# International Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 1, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553 "2010-12-01T16:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/161 "2010-12-09T03:06:31Z")
NETA: I meant to add “slightly.” It’s not like this is the scum tell of the century. P.S. Thanks for reading my whole big wall of thoughts! P.P.S. This seems to be a common misconception: I’m a he. You’re hardly the minority in thinking I’m a she, though! ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/162 "2010-12-09T03:34:41Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > Fair enough. As long as you agree that it’s equally fair for me to find it suspicious, _based on what I currently know._ So you have one of those magic bags? ™ Anyway, that’s fine, but again, this quote was made earlier by ShadowFacts. Bolding and underline is mine. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Sweet. Let’s get started! > > My first reaction upon seeing the sample role PMs that **sach** provided was that I would definitely start by voting for anyone traveling. Of the 3 roles, **Vanilla could not travel** , Dual Citizen could travel, and Scum could travel. Therefore, travelers have a higher percentage of being scum. Sadly for my theory, however, **sach** then clarified that the roles were samples only, and that not all Vanilla Town, Dual Citizen, or Scum roles need to be identical. So, it is possible that there are Vanillas who can travel, making travel currently a null tell. So it’s back to the usual Day One flailing about blindly/game mechanic speculation! This is wrong/false/mistaken/what-have-you…because I am vanilla yet I can travel. Hence why I decided to fully claim and make that clear. You’re welcome. 🙂 (for making it known Dual Citizens can be vanilla too) ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/163 "2010-12-09T03:35:43Z")
PS: EEP, you’re a he, I’m so sorry, haha, I have a huge problem with that. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/164 "2010-12-09T03:38:24Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > NAF, post 144 - Not feeling the slippery slope right now. It’s reasonable to be against a Day 1 mass claim because town knows literally nothing at the start. Day 2? Maybe okay. Day 3? Maybe okay. But I’m pretty sure a Day 1 mass claim will always be bad. I’m breathlessly waiting for somebody to explain to me why I’m wrong! I see where you are coming from. Firstly, I am not actually advocating a mass claim right now. Let’s get that out of the way. I’m not. Really. I don’t see any reason why it would be a good idea. What I am trying to do, is push against the default town reaction of wanting to keep everything close to the vest. I am not saying we should all start sharing everything, but I am hoping that this conversation will get people looking at the information that they do have and not maybe get them to consider not keeping it with them until it is too late to do us any good. You’ll also have to forgive me a bit because I just finished making almost the exact same argument in another game on another site and I might end up thinking I said some stuff that I haven’t said yet. So if I make a reference to something that doesn’t make any sense, let me know. I think I am keeping the games straight, but you never really know. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/165 "2010-12-09T05:04:51Z")
After getting caught up on the Day, I am being pinged a bit by Baffle and Astral Rejection. Primarily, Baffle’s claim that his suspicion of Pleo was neutral. He did say he was suspicious and I don’t really consider that neutral. I feel he seems to be attempting to change how he is presenting himself. Astral Rejection finding Wolverine scummy for his suggestion pings me also. While someone (Pleo?) has pointed out possible scum motivation for the plan Wolverine suggested, it just seems obvious to me that a scum player would not make that suggestion. (Yes, I realize that the logical end to this thinking would let scum get by by doing deliberately stupid things, but in reality it doesn’t happen. Scum can’t seem to help not wanting attention drawn to themselves.) It seems Astral is looking for an easy reason to have a vote on someone. This is mitigated by the fact that he didn’t actually vote for Wolverine and voted for Pleo. While I am neutral on Pleo at the moment, I do find his vote on Pleo a bit better justified (obviously not enough to convince me though). I have been thinking about the travel mechanism. I think it would be logical for us to be suspicious of anyone who is travelling, especially if they have not claimed some need to beforehand. I got to thinking that since we will be suspicious of travellers, we will likely try to arrest them and likely force our power roles that needed to travel to claim. When I got to thinking about power roles, I realized the scum are going to be suspicious of travellers also and likely target them for nightkills. So, I think that vanilla town players should remember that it is their job to get nightkilled. It would be a good idea if every night we had a couple of vanilla travellers to draw some of the heat. I think if you are vanilla and can travel, you should travel occasionally. I don’t know how often would be best or how to decide when (maybe something random). Obviously, we don’t want everyone who can travelling every chance they get, but I do think some non-necessary travel would be good. Maybe I am wrong and we would be better off with as few people travelling as possible to pick the scum out of them easier. Anyway, I would like to hear what other people think. