# Lord of the Rings Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [August 10, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867 "2010-08-10T19:56:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/701 "2010-08-16T22:29:30Z")
> [@](#): > > One of the reasons that players have brought up against name claiming is that scum might be searching for specific roles. I think that criticism applies equally well to this claim. For example, how would someone with the “Boromir” role claim? Is he canonically a good guy or a bad guy? I can see arguments on both sides by Tolkien scholars. There’s no easy answer. For purposes of an alignment-claim, I would recommend that we consider Boromir, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Radagast, Tom Bombadil, and Denethor (if any of those are in the game) as all Town, and Saruman, Gollum, and Old Man Willow as all non-Town. Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that Lurtz showed up in the books, too, and just got emphasized more in the movie. > [@](#): > > @Chronos, I forget if you mentioned it, but was this information given to you in your role PM or by another means? I seem to think you’ve implied it was part of your role PM, but I want to be clear that it isn’t perhaps a Day action of another player that resulted in you getting this information. It was in my role PM. I have not received any other communication from **Mahaloth**. ---
**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:** [August 16, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/702 "2010-08-16T22:32:58Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > > [@Pleonast](#): > > > > Furthermore, if we’re going to go the route of making claims based on our names, I think it would be better simply to do name claim. What argument can be made for consistency claim that doesn’t also support a name claim? At least with a name claim, we force scum to take risks. A name consistency claim places no risks on scum. > > We add the risk of identifying specific roles to Scum and/or 3rd party who might need to know who is which role, not just that they align. > We’ve been through that Yes, I know, while also putting risk on scum. One can argue for or against it based on tolerance risk. There is a trade off. A consistency claim removes all risk from scum (it’s trivially easy to claim yes), while not removing the risk from town (by singling out certain townies). There is no trade off and it does not favor town. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/703 "2010-08-16T22:35:27Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I find it very interesting that players are going forward with stating “my alignment is consistent with my role name” when it feels like we’ve had very little discussion about it. > > One of the reasons that players have brought up against name claiming is that scum might be searching for specific roles. I think that criticism applies equally well to this claim. For example, how would someone with the “Boromir” role claim? Is he canonically a good guy or a bad guy? I can see arguments on both sides by Tolkien scholars. There’s no easy answer. > > Most players will be able to truthfully state “my alignment is consistent with my role name”. Unfortunately, it’s quite possible that the roles scum are looking for are borderline roles or roles that are not consistent. We will basically be outing them with this sort of claim. > > While I’m undecided on the issue of name claiming, consistency claiming looks like a loser to me. What is the upside? and this is really fascinating to me. i mean no shit. what i remember from canon is that boromir was really working hard to defeat sauron. his methods may not have been, in hindsight, the best but he was working hard to get rid of a threat. and in the end he just gets it in the shorts protecting the ring bearer. and crap even at the end gollum (who i would characterize as bad or third party) ended up being the one that saved the durn day. course it cost frodo a finger, but what the hey. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/704 "2010-08-16T22:36:36Z")
As for giving extra information to the Scum, they might not worry about killing the “wrong” person (usually, at least: That was something we had to be careful of in Screamers), but some kills are still better than others for them. If I were a Scum and given the option of killing Frodo or some other random character, I’d definitely want to choose Frodo. I don’t know what exactly killing Frodo would accomplish, but I’m pretty sure it’d be bad for Town. Likewise Gandalf, and if I knew who both Frodo and Gandalf were, then I’d be killing one and doing whatever I could to hamper the other (roleblocking, say, if one of the Scum has that power). If, as Town, we can leave open the possibility of the Scum killing Fatty Bolger or someone instead of Frodo or Gandalf, that’s a good thing for us. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/705 "2010-08-16T22:39:56Z")
and **chronos** at the risk of cluttering the thread who in the world is lurtz? ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/706 "2010-08-16T22:45:29Z")
and now we go down the slippery path. what if gandalf were to be killed by a balrog? then he comes back stonger, right? and i was not involved in the set up in this game but would that not be a potential based on canon? i can see **maha** , **story** and **sach** laughing their asses off at this point. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/707 "2010-08-16T22:56:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I think it’s a bad idea, too, but it’s a terrible mistake to punish people just for coming up with ideas. Yeah, sometimes an idea will turn out to be bad, and when that happens, we need to realize that it’s bad and reject it. But sometimes an idea will be good, too. And sometimes, even, an idea that looks bad at first blush will turn out to be good, or vice-versa. Nor will the player who comes up with an idea in the first place always realize all the implications of it. So, when someone has an idea, they should share it, and let the rest of us discuss it. back into the breach. so sometimes someone comes up with an idea that is bad? and we should discuss it? and if turns out that the idea was bad (i am assuming that equates to bad for town) then we just dismiss it, right? but i thought bad for town equals scum based on earlier posts. why shouldn’t we just nail them at that point since that is an indicator of being scum? ---
