# Harry Potter Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [June 25, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429 "2010-06-25T01:13:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![tiltawhirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e99b99/32.png) [@tiltawhirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiltawhirl)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/141 "2010-06-28T20:35:59Z")
> [@Chipacabra](#): > > **Unvote Shadowfacts** > > Wasn’t a serious vote anyway, obviously. Actually, I do think I have an idea how to form suspicions in day 0, but it’s not a very good one. In particular, how do you tell the difference between someone that’s lurking because they’re scum laying low from someone that has a power role they’re trying to decide how to use, from someone that just has been too busy to post? > > I am going to laugh when people cluster up into ‘share info’ and ‘hoard info’ factions that have nothing to do with town/scum. > > And just so that I have an active vote in case I drop dead for a week: > **Vote tiltawhirl** \* > > Again, just prodding the not-yet-active. \*color removed I’m here, I’m here! Anyhoo, IMO it’s to town’s advantage if theories of game based on public information are freely shared and discussed. Scum begins with an advantage in that their information is held in common, while town’s information is either held by individuals or available to both town and scum. Increasing the amount of public information helps town catch up with scum. Of course, power players must be very circumspect as to choosing when to claim so as to maximize the information that they collect and the amount of informed play they can make. ---
**Author:** ![tiltawhirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e99b99/32.png) [@tiltawhirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiltawhirl)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/142 "2010-06-28T20:40:34Z")
> [@Chipacabra](#): > > The comment about dropping dead was a joke, really. > Is it really that off base to just poke around with random votes early in day 1 and see what shakes loose? There’s still lots of time for me to change when someone actually does do something suspicious. If I were doing this later in the day, I could understand your objection, but why do you think that, at this stage of the day, a random vote is scummier than no vote? A random vote now implies a random vote at end of Day and sets up a ‘that’s my arbitrary rule & I’m sticking to it’ vote which expressly avoids accountability. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/143 "2010-06-28T20:40:59Z")
Voting for someone just for the sake of voting? is that the ghost of **peekercpa** I see before me? 🙂 ---
**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:** [June 28, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/144 "2010-06-28T20:45:08Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > (bleached) > > Care to give more info about this? Because from where I sit, this is a horrible justification for a vote. Lets examine it closer: > > 1. You are voting for someone who is not participating (albeit, yet). > 2. You are doing this so that at some point if you cease participation you will still have a vote. > 3. You are placing a vote of zero accountability. So if/when your vote matters in a close lynch, you cannot possibly be blamed since you just placed your vote based on absence and then disappeared. > > How is this scummy/ What’s the scum motivation? Leaves you off the “Did not vote” list while making a vote of no accountability. > > Yeah, well, it’s still early in the day on day 1. But rubbish voting is rubbish voting, no matter what part of what day you do it on. > > **vote Chipacabra** Why did you snip the second reason stated for the vote? For the record, it was: [QUOTE=Chipacabra] Again, just prodding the not-yet-active. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Chipacabra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@Chipacabra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chipacabra)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/145 "2010-06-28T20:58:45Z")
**Unvote tiltawhirl** I don’t believe I ever said I was sticking to my rule. 😃 If someone does something that’s remotely suspicious, gameplan changes, to be sure. But right now, this early in the day, the only suspicious move is not to play! On that note, pedescribe, you haven’t actually said much of anything game related. Speak up, man! In any case, the last not-yet-active player seems to be Storyteller. **Vote Storyteller** I’ve been thinking some more of Rysto’s original point. In his example, a character saved by the doctor shared the fluff text. In that example, the scum knew who was targetted, and that the nightkill failed, but nothing else. So THOSE are the info points that the townie should share without even thinking about. The fluff text, however, may or may not have been something the scum saw. On the chance that it wasn’t, a scum false-claiming to be a doctor wouldn’t know what kind of fluff would be sent. By revealing the fluff, the townie gave up a possible shibboleth. As townies, we don’t get a whole lot of opportunities to trip up scum like that. Just be careful you don’t waste them, that’s all. If you come across something that scum might not know, think about how you can use it! ---
**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:** [June 28, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/146 "2010-06-28T21:11:08Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Why did you snip the second reason stated for the vote? For the record, it was: Not sure why it was omitted. Probably just an editing error. You’ll note that I did address that reason with my post. “1. You are voting for someone who is not participating (albeit, yet).” ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/147 "2010-06-28T21:14:31Z")
I don’t think that’s really what **Rysto** ’s example was. The doctor was, in fact, scum. No scum nightkill had been prevented. The fluff text was more or less bullshit designed to trick the town, and sharing it or not sharing it couldn’t _actually_ be used to trip up scum at all. What it could have done was trip up the town; it was a big red herring, after all. **Rysto** knew damn well which players were being protected, despite the fact that he was scum. If anything, revealing the fluff under those circumstances frustrated **Rysto** ’s ability to use the privileged information to hurt the town, since it became public information. Which is actually a really good demonstration of why general, abstracted rules about how to play are very difficult to use to any effectiveness. _Except for_ the critical fact that it was a scum doctor and not a town doctor that was giving the protection, X Y and Z could have been important. But you know, that wasn’t the case. Sometimes information, by design, is a misdirection. I’m not sure there’s a pre-game speech that can protect against that. ---
**Author:** ![Chipacabra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@Chipacabra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chipacabra)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/148 "2010-06-28T21:30:11Z")
Even using the same example with the scum doctor. If you keep the fluff secret, and scum doctor reveals as a doctor, then the townies aren’t actually any worse off! The scum doctor (That’s kind of fun to say. It’s my new band name) couldn’t have actually used the privileged information to hurt the town, since knowing that information just lets him do _what the town allowed him to do anyway by sharing the info_. Hiding the fluff wouldn’t have payed off in that example, but it wouldn’t actually have hurt the townies as far as I can see, and it COULD have helped. I guess I forgot to say earlier, since I had it in mind. These hidden bits of info can be used to trip up a scum, but they can’t be used to exonerate a townie. In a doctor example, if you hide the fluff and someone reveals as doctor and gives the CORRECT shibboleth, that’s not enough to exonerate them. As you say, it could have been a scum doctor, or a lucky guess, or leaked info. It’s when scum gives an INCORRECT code that hiding the info pays off, and if you give away the info too cheaply you lose even that chance. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/149 "2010-06-28T23:46:23Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Voting for someone just for the sake of voting? is that the ghost of **peekercpa** I see before me? 🙂 > [@Chipacabra](#): > > Unvote tiltawhirl > > Vote Storyteller I second Freudian here, an over eager vote, and then a vote for story? RoOsh : ToeJam :: Peeker : Tiltawhirl ? :eek: Peeker shouldn’t put me in the fetal position. But even so, you have me wondering. ---
**Author:** ![Chipacabra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@Chipacabra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chipacabra)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/150 "2010-06-29T00:26:15Z")
It’s better than voting for Story because he just had a win in Malazan, and it’s not fair to have two in a row. 😉 ---
**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:** [June 29, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/151 "2010-06-29T01:04:47Z")
And, now we get our first vote count. \*\*Vote Count: Storyteller(1): Chipacabra Chipacabra(1): Red Skeezix\*\* ---
**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:** [June 29, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/152 "2010-06-29T01:48:06Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Not sure why it was omitted. Probably just an editing error. You’ll note that I did address that reason with my post. > > “1. You are voting for someone who is not participating (albeit, yet).” Yeah, you did mention it, but you did it as part of a larger argument, which I think slightly misrepresented \*\*Chipacabra’s \*\*reasoning for the vote. The original post was, in its entirety: [QUOTE=Chipacabra] Unvote Shadowfacts Wasn’t a serious vote anyway, obviously. Actually, I do think I have an idea how to form suspicions in day 0, but it’s not a very good one. In particular, how do you tell the difference between someone that’s lurking because they’re scum laying low from someone that has a power role they’re trying to decide how to use, from someone that just has been too busy to post? I am going to laugh when people cluster up into ‘share info’ and ‘hoard info’ factions that have nothing to do with town/scum. \*\*And just so that I have an active vote in case I drop dead for a week: Vote tiltawhirl Again, just prodding the not-yet-active.\*\* [/QUOTE] I’ve bolded the most relevant part (IMO). There are clearly two reasons stated for the vote: 1. Having something in place in case he (?) does not return before end of day. 2. Prodding non-participators YOUR response post and vote clips the second reason and mostly ignores it in your analysis. As I acknowledged above, you include it in your list, but as part of a larger criticism that focuses on #1. If someone wasn’t reading carefully, they would have thought that \*\*Chipacabra \*\*only had one reason for the vote instead of two. This is compounded by your use of the singular “justification” in your vote post. The fact is that prodding people is a pretty good reason to vote for someone (particularly on day one). It has already produced results in this very game. It pinged me the way you seemed to ignore/downplay that aspect of his vote. Since this is the only (minutely, I admit) suspicious thing I’ve seen, I’ll put my money where my mouth is: **Vote Red Skeezix** ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/153 "2010-06-29T14:28:20Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Not sure why it was omitted. Probably just an editing