# Mafia: Cecilvania \[Game Over\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [May 13, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111 "2008-05-13T00:37:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 45
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/881 "2008-06-02T14:12:35Z")
It generally isn’t polite to laugh at other’s misfortune, but this? [QUOTE=MHaye] Hello folks. It’s going to be an interesting Day. I’m happy to… Yes? What’s that? There’s a knife sticking out of my back? Are you sure? I can’t feel anything. _Falls over dead._ … I mean, come _on_, are you that afraid of me that you’d kill me before I can so much as say Hi? _Disappears back to the forbidden thread._ No wonder they didn’t send me a PM telling me my role. [/QUOTE] This made me lol irl. Well played Mhaye. I think we can safely assume the Wolves are doctor hunting since story is still alive and someone else got killed. The longer the doc can stay hidden the better it is for us. I’m getting some work stuff started, so I’ll be back in a little bit with my initial thoughts on the day. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/882 "2008-06-02T14:53:10Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] Yeah, it upgrades your case against me from terrible to merely unconvincing. [/QUOTE] No. It does nothing to the case against you. It just shows that the counterpoint given to said case has no merit. ---
**Author:** ![Pollux\_Oil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@Pollux\_Oil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pollux_Oil)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/883 "2008-06-02T17:16:56Z")
Here’s a quick list of the Day One and Day Two final votes, with 100% confirmed town in green for easier voting analysis. Day One 9 - OAOW: Fretful Porpentine, Blaster Master, storyteller, Freudian Slit, RoOsh, Nanook, Koldanar, Hal Briston, Darth Sensitive 5- Freudian Slit: Pollux Oil, Hockey Monkey, CatInASuit, OAOW, sachertorte 1- sachertorte: DiggitCamara 1- Hal Briston: ShadowFacts 1- Diggit: WF Tomba Day Two 5- sachertorte: Blaster Master, DiggitCamara, Freudian Slit, storyteller, Rugger 3- Darth Sensitive: Pollux Oil, WF Tomba, Koldanar 2- ShadowFacts: Hal Briston, Fretful Porpentine 1- WF Tomba: Darth Sensitive 1- Hal Briston: Nanook 1- Blaster Master: sachertorte 1- DiggitCamara: ShadowFacts 1- Freudian Slit: Hockey Monkey * * * One thing I noticed when I looked over the Day One votes is that 8 out of the 9 votes for OAOW occurred before I put the first vote on Freudian Slit. The only vote for OAOW that came after Freudian had gotten significant voting mileage was Darth Sensitive’s. Hmm. Considering I’m suspicious of both Freudian Slit and Darth Sensitive, this is a +1 point in the column that they might be scum buddies. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/884 "2008-06-02T17:30:54Z")
[QUOTE=Pollux Oil] One thing I noticed when I looked over the Day One votes is that 8 out of the 9 votes for OAOW occurred before I put the first vote on Freudian Slit. The only vote for OAOW that came after Freudian had gotten significant voting mileage was Darth Sensitive’s. Hmm. Considering I’m suspicious of both Freudian Slit and Darth Sensitive, this is a +1 point in the column that they might be scum buddies. [/QUOTE] So the hypothesis there is that **Darth** applied his vote to the **OaoW** wagon as a hedge against the **Freudian** wagon growing dangerously large? ---
**Author:** ![Koldanar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@Koldanar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koldanar)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/885 "2008-06-02T19:23:20Z")
[QUOTE=storyteller0910] Hello, all. I was (obviously) not killed and not blocked, which I think is the final nail in the “there is no Scum role-blocker” coffin. I investigated **Koldanar** last Night; he is pro-Town. On an out-of-game note, my show opened this weekend (I just got back from the cast party following our matinee), which means my schedule will now revert to a more or less regular one and my participation will be altogether less sporadic starting tomorrow (Monday) morning. For now, though, I’m one too many Killians away from being able to re-read with anything resembling comprehension, so early to bed for me. [/QUOTE] Well thank you at least 🙂 I am curious though, story, what motivation for your choices so far… are you using your detective role to confirm townies, and therefore selecting those that you think will live longer and provide benefit, or are you searching for scum? I know sach, before he was lynched, was asking why CatinaRugger. It seems to me the first, but I would like to know. ---
**Author:** ![Pollux\_Oil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@Pollux\_Oil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pollux_Oil)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/886 "2008-06-02T21:12:59Z")
[QUOTE=storyteller0910] So the hypothesis there is that **Darth** applied his vote to the **OaoW** wagon as a hedge against the **Freudian** wagon growing dangerously large? [/QUOTE] Correct. Darth’s vote made the votes against OAOW nine in total, which was a majority out of the 17. The only way Freudian could have been lynched then was if somebody switched off OAOW and onto her. ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/887 "2008-06-02T22:30:25Z")