**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:** [August 16, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/708 "2010-08-16T23:05:56Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > > > I found Chronos’ case against USCDiver compelling, so I voted for USCDiver. Let me repost it here:[…] > > When I read it, I paid most attention to the paragraph starting with “The scenario I’m seeing.” I missed the part asking folks to verify his 4 Ds. So later, I went back to check out the post in question (I can’t just blindly trust Chronos, after all) and saw that USCDiver did, in fact, make an effort to add to the handshaking business. Bam, unvote, although it still seems sketchy to me. > > /snip > > This doesn’t answer my question, if you were happy to assume **USC** was scum with access to a false PM when you made your vote, how does the fact that he made an effort to add to the handshaking (which a scum with a false PM could easily have done) 300 posts earlier make him worth an unvote? What made you go back and check out the post in question after you’d placed your vote?/snip & bleach > > Previously you’d stated: > > > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > > > I’m currently voting for Pleo for **a number of reasons**. His claim is one part of it. I find his suggestion that the fellowship claim terrible too. He can dismiss his statements with two quick sentences at the end saying he can see a downside for it, but he put a lot of effort into that post. That indicates to me that he was hoping somebody would take it seriously and consider it. And that has scum written all over it. > > /snip & bold > > What happened to your other reasons for voting **Pleo**? His claim is one reason. His suggestion that the fellowship claim is another. That’s a number of reasons right there. I also didn’t think his snarky comments about other posters earlier in the thread helped the town, but I didn’t feel that that warranted mentioning. On day 1, I don’t really have much else to go for. My evidence against Chronos when I was questioning him was arguably just as flimsy, but nobody had an issue with that. As for USCDiver, I was content with my reading of Chronos’ case. But I missed a vital piece of information in my reading of it, which, in review, made him seem more town to me. I’m getting crucified here for changing my mind **three days before the day ends** , and I have to wonder if some of the people questioning me aren’t trying to cement me as an early lynch candidate. Yes, if scum had access to a PM, they’d be willing to offer up more info to help their case. _But we’re assuming they have access to a PM._ We have only circumstantial evidence that that’s the case. If he had said “I agree with all of them” and offered nothing more, as I first thought Chronos was saying, my vote would still be on him. But that’s not the case. I went and checked, and I’m no longer so convinced. He made a good faith effort to add information, information that could possibly be used against him if he was scum. This doesn’t mean he’s town, but my suspicious eye was content to move elsewhere for the time being. ---
**Author:** ![Telcontar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Telcontar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telcontar)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/709 "2010-08-16T23:55:21Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I find it very interesting that players are going forward with stating “my alignment is consistent with my role name” when it feels like we’ve had very little discussion about it. > > One of the reasons that players have brought up against name claiming is that scum might be searching for specific roles. I think that criticism applies equally well to this claim. For example, how would someone with the “Boromir” role claim? Is he canonically a good guy or a bad guy? I can see arguments on both sides by Tolkien scholars. There’s no easy answer. > > Most players will be able to truthfully state “my alignment is consistent with my role name”. Unfortunately, it’s quite possible that the roles scum are looking for are borderline roles or roles that are not consistent. We will basically be outing them with this sort of claim. > > While I’m undecided on the issue of name claiming, consistency claiming looks like a loser to me. What is the upside? > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Pleonast came in with his last post as I was composing one asking the same basic question: > > How is this “role consistency” question supposed to be helpful? I really can’t imagine anyone admitting that their role is not consistent with canon, because doing so seems contrary to long-term survival (whether by Town, Scum, or Other Parties). So after everyone announces that their role names are consistent, what are we supposed to do with that information? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I got the name/alignment congruence idea from lost mafia. It poses no risk to town and provides town information that is currently only available to scum (who know multiple characters names). We’ll probably find out by Day 3 the general shape of the canon in this game (most likely 4 dead), but this gives us a good idea today. Oh, someone remind me to reread Gadarene Tomorrow. I continue to be happy with my vote, but I had an early ping there I want to visit in the next game day. ---
**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:** [August 17, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/710 "2010-08-17T00:05:40Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > so sometimes someone comes up with an idea that is bad? and we should discuss it? and if turns out that the idea was bad (i am assuming that equates to bad for town) then we just dismiss it, right? > > but i thought bad for town equals scum based on earlier posts. why shouldn’t we just nail them at that point since that is an indicator of being scum? To repeat for **peeker** and others who do not read for comprehension: suggesting ideas (even bad ideas) is pro-town. Discussing ideas (even bad ideas) is pro-town. Actually doing bad ideas is anti-town. > [@Telcontar](#): > > Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I got the name/alignment congruence idea from lost mafia. It poses no risk to town and provides town information that is currently only available to scum (who know multiple characters names). If you think it poses no risk for town are you suggesting that no townie has an incongruent name/alignment? Or, are you suggesting there is no risk of lynching and no risk of being preferentially killed by non-town for any townie whose name and alignment are incongruent? ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/711 "2010-08-17T00:15:42Z")
> [@Telcontar](#): > Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I got the name/alignment congruence idea from lost mafia. It poses no risk to town and provides town information that is currently only available to scum (who know multiple characters names). We’ll probably find out by Day 3 the general shape of the canon in this game (most likely 4 dead), but this gives us a good idea today. [/QUOTE] \ this post bothers me tremendously. i understand that i will have now pissed off a significant number of folks in this game but … i did not play in lost so take that as you will. but even if i had i would no more being making a conclusion about scum knowledge as it relates to this game. certainly if this in fact a metagame observation then i would understand, but it doesn’t read that way to me. and the fact that you are predicting deaths on Day 1 for Day 3 makes me highly nervous. but shoot i am always like that so take it with a grain of salt. ---
**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 17, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/712 "2010-08-17T00:49:29Z")
I was thinking about \*\*Chronos \*\*and his information, and I came up with the following: He says that he’s confident that he can tell whether or not the person has a power from the name they are given. That would mean the person is someone like Gandalf or Aragorn (power), or Odo Proudfoot or Barliman Butterbur (no power), rather than, say, Gimli or Merry (could go either way). But what makes Chronos think he can tell this from the name? I’m guessing that Chronos has a ‘powerful’ identity, and that he’s extrapolating that to the rest of the game. So what does this tell us? I take it as evidence that the roles in this game do align with the canon, and that the ‘powerful’ characters are more likely to have powers in game (something that I already assumed without having any evidence whatsoever). Whether or not there is any other value to this, I don’t know. Chronos says that he will reveal the name before the end of the Day, unless he has a pressing reason not to. I’ve stated before that I don’t think he should reveal anything at this point. So, let’s see if I have a reason for him to keep silent. First, let’s assume that the character in question is a ‘non-power’ character. It’s some Hobbit from Bilbo’s party, or some minor character from the Council of Rivendell. If Chronos reveals the name, confirming the existence of ‘minor’ characters, it gives non-Town a much larger pool of names to choose from in creating cover identities. That could make it more difficult to sniff out Scum. If, on the other hand, he reveals the existence of a ‘power’ character, what does that tell us? It’s not going to surprise anyone to learn that ‘Elrond’ is in fact a character in this game. But what might do is help the Scum to locate Elrond. Since Chronos knows who Elrond is, everything he does will be examined to try to find a clue as to Elrond’s identity. Chronos will have to be very careful who he defends, for example, or he might inadvertently give something away. I don’t know how big a risk it is, but the risk is non-zero. The benefit to Chronos ability seems to be that he can prevent a mis-lynch by revealing his information (both role and player). But the value of his ability is diminished by the fact that it is no longer secret. It is advantageous for the Scum to eliminate him before he is able to name the player, so the Town has one less confirmed Townie. But what is the risk/reward if Chronos is killed before he reveals the role only? (Yes, I am assuming that Chronos will be taken out of the game early, though that is by no means certain). If Chronos stays silent, then the reward is to the Scum, because he takes his knowledge with him to the grave. The Town is left not knowing for certain whether or not Elrond (or possibly Barliman Butterbur) is actually in the game, and more importantly without the possibility of Chronos confirming a Townie. The big payoff to the Town comes when Chronos reveals the name \*\*\*and \*\*\*the associated player, but only under the correct circumstances (to avoid a mis-lynch, or perhaps several Days down the line when adding a confirmed Townie might tip the balance of the game). Of course, revealing both at this point is out of the question. I don’t think there is any compelling reason for Chronos to reveal the name at this point, and there is some risk, though I will admit it is slight. Whether or not that counts as a compelling reason for him not to, I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/713 "2010-08-17T00:56:37Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > If, on