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/166 "2010-12-09T05:39:21Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > So you have one of those magic bags? ™ This is one of those things that made sense in my head, but probably didn’t come out as clearly in text form. I meant based on what I currently know, which is nothing. I don’t know if you’re telling the truth or not, so it’s fair for me to find it suspicious. Sorry for the confusion! > [@MentalGuy](#): > > Astral Rejection finding Wolverine scummy for his suggestion pings me also. > > [Snipped by Astral - not relevant] > > Scum can’t seem to help not wanting attention drawn to themselves.) It seems Astral is looking for an easy reason to have a vote on someone. This is mitigated by the fact that he didn’t actually vote for Wolverine and voted for Pleo. While I am neutral on Pleo at the moment, I do find his vote on Pleo a bit better justified (obviously not enough to convince me though). My only question to you is, what pro-town benefit do you see for voting for someone who hasn’t had a chance to play yet, who can’t talk to defend themselves, that we can’t imprison until they come over here, which won’t take effect if they’re incapable of coming over here, and removes town’s one proven, unstoppable way of earning information? ---
**Author:** ![Rin\_Twisted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/82dd89/32.png) [@Rin\_Twisted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rin_Twisted)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/167 "2010-12-09T06:05:30Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > While someone (Pleo?) has pointed out possible scum motivation for the plan Wolverine suggested, it just seems obvious to me that a scum player would not make that suggestion. (Yes, I realize that the logical end to this thinking would let scum get by by doing deliberately stupid things, but in reality it doesn’t happen. Scum can’t seem to help not wanting attention drawn to themselves.) I think this is classic WIFOM. Are you basically saying that Wolverine’s suggestion was soooo scummy that there’s no way he could be scum? When I read the post in question, it pinged my radar as off, and a comment worth exploring. I don’t want to dismiss it because there’s just no _way_ a scum player would say something so scummy. ---
**Author:** ![Rin\_Twisted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/82dd89/32.png) [@Rin\_Twisted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rin_Twisted)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/168 "2010-12-09T06:14:20Z")
Okay, I just went back through Astral Rejection’s summation post a second time. I’m not feeling the Pleonast vote. It was a bit of a bold move, but I completely get why he and Idle made claims. I absolutely wonder why the hell they started the game in transit, and would have wanted answers. So, unless you don’t believe his claim, I see no reason to think this is scummy. For that matter, you don’t call Idle out about doing the same thing, so why Pleo? His pursuit of Baffle seems a little like a pressure vote to me, which I also have no problems with. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/169 "2010-12-09T06:23:54Z")
Something I just noticed: Pleonast’s and Idle’s role PMs don’t quite match. Even though it’s a relatively minor discrepancy, I thought I should point it out. Towards the middle, Pleonast’s role has a tiny bit of color that reads: “Ah, New Zealand! Land of Sheep,” while Idle’s role has no such color. Easy enough to explain away (one possibility – maybe Sach didn’t bother doing color for everyone) but still something I thought I should bring up. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/170 "2010-12-09T06:35:04Z")
NETA: @Rin, sorry, didn’t see you had posted. To be totally honest, I think I’m best served by playing skeptically. Otherwise I might miss something that I felt just a little off about but couldn’t develop a case around. We all know little things like that can add up. Not saying I’m always right about these things, but votes are cheap, and a lot of the stuff surrounding Pleonast seemed slightly scummy to me. I do have to correct you on a few points though. First, you claim that I didn’t call Idle out on doing the same thing. You’d be wrong. My second and fourth thoughts within the spoiler box are about Idle. I’ll repost them for you. > [@Astral Rejection](#): > > Idle, post 85 - early claim makes me trust him less. > [@Astral Rejection](#): > > Idle, post 89 - And now there’s a full claim. Not digging it. Second, my reasons for voting for Pleonast are weak, it’s true. But to answer your question, I don’t automatically trust his claim. Why should I? Why should I automatically believe _anyone_ in this game? I hope that addresses your points. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/171 "2010-12-09T06:40:08Z")
