve tried my claim without giving an explanation. I’ve tried my claim with multiple explanations. Either way, players jump all over me. This time I claimed with a brief explanation and there’s been little to no reaction. Which is my intent. And here’s your insinuation about my intent. Unless I’m misunderstanding you and you’re actually referring to **peeker** ’s typically garbled posts. Please clarify. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > What the **Pleonast** show is doing (and I consider myself among the guilty here as well) is distracting nearly everyone from voting. If I recall correctly, we have only one full RL day until the end of Day, and very few votes are out. This is going to lead to a last-minute scramble to vote, with a potential flurry of roleclaims, as all we’ve been doing all day is attempting to show **Pleonast** that he’s wrong, an activity that is becoming nearly as futile as attempts to nail Jello to a tree. And that’s probably the most anti-Town thing that’s come from his actions so far, and he should have easily foreseen it. This tired argument: so-and-so is posting too much and is preventing us from talking about something else. Sorry, this is a not a simplex medium where only one player can talk at time. The topics of discussion are the responsibility of everyone. If you want to talk about something, do so, no one can prevent you. > [@](#): > > I’ll be the first to mention that I’ve been burned many times by voting for people who made bad gameplay decisions. But **Pleonast** has been around long enough to know that this is the case, and that our general reticence to vote for people based on strategy disagreements could keep him alive. Which, if he’s the Godfather, is a very smart strategy (and one that, as I recall, **Red Skeezix** employed in Harry Potter). I’m not seeing a better option at this point, and I want to get a vote down while we still have time to discuss it…and given that I’m at a seminar all afternoon and won’t have access to check the thread, now’s the time.] Bwahaha! While a few of us actually adhere to not voting over tactical disagreements, a quick survey of any recent games will show that it is still quite common. Take the votes on **Pleonast** in this game, for example. What have I actually done? I’ve explained about something I don’t like and think is worth voting for. Have I actually done it? Nope. What we have here are players not finding anything to vote for and falling back on lynch whoever’s is talking about (not actually doing, mind you) a tactic they disagree with. Or in your case, lynch the loudest. > [@pedescribe](#): > > First of all: > > **Unvote OaOW** > ] **Vote Pleonast** > > ^Would have done that earlier, but I forgot that these are 4-day Days, not 5-day Days. Can you at least give us a fig-leaf of an argument for your vote? > [@peekercpa](#): > > yaknow this is a pretty good point that doesn’t seem to be addressed. > > i mean **pleo** is doing what he is doing and setting policy because he feels that helps town. but a lot of what he seems to argue is that by not following policy then suspicions can be muddled if not even ignored. isn’t that to a great extent what he is doing? i mean where do his suspicions lie (other than on someone who votes to save themselves). i don’t think he has voted and near as i can tell i don’t see anyone that he seems to be suspicous of. > > **vote pleo** Wow, an actual pro-town vote on me! I’ve been spending my time trying to explain myself and haven’t found anyone particular suspicious yet. I’ll remedy that shortly. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Anyway, I guess there’s no point in discussing reasons for my votes, since I get attacked for doing so. Before I’ve even made the vote. 😛 But I’ll carry on despite the poor play. **vote Zeriel** for voting for me (162) for voicing tactics they think are not pro-town. **vote MentalGuy** for voting for me (187) for stating a policy they believe is a null tell. **vote DrainBead** for voting for me (202) for being loud. **vote Gadarene** for voting for me (208) for having an anti-town position. **vote pedescribe** for voting for me (216) for no stated reason at all. (Yay! The rules don’t forbid multivotes.) Yep, it looks like our group is back to its old vote for tactical disagreements and a bit of lynch the loud. Good job, team! :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757.md?page=13)