the other hand, he reveals the existence of a ‘power’ character, what does that tell us? It’s not going to surprise anyone to learn that ‘Elrond’ is in fact a character in this game. But what might do is help the Scum to locate Elrond. Since Chronos knows who Elrond is, everything he does will be examined to try to find a clue as to Elrond’s identity. Chronos will have to be very careful who he defends, for example, or he might inadvertently give something away. I don’t know how big a risk it is, but the risk is non-zero. I think this is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/714 "2010-08-17T00:57:15Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > > [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > > > What happened to your other reasons for voting **Pleo**? > > His claim is one reason. His suggestion that the fellowship claim is another. That’s a number of reasons right there. I also didn’t think his snarky comments about other posters earlier in the thread helped the town, but I didn’t feel that that warranted mentioning. On day 1, I don’t really have much else to go for. My evidence against Chronos when I was questioning him was arguably just as flimsy, but nobody had an issue with that. I don’t think he was asking for a repeat of your other reasons. Guiri wanted to know why you unvoted Pleo based on the arguments he (i.e. Pleo) and I gave against one of your reasons, that being that you didn’t like Pleo’s idea. You had other reasons you found Pleo suspicious, so what was it about the one we specifically countered that made you change your vote. It’s a good question from Guiri, and I’d like to know the answer as well. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/715 "2010-08-17T01:00:16Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > > > If, on the other hand, he reveals the existence of a ‘power’ character, what does that tell us? It’s not going to surprise anyone to learn that ‘Elrond’ is in fact a character in this game. But what might do is help the Scum to locate Elrond. Since Chronos knows who Elrond is, everything he does will be examined to try to find a clue as to Elrond’s identity. Chronos will have to be very careful who he defends, for example, or he might inadvertently give something away. I don’t know how big a risk it is, but the risk is non-zero. > > I think this is ridiculous. You’re not the only one who thinks that way. ---
**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:** [August 17, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/716 "2010-08-17T01:01:15Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > > > Oh, FTLOG.\* Someone uses a silly acronym you don’t like and you call it a slip? It was a headscratcher for me too, but look at it this way…why would the Scum be referring to SAHM on the Scum board? Wouldn’t they just say…“we” or “us”? Pathetic all around. > > For the love of God. Please don’t say this one’s voteworthy too. > > You are misrepresenting my complaint. I have nothing against the acronym. What bothers me is that it was used without explanation. People generally explain new terms when they first use them. **MHaye** did not. I think that means he had already used it (and explained it) somewhere else. > > I see two possibilities. > > 1. **MHaye** used a acronym no else had used before without any kind of explanation. > 2. **MHaye** used a acronym which was in use in another thread. > > I think the second is much more likely and it’s a pretty clear slip. The only reason I’m not voting for him is because this moderator is only allowing us to vote for one player at a time (despite the fact that multi-voting is clearing a superior voting system 😃 ). You didn’t answer the main point I raised. Why would the Scum have any reason to say SAHM on their own board, rather than saying “we” or “us”? It seems odd for the Scum to use an acronym to refer to themselves on their own private board. If anything, I think the use of that acronym makes him more likely to be _Town_ rather than Scum. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/717 "2010-08-17T01:03:48Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I was thinking about \*\*Chronos \*\*and his information, and I came up with the following: > > He says that he’s confident that he can tell whether or not the person has a power from the name they are given. That would mean the person is someone like Gandalf or Aragorn (power), or Odo Proudfoot or Barliman Butterbur (no power), rather than, say, Gimli or Merry (could go either way). But what makes Chronos think he can tell this from the name? I’m guessing that Chronos has a ‘powerful’ identity, and that he’s extrapolating that to the rest of the game. > > So what does this tell us? I take it as evidence that the roles in this game do align with the canon, and that the ‘powerful’ characters are more likely to have powers in game (something that I already assumed without having any evidence whatsoever). Whether or not there is any other value to this, I don’t know. > > Chronos says that he will reveal the name before the end of the Day, unless he has a pressing reason not to. I’ve stated before that I don’t think he should reveal anything at this point. So, let’s see if I have a reason for him to keep silent. > > First, let’s assume that the character in question is a ‘non-power’ character. It’s some Hobbit from Bilbo’s party, or some minor character from the Council of Rivendell. If Chronos reveals the name, confirming the existence of ‘minor’ characters, it gives non-Town a much larger pool of names to choose from in creating cover identities. That could make it more difficult to sniff out Scum. > > If, on the other hand, he reveals the existence of a ‘power’ character, what does that tell us? It’s not going to surprise anyone to learn that ‘Elrond’ is in fact a character in this game. But what might do is help the Scum to locate Elrond. Since Chronos knows who Elrond is, everything