Sorry to post so much, but I have a very important note: I did not think through the ramifications of noting that Idle and Pleo’s roles don’t match. Obviously it doesn’t matter for them, but it matters a great deal for everyone else. If you are a power role and you have color in your role PM (which I suspect is the case), don’t speak up. If you are vanilla and you don’t have color (which I also suspect is the case), don’t speak up. Even offering a “my role PM has color” or “my role PM does not have color” gives plenty of information to the scum. ---
**Author:** ![Baffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dec6dc/32.png) [@Baffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baffle)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/172 "2010-12-09T07:35:51Z")
MentalGuy (post 165): simply because one piece of speculation is neutral, does not mean I have negated my suspicions of scumminess towards that player. Also, we now have a bunch of ‘don’t travel without a reason’ and MentalGuy now saying ‘travel to confuse scum.’ I think it is a lot more likely to confuse town – and give scum more cover to amass in one location. I suggest limiting travel as much as possible – even to the point of making this effectvely two mafia games in the same thread. Only the scum will know if they are successfully concentrating in one place, so it’s our job to make it as difficult as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Baffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dec6dc/32.png) [@Baffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baffle)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/173 "2010-12-09T07:52:08Z")
Also, I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned the possibility that there are scum who can’t travel. Seeing as it’s the ‘international’ crime ring they could logically forge passports or some such, but that’s just based on colour and I don’t know to what extent the gameplay is based on the colour. Even if there are one non-travelling scum in each city, and assuming there are five scum which makes sense based on number of players, scum could amass four of theirs against ten of ours in Wellington, become the majority after a single day, and leave their one scum in London to NK claimed travellers until he gets lynched (unlikely if he’s one of twelve). Within a couple of days the game could be over. No travelling, and no claiming of travel abilities. ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/174 "2010-12-09T09:56:23Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Underlining added for emphasis–there’s your problem. It’s not free information. In a mass claim, everyone provides information. Scum either have to provide truthful information (which could eventually be used against them), or they have to lie (which might be uncovered at some point). In either case, once they’ve made a public claim, it restricts their future actions, claims, lies, etc. Alright, “free information” was not the right wording in this case since, you’re right, Scum will be sharing information, namely if they can travel or not, but I don’t see how this would benefit us. We have no reasons to believe they need to lie about their traveling capabilities, which means they could tell us the truth and we wouldn’t be closer to find them. So again, they might gain more by knowing which of us can travel, because they can design their strategy around it (Kill our travelers first). > [@Pleonast](#): > > Mass claims pose a substantial risk to scum. Please do not disregard that. I don’t - And I am perfectly aware that mass claiming, at the right time, can be very effective, but we’re not there yet. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Scum can only kill players at the same location. If they all go to Wellington, they can’t kill us here and we can put out warrants so that when they do show up here, they’re arrested on the spot. Sounds like a great way for town to win. 