I apologize for the delay in this posting. There’s nothing quite like having a mission critical application for a billion dollar coporation start displaying a licensing error message to turn a day to shit. [QUOTE=WF Tomba] Well, your pursuit of **One And Only Wanderers** wasn’t just ultimately proven wrong, it was illogical right from the start. The information you needed to see to change your mind was right in front of you the whole time. And when **sachertorte** tried to make you see it, you just accused him of having Perfect Information Syndrome. I think I’m justified in saying that you haven’t just turned out to be wrong; you’ve been thinking wrong. [/QUOTE] A difference in opinion regarding strategy does not scum make. Look at Simpletown. I spent a lot of that game attacking Blam. Hell, even after he was confirmed town by the detective I had a niggling doubt about his towniness, wondering if he was a godfather. But what it came down in the end was a different strategy. Perhaps it wasn’t the best choice for a game with newer players, perhaps it was. But the point is, it didn’t make him scum. It’s sometimes hard to let go of certain notions about people, I know this. For example, I always think Blam is scum. Sometimes I’m right(Batman), sometimes I’m wrong(Simpletown, Doperville). As far as this game is concerned, I’ll admit he’s pinging me again. But right now at least, I’m not really willing to go any farther than that because I’m not sure if it’s a real suspicion or more “Blam is always scum!” suspicion. You on the other hand, Mr Tomba. You are pinging me hard enough to look at you solid. Your argument against Blam is weak at best. Your theory is that since OAOW was being loud, Blam used that to start a loud campaign against him, leading to his lynch, but not gaining suspicion because people would see being loud as a null or townie tell. But you don’t explain why these people that would give Blam a pass for being loud would vote for OAOW for the same thing. Do you see the contradiction here? Blam got a train against OAOW for the same thing that is supposedly going to give Blam a pass. One thing scum often do, to great effect, is to let a townie lead a bandwagon against a townie, and then turn around and start a bandwagon against that person. Ya know, kinda like what you’re trying to do here. **Vote WF Tomba** ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/888 "2008-06-02T22:40:52Z")
[QUOTE=Nanook of the North Shore] You on the other hand, Mr Tomba. You are pinging me hard enough to look at you solid. Your argument against Blam is weak at best. Your theory is that since OAOW was being loud, Blam used that to start a loud campaign against him, leading to his lynch, but not gaining suspicion because people would see being loud as a null or townie tell. But you don’t explain why these people that would give Blam a pass for being loud would vote for OAOW for the same thing. Do you see the contradiction here? Blam got a train against OAOW for the same thing that is supposedly going to give Blam a pass. [/QUOTE] You didn’t read my post carefully enough. I said _some_ players will agree and vote for **OAOW** while _other_ players will disagree, _not_ vote for **OAOW** , but give **BlaM** a pass. Considering I went so far as to label these hypothetical groups of people Group A and Group B, I’m surprised you didn’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/889 "2008-06-02T23:09:48Z")
[QUOTE=Pollux Oil] Correct. Darth’s vote made the votes against OAOW nine in total, which was a majority out of the 17. The only way Freudian could have been lynched then was if somebody switched off OAOW and onto her. [/QUOTE] Does it really make sense for him to do that with OAOW up by four votes, though? He would have been as good as dead without DS lifting a finger. I still think there are as many or more scum among the five unknowns who _didn’t_ vote for OAOW than among the eight unknowns who did; town will usually lynch town on the first day without too much help from scum, and it makes sense for them to hang back and spread their votes around. ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/890 "2008-06-02T23:34:50Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] You didn’t read my post carefully enough. I said _some_ players will agree and vote for **OAOW** while _other_ players will disagree, _not_ vote for **OAOW** , but give **BlaM** a pass. Considering I went so far as to label these hypothetical groups of people Group A and Group B, I’m surprised you didn’t get it. [/QUOTE] So there are enough of this hypothetical A group to lynch OAOW, but not enough to then turn around and lynch Blam? What changed from one to the next? I just don’t buy your theory, and I think you are using it as a screen. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/891 "2008-06-02T23:36:44Z")
Sorry, **Nook**. I get what you’re saying now. You’re wondering why the Group A players aren’t just as suspicious of **Blaster Master** in my scenario, since he is also being irrationally aggressive. I was thinking they fail to see his statements as suspicious because they agree with what he’s saying. It’s not logical, but I am already assuming that a lot of people regard irrational aggression as inherently suspicious, which I also don’t think is logical. I think you always have to take into account the more common flaws in people’s thinking. That ties into one of the things I didn’t like about **Blaster Master** on Day One. He kept trying to make hay out of the fact that **One And Only Wanderers** first said that the Constable claim did not move him to unvote, then unvoted a little while later for strategic reasons. **BlaM** said this was suspicious because no new information had come out between these two posts. I found that a very specious argument–was it really so implausible that a player might think a little more and change his mind between posts? ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/892 "2008-06-02T23:45:23Z")