he does will be examined to try to find a clue as to Elrond’s identity. Chronos will have to be very careful who he defends, for example, or he might inadvertently give something away. I don’t know how big a risk it is, but the risk is non-zero. > > The benefit to Chronos ability seems to be that he can prevent a mis-lynch by revealing his information (both role and player). But the value of his ability is diminished by the fact that it is no longer secret. It is advantageous for the Scum to eliminate him before he is able to name the player, so the Town has one less confirmed Townie. But what is the risk/reward if Chronos is killed before he reveals the role only? (Yes, I am assuming that Chronos will be taken out of the game early, though that is by no means certain). > > If Chronos stays silent, then the reward is to the Scum, because he takes his knowledge with him to the grave. The Town is left not knowing for certain whether or not Elrond (or possibly Barliman Butterbur) is actually in the game, and more importantly without the possibility of Chronos confirming a Townie. The big payoff to the Town comes when Chronos reveals the name \*\*\*and \*\*\*the associated player, but only under the correct circumstances (to avoid a mis-lynch, or perhaps several Days down the line when adding a confirmed Townie might tip the balance of the game). Of course, revealing both at this point is out of the question. > > I don’t think there is any compelling reason for Chronos to reveal the name at this point, and there is some risk, though I will admit it is slight. Whether or not that counts as a compelling reason for him not to, I’m not sure. Except that _if_ his reveal can confirm a townie name, that name is open for claiming later. If falsely claimed by scum, a counterclaim is likely to come out, because trading a confirmed town for a scum is a winning move. If it is truly claimed by a townie, you have a confirmed townie, which is a winning move. Masons don’t always have to full claim. If one mason gets exposed, that mason can reveal role-names and the count of the other masons. Those other masons can then claim at their own leisure, or counter-claim any scum crazy enough to try to claim masonry. The potential benefits outweigh the potential negatives in my view. ---
**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:** [August 17, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/718 "2010-08-17T01:14:58Z")
Okay, now that I’ve caught up with the rest of the thread…my role name is consistent with my alignment, canon-wise. As for **Chronos** , I get the feeling that perhaps the person whose player and role name he knows about perhaps may have a couple of votes. Otherwise, I am not sure why waiting until Wednesday is necessary. Either do it or don’t, but don’t dilly-dally around. Make a decision and stick with it. I can see the arguments on both sides, so I’ll trust whatever he decides. But if it might potentially save a Townie, especially if that person is getting some votes right now, it might be best to come out with it sooner rather than later. ---
**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 17, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/719 "2010-08-17T01:14:59Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > Except that _if_ his reveal can confirm a townie name, that name is open for claiming later. If falsely claimed by scum, a counterclaim is likely to come out, because trading a confirmed town for a scum is a winning move. If it is truly claimed by a townie, you have a confirmed townie, which is a winning move. OK, this makes sense to me. > [@](#): > > Masons don’t always have to full claim. If one mason gets exposed, that mason can reveal role-names and the count of the other masons. Those other masons can then claim at their own leisure, or counter-claim any scum crazy enough to try to claim masonry. This part makes less sense. I understand what you’re saying about Masons, but Chronos isn’t claiming to be a Mason. Or is this just a specific example of what you were saying in the first paragraph? > [@](#): > > The potential benefits outweigh the potential negatives in my view. I admit that my potential negatives were slight. The benefits you point out contain a lot of ‘ifs’; I guess I’ve been looking for something more concrete. Of course, I’m not likely to find anything like that, am I? ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867/720 "2010-08-17T01:38:21Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > As for USCDiver, I was content with my reading of Chronos’ case. But I missed a vital piece of information in my reading of it, which, in review, made him seem more town to me. I’m getting crucified here for changing my mind **three days before the day ends** , and I have to wonder if some of the people questioning me aren’t trying to cement me as an early lynch candidate. > > Yes, if scum had access to a PM, they’d be willing to offer up more info to help their case. _But we’re assuming they have access to a PM._ We have only circumstantial evidence that that’s the case. If he had said “I agree with all of them” and offered nothing more, as I first thought Chronos was saying, my vote would still be on him. > > But that’s not the case. I went and checked, and I’m no longer so convinced. He made a good faith effort to add information, information that could possibly be used against him if he was scum. This doesn’t mean he’s town, but my suspicious eye was content to move elsewhere for the time being. I think is the most damning evidence actually. That you would place a vote based solely on another player’s reasoning (even one who you may consider to be Town) and not doing any further examination of that evidence is quite scummy. Just a ‘me too’ vote essentially. The fact that you back-slid a short time later does little to assuage my suspicions of you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lord-of-the-rings-mafia/549867.md?page=37)