😃 Of course scum can only kill players at the same location, but I was thinking something along the lines of -4 Townies in London (who cannot travel) -4 Townies and 4 Scum in Wellington. The townies in London would be useless, and the scum would win if they control Wellington because the final result would be 4 Townies vs 4 Scums, which is a win scenario for them, no matter where the players are located, at least that is how I understand the wincons: > [@sachertorte](#): > > Win Conditions > The International Crime Ring (ICR) win if they manage to equal or out number Town players. > Town Players win when all ICR have been gaoled. > A Stalemate is also a possible outcome. Again, I don’t know if this scenario is achievable or not - Can they all travel? Can they do so without attracting suspicion? Very unclear, but I think this scenario, stupid or not, shows that we shouldn’t underestimate the value of keeping our travel abilities hidden, at least until we have a better reason to reveal them. > [@Pleonast](#): > > That brings up an interesting possibility–there might be many ways for this game to stalemate if the factions are in different venues and either cannot or will not go to the other. I don’t see many stalemate scenarios actually, only one: More townies left than scum, with each side owning a city. In this case, a draw would occur only if the Town cannot travel _en masse_, to lynch a scum upon arrival, which again shows how important traveling can be. ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/175 "2010-12-09T10:16:55Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > How so? As soon as anyone travels, we’ll know about it, and can demand reasons. > > What an immediate travel-reveal means for the scum is that they can’t save the decision whether or not to lie until a later date, with the trade-off that they know for certain which townies can and cannot travel. In other words, the reveal guarantees the scum a concrete benefit now, in exchange for cutting off a possible benefit in the future. > > Is that a good deal for the town? At this stage, it’s impossible to say. But the decision not to reveal can be reversed at any time, whereas the decision to reveal is permanent. Absent the expectation that it will help us catch scum today, I’m inclined to err on the side of caution. > > At the least, I think we ought to allow the players who cannot yet speak to give their own opinions before taking the decision to reveal. It could be that one of them has a knock-out argument for or against the proposition. Hey, I like how you think. It is indeed true that we can question anyone who travels, and not stating a good reason for doing so could end up with a warrant. Thus Town players who have no reason to travel can keep silent about it, and travel only when the situation will demand it. And again, we don’t know if the scum needs to lie about their abilities: 1. Does a scum able to travel have a reason to hide it? Yes, maybe. Not sure why they would do so. 2. Does a scum unable to travel have a reason to say he can? I doubt it, a travel request would catch them red handed. The way things are going, it seems that having traveling abilities is not a defining factor toward someone being scum, so I think it makes sense for them to just say the truth. Bottom line would be that we can’t catch them in a lie, but they would know which ones of us can travel and plan accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/176 "2010-12-09T12:55:19Z")
> [@Rin\_Twisted](#): > > Okay, I just went back through Astral Rejection’s summation post a second time. I’m not feeling the Pleonast vote. It was a bit of a bold move, but I completely get why he and Idle made claims. I absolutely wonder why the hell they started the game in transit, and would have wanted answers. So, unless you don’t believe his claim, I see no reason to think this is scummy. For that matter, you don’t call Idle out about doing the same thing, so why Pleo? > > His pursuit of Baffle seems a little like a pressure vote to me, which I also have no problems with. **Pleonast** isn’t starting the game in transit. You’re confusing **Pleonast** with **Plankton**. Pleonast just claimed out of the blue, not because he’s traveling (he’s not traveling right now). ---
**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:** [December 9, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/177 "2010-12-09T18:44:35Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > At the least, I think we ought to allow the players who cannot yet speak to give their own opinions before taking the decision to reveal. It could be that one of them has a knock-out argument for or against the proposition. The part of the post I elided is a good summary of our differences in play philosophy. We’ll simply have to disagree on that. But the paragraph I quoted here is anti-town. We can’t let the actions of those of us here to be stalled because we want input from the other venue. We need to make our decisions here and they need to make their decisions there. There’s too much time delay to wait for a global consensus. > [@Baffle](#): > > More confident? Or completely confident? Your last statement here implies you’re now certain I am scum. Or are you just trying to make it look that way so your argument appears more valid? > > I’ve only played a handful of games, but many times I’ve seen a person slander another player by appearing certain of that target’s scumminess. It’s an example of picking a target and then building a case, rather than looking for evidence first, and it’s the kind of behaviour helps scum a lot more than it helps town. So, after smudging me, you’re complaining that I’ve attacked you back? Do you want to address the issues instead? 