error. You’ll note that I did address that reason with my post. > > “1. You are voting for someone who is not participating (albeit, yet).” > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Yeah, you did mention it, but you did it as part of a larger argument, which I think slightly misrepresented \*\*Chipacabra’s \*\*reasoning for the vote. The original post was, in its entirety: > I’ve bolded the most relevant part (IMO). There are clearly two reasons stated for the vote: > > 1. Having something in place in case he (?) does not return before end of day. > 2. Prodding non-participators > > YOUR response post and vote clips the second reason and mostly ignores it in your analysis. As I acknowledged above, you include it in your list, but as part of a larger criticism that focuses on #1. If someone wasn’t reading carefully, they would have thought that \*\*Chipacabra \*\*only had one reason for the vote instead of two. This is compounded by your use of the singular “justification” in your vote post. > > The fact is that prodding people is a pretty good reason to vote for someone (particularly on day one). It has already produced results in this very game. It pinged me the way you seemed to ignore/downplay that aspect of his vote. Since this is the only (minutely, I admit) suspicious thing I’ve seen, I’ll put my money where my mouth is: The entire “Editing Error” followed by the reasons shopping doesn’t sit too well with me either. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/154 "2010-06-29T14:28:23Z")
and just because i think another vote count is in order (because it may be a long time till the next one if i have any say in the process). \*\*story - 1 (chipacabra - 145) chipasomethingorother - 1 (red - 139) skeezy - 1 (shadow - 152) shadow - 0 (chip 114 [del]136[/del]) tilt - 0 (chippy - 136 [del]145)[/del]\*\* and if any of the above is incorrect please let **maha** know. i am merely the unpaid understudy and he is the nutcase that enlisted me. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/155 "2010-06-29T16:07:24Z")
I guess this is a good time to introduce our co-mod, peekercpa. His “role” is the troll from the first book. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/156 "2010-06-29T16:43:35Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > I guess this is a good time to introduce our co-mod, peekercpa. > > His “role” is the troll from the first book. 😉 [TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/38376505/1105396) ---
**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:** [June 29, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/157 "2010-06-29T17:20:08Z")
And, uh, Day One does end in about 47 hours, folks. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/158 "2010-06-29T17:48:21Z")
Jebus, does it really now. Hey **ShadowFacts** and those sympathetic to the cause: do you really think that was a material misrepresentation by **Skeezix**? It said right there in point #1 that the vote was intended to prod a non-participant, and nothing in the post served to dismiss the point or suggest that it wasn’t a reason for the vote, so I don’t understand the objection. I’m more inclined to say that **ShadowFacts** ’ saying that the post was snipped to take out the second reason is a misrepresentation of **Skeezix** than to say that **Skeezix** misrepresented **Chip**. And since that’s kind of the only thing going, let’s have it out. **Chip** said, in the entirety: > [@](#): > > Unvote Shadowfacts > > Wasn’t a serious vote anyway, obviously. Actually, I do think I have an idea how to form suspicions in day 0, but it’s not a very good one. In particular, how do you tell the difference between someone that’s lurking because they’re scum laying low from someone that has a power role they’re trying to decide how to use, from someone that just has been too busy to post? > > I am going to laugh when people cluster up into ‘share info’ and ‘hoard info’ factions that have nothing to do with town/scum. > > And just so that I have an active vote in case I drop dead for a week: > Vote tiltawhirl > > Again, just prodding the not-yet-active. **Skeezix** snipped _everything_ but the voting sentence; before and after. And characterized the reasons for **Chip** ’s vote as: > [@](#): > > 1. You are voting for someone who is not participating (albeit, yet). > 2. You are doing this so that at some point if you cease participation you will still have a vote. > 3. You are placing a vote of zero accountability. So if/when your vote matters in a close lynch, you cannot possibly be blamed since you just placed your vote based on absence and then disappeared. Then **ShadowFacts** says that this “snip(ped) the second reason stated for the vote,” and then later says it “mostly ignores it in your analysis.” It seems to me that this just isn’t what happened at all, and I can’t figure why it seems suspicious. It’s right there, number one! **Chip** said something, and voted. **Skeezix** quoted the vote, and responded to the thing **Chip** said while paraphrasing it accurately. Why is it in town’s interest to attack that behavior? If everybody quoted the entirety of everybody’s post, every post would look like this one, and nobody wants that. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/159 "2010-06-29T18:13:32Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > **Chip** said something, and voted. **Skeezix** quoted the vote, and responded to the thing **Chip** said while paraphrasing it accurately. Why is it in town’s interest to attack that behavior? If everybody quoted the entirety of everybody’s post, every post would look like this one, and nobody wants that. \*\* So are you saying that some mis-characterization of posts is allowable?\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429/160 "2010-06-29T18:22:48Z")
Are you… not being ironic? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-potter-mafia/544429.md?page=9)