[QUOTE=Pollux Oil] One thing I noticed when I looked over the Day One votes is that 8 out of the 9 votes for OAOW occurred before I put the first vote on Freudian Slit. The only vote for OAOW that came after Freudian had gotten significant voting mileage was Darth Sensitive’s. Hmm. Considering I’m suspicious of both Freudian Slit and Darth Sensitive, this is a +1 point in the column that they might be scum buddies. [/QUOTE] You might also note that **Hockey Monkey** , who voted for **Freudian Slit** both days, got whacked, while I, who have been attacking **Darth Sensitive** , am now getting flak from **Freudian Slit**. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/893 "2008-06-03T00:46:34Z")
[QUOTE=Koldanar] Well thank you at least 🙂 I am curious though, story, what motivation for your choices so far… are you using your detective role to confirm townies, and therefore selecting those that you think will live longer and provide benefit, or are you searching for scum? I know sach, before he was lynched, was asking why CatinaRugger. It seems to me the first, but I would like to know. [/QUOTE] This is an interesting question. Put broadly and simply, I’m investigating the people that I, personally, find particularly suspicious, meaning **CatinaRugger** (I like that, by the way; it sounds poetic) Night One and you Night Two. The real value of a Detective in these games is confirming Town, but - especially in a game where a Godfather could exist to muck up the works - I’m not sure you can go about the game with that as your primary goal. Especially for me, in this game; note that: 1. I am now revealed, and am reporting my results every Day. That means my ability to confirm Town is limited in its usefulness, as the Scum could simply kill off my investigative targets each Night if they feel I’m confirming too many players. 2. I am still the subject of some suspicion. I’m going to die eventually, probably rather sooner than later. Either I’ll get lynched, or the Wolves will tire of waiting for me to get lynched and take a shot at me on a Night when the Doctor - if one exists - isn’t protecting me. In an ideal world, the Detective would stay hidden for a long period of time, confirming Townies and revealing all of them in one great mass at a time that substantially alters the game. Forced to provide information in dribbles, though, my better hope is to shoot for a Wolf and hope I can find one before I’m killed. There are other advantages to this approach in the present situation, not least of which is that I keep from wasting my own time during the Day by chasing down pointless paths - I was suspicious of you going into the Night, and if I had investigated someone else I would have spent a chunk of toDay going after you. Does that make any sense? As to my particular targets: I investigated **CIAS** for two reasons: (1) I found him suspicious; and (2) I think he’s particularly dangerous when he’s scum. I investigated you because I found _you_ suspicious, based on your vote for **OaoW** and the reasoning behind it. In your case, I also thought you were worth investigating as you seemed to be out of the main stream of discussion, and thus unlikely to get serious scrutiny toDay. ---
**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 3, 2008, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/894 "2008-06-03T01:01:40Z")
[QUOTE=Nanook of the North Shore] So there are enough of this hypothetical A group to lynch OAOW, but not enough to then turn around and lynch Blam? What changed from one to the next? I just don’t buy your theory, and I think you are using it as a screen. [/QUOTE] I agree that **Tomba** ’s Group A/B hypothesis is unconvincing (at best). However, feel free to take a look at post 863, which is more compelling (if I do say so myself 😃 ). Sadly, since **Blaster** has not returned to respond to that post and the one following, it will shortly disappear into the mists of time… ---
**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 3, 2008, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/895 "2008-06-03T02:20:13Z")
[QUOTE=storyteller0910] I investigated you because I found _you_ suspicious, based on your vote for **OaoW** and the reasoning behind it. In your case, I also thought you were worth investigating as you seemed to be out of the main stream of discussion, and thus unlikely to get serious scrutiny toDay. [/QUOTE] Can you tell us what about \*\*Koldanar’s \*\*vote for **OAOW** you found suspicious? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/896 "2008-06-03T13:23:59Z")