1. You smudged me by stating I was suspicious for advocating a mass travel claim, instead of only arguing the merits of the idea. 2. You later tried to spin your smudge as a neutral statement. Both of those are things scum do. The first, by imputing scummy motive for discussing an idea instead of sticking to the topic, scum try to derail useful discussion into personal accusations. The second, scum often try to backpedal on their statements to resist attacks. I think I now add a third: 3. Avoiding my complaints against you and instead attack me for daring to point out your suspicious statements. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > Pleo, post 87 - Why the full claim? > > Pleonast, post 128 - Not feeling the vote on Baffle for the smudge, but on Day 1 it’s as reasonable as most other votes. Can’t decide if I feel this should be slight scum or net neutral, so I’ll pick net neutral for now. Agreed about lurkers; with fewer players, it’s an even worse sin. Not sure if I agree with you about mass claims neither helping nor hurting, because we have no idea if this is a balanced game. As far as I know, a game of these type hasn’t been attempted on these boards before. > > Pleonast, post 132 - “I am advocating a mass claim.” Did you? I don’t remember you directly advocating one prior to this post, and asking “Perhaps?” doesn’t equate with advocating something. That would make Baffle’s posts NOT smudges. > > Pleonast, post 139 - Again, you’re forgetting that this might not be a balanced game. We don’t know yet. There’s lots we don’t know yet. If it’s net neutral in a balanced game, and helps scum in an unbalanced game, why on earth do we want to do it on DAY 1? > > Pleonast, just in general (but also post 153) - I’m not okay with how you’re rebutting Baffle. So what if he implied you were less than forthright with your role claim? Why should he just take your word for it? Questioning you, and coming up with possible alternatives, is the whole game. Definite scum tell. By the way, I can explain why the scenario is bad. They can travel, but SO CAN TOWN. We don’t know which is which. There are likely scum already there. If a few other scum travel, along with a few townies, we’re just as likely to lynch town as scum. You’re mistakenly assuming that if they travel, we’ll magically know who all the scum are, even the ones that didn’t travel. Sure, that’s an exaggeration, but I’m not with you on your reasoning. > > Based on what I’ve currently read, I’m feeling that Pleonast and Wolverine are the two standouts. For now, I’m gonna **Vote Pleonast.** Wolverine’s post definitely bothers me, but Pleo beats him on volume of posts that bother me. I fully admit I could be falling into a ‘Lynch the loud’ bias, and it’s something I’m going to keep in mind. For my full claim: please read the post I claimed in. I did describe why. **Baffle** smudged me by calling me suspicious for suggesting/advocating/discussing (or whatever, I’m not making a distinction among them) my opinions on a mass travel claim. Up to that point, players were discussing the merits of the idea. He wasn’t simply questioning my claim, he was backhandedly throwing suspicion on me for supporting my position. And then he tried to spin his smudge as a “neutral” remark. We have to play with the assumption that the game is balanced. If it’s not, anything we do or don’t do could break the game against us. I still don’t see the problem with most of the scum all going to the same location. It only looks helpful to me. Look at it this way: say locations have 3 scum out of 12 players and 2 scum out of 11 initially. Then it becomes 1 of 10 and 4 out of 13. At the 1/10 venue, scum has almost no influence on the vote. It’s simply a matter of time until we arrest him and then that venue has no more Night deaths. The other location has 4 out of 13. That gives them more influence in the vote, but there’s a higher chance to arrest scum if it were purely random. But it’s not random; if scum start coordinating their votes, they will be discovered. And those of us at the first location are still watching and can arrest anyone suspicious who travels. Can anyone outline scenario of scum concentrating that doesn’t help town in the long run? > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > Even offering a “my role PM has color” or “my role PM does not have color” gives plenty of information to the scum. And it gives plenty of information to town. This is the type of “no risk at any level should be tolerated” game philosophy that straightjackets play. Why do you favor denying scum information over providing town information? There’s more town than scum, so there’s more town players to take advantage of any information than scum players. > [@Baffle](#): > > Even if there are one non-travelling scum in each city, and assuming there are five scum which makes sense based on number of players, scum could amass four of theirs against ten of ours in Wellington, become the majority after a single day, and leave their one scum in London to NK claimed travellers until he gets lynched (unlikely if he’s one of twelve). Within a couple of days the game could be over. I think you’re discounting town figuring out who scum are if they did anything so coordinated. ---
**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:** [December 9, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/178 "2010-12-09T20:05:04Z")
When people came out guns-a-blazing in this game suggesting that they’d lynch all travelers, I got the feeling that Scum would likely not travel unless it was wholly necessary. I know that if I were Scum with the ability to travel, I wouldn’t necessarily want to draw attention to myself. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this game, and I’m off the hard drugs now so I know it’s just me now. Upon reading, the only things that really jump out at me are **Baffle** ’s odd treatment of **Pleonast** –not so much the initial smudge as the backpedaling afterwards–and **Rin Twisted** somehow confusing **Suburban Plankton** and **Pleonast** , thinking that the latter had claimed because he started in transit, when really it was the former who started in transit and who hadn’t claimed at all. I’m not sure why that rubs me the wrong way, other than maybe it’s evidence of skimming, but it did. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/179 "2010-12-09T21:02:08Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > **Baffle** smudged me by calling me suspicious for suggesting/advocating/discussing (or whatever, I’m not making a distinction among them) my opinions on a mass travel claim. Up to that point, players were discussing the merits of the idea. He wasn’t simply questioning my claim, he was backhandedly throwing suspicion on me for supporting my position. And then he tried to spin his smudge as a “neutral” remark. Okay. I see your position. When I first read through the conversation, I was already suspicious of the early claim. I’m gonna move this back to net neutral for now. > [@](#): > > We have to play with the assumption that the game is balanced. If it’s not, anything we do or don’t do could break the game against us. What I don’t get is why anyone would want to do this, when best-case scenario it’s a neutral event for town (equally helpful to town and scum) and anything less than best-case is pro-scum. Yes, we should hope that the game is balanced, but we _don’t know if it is,_ and this seems like a marginal play **at this time**. At least, that’s my feeling on it. > [@](#): > > I still don’t see the problem with most of the scum all going to the same location. It only looks helpful to me. Look at it this way: say locations have 3 scum out of 12 players and 2 scum out of 11 initially. Then it becomes 1 of 10 and 4 out of 13. At the 1/10 venue, scum has almost no influence on the vote. It’s simply a matter of time until we arrest him and then that venue has no more Night deaths. > > The other location has 4 out of 13. That gives them more influence in the vote, but there’s a higher chance to arrest scum if it were purely random. But it’s not random; if scum start coordinating their votes, they will be discovered. And those of us at the first location are still watching and can arrest anyone suspicious who travels. > > Can anyone outline scenario of scum concentrating that doesn’t help town in the long run? Currently, it would be pro-town for scum to concentrate. Maybe. If things are exactly as you say. But we don’t know how many can travel. What if NO scum could travel? What if only two could out of [my estimate] 4-6? It’s just something to keep in mind. I’m not opposed to discussing this stuff, but we just don’t have any facts yet. > [@](#): > > And it gives plenty of information to town. This is the type of “no risk at any level should be tolerated” game philosophy that straightjackets play. Why do you favor denying scum information over providing town information? There’s more town than scum, so there’s more town players to take advantage of any information than scum players. I was less than clear. **At this current time** I feel it would be bad play for town to offer information out. Perhaps after more discussion, it might be a worthwhile play. However, I wanted my fears to be out in the open before anybody just jumped into the conversation. I’m not opposed to risk; what I oppose is a blind Day 1 information dump. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/180 "2010-12-09T21:04:40Z")
NETA: **Unvote Pleonast.** I want to re-read the conversation between him and Baffle. I’m less convinced due to Pleo’s current rebuttal, but I want to look it over myself later and pick a (potentially) new vote target. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553.md?page=10)