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts] Can you tell us what about \*\*Koldanar’s \*\*vote for **OAOW** you found suspicious? [/QUOTE] I can. I actually did describe this yesterDay, in my long voting post, but it might easily have been lost in the post history. To repeat and elaborate: Here’s **Koldanar’s** voting text at #440, Day One, (vote for OaoW elided): > [@koldanar](#): > > OAOW : I like the case here. Initially, back in post #220, I was pinged a little when he? (Correct, yes?) removed a vote for Cat and then quoted Cat as a reason to vote Shadow. Then, in post #296, switches vote again very quickly with almost no case stated beyond calling it a slip. Everyone else that caught the 3 instead of 3 to 5 (as is claimed by story) pointed a finger and demanded explanation. OAOW voted immediately with little to no discussion. Agression combined with almost no justifications before people started voting for him makes him, in my mind, the best target today. I had a few problems with this. First of all, the “ping” described back in post #220 was sketchy. **OaoW** ’s initial vote for **CiaS** was a pure random vote, utterly meaningless, so I attach no importance whatsoever to its placement or removal. Thus the fact that he “removed a vote for Cat and then quoted Cat as a reason to vote Shadow” really isn’t as inconsistent as **Koldanar** made it to sound by stating it baldly like that. Now, for the second point of **Koldanar’s** , above, **OaoW** did vote for me with no explanation beyond calling my mistake a possible slip. But the thing is, so did **Nanook** and **Blaster Master** , and I didn’t see **Koldanar** call out either of those folks. Most significantly, **Koldanar** never said a word about either of those “pings” until **Wanderers** already had a bunch of votes. It had the air of post facto reasoning to it, of someone who wanted to join a bandwagon but needed to manufacture a couple of vaguely plausible reasons for it beyond those already stated, to avoid looking like a “me too” voter. ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/897 "2008-06-03T14:07:25Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] Sorry, **Nook**. I get what you’re saying now. You’re wondering why the Group A players aren’t just as suspicious of **Blaster Master** in my scenario, since he is also being irrationally aggressive. I was thinking they fail to see his statements as suspicious because they agree with what he’s saying. It’s not logical, but I am already assuming that a lot of people regard irrational aggression as inherently suspicious, which I also don’t think is logical. I think you always have to take into account the more common flaws in people’s thinking. [/quote] This really feels like a stretch to me. You seem to be trying to shoehorn this idea or plan onto the situation in order to justify the lynch, as opposed to looking at the situation and then deciding what it is. This is a very scummy way to play in my eyes. > [@](#): > > That ties into one of the things I didn’t like about **Blaster Master** on Day One. He kept trying to make hay out of the fact that **One And Only Wanderers** first said that the Constable claim did not move him to unvote, then unvoted a little while later for strategic reasons. **BlaM** said this was suspicious because no new information had come out between these two posts. I found that a very specious argument–was it really so implausible that a player might think a little more and change his mind between posts? I do agree with you here though. I do most of my reading and posting from work, and it’s not unusual for me to read a few posts, have an idea in mind, go out for a smoke, and have totally swapped thinking in the time it takes me to walk downstairs and back. ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/898 "2008-06-03T14:20:22Z")
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts] I agree that **Tomba** ’s Group A/B hypothesis is unconvincing (at best). However, feel free to take a look at post 863, which is more compelling (if I do say so myself 😃 ). Sadly, since **Blaster** has not returned to respond to that post and the one following, it will shortly disappear into the mists of time… [/QUOTE] Nah, it won’t. I saw it when I read through, but since I felt that Tomba was a bigger suspect I didn’t feel the need to comment on it originally. But since you ask, let’s examine it. > [@](#): > > From my perspective, what it actually looks like is that you are pushing hard to get a lynch, full stop. You have shown absolutely zero indication that anything said by one of your targets has deterred your lynch drives one millimeter. In fact, you decided on Day One to vote to sach on Day Two, and you did exactly that. Apparently, not a single thing on Day Two made you more suspicious of someone else or less suspicious of sach - you had your target, you zeroed in and never wavered. Not only that, but when someone has tried to defend your targets, you’ve turned your sights on them for ‘perfect knowledge syndrome’ or whatever you want to call it (first sach defending OAOW and then me defending sach). > > In my mind, either you’re a scum driving townie lynches, or you’re town with tunnel vision. Either way, you’ve been nothing but a liability for town so far. I agree with you regarding how Blam appears to be playing. That does not however mean that he is a Wolf. That sort of single minded determination seems to be par for the course for Blam. It’s what lead me to get so frustrated with him last game, and what lead me to be suspicious of him even at the end after he was confirmed. Do not read this to mean I think he’s town though. I think Blam is a good enough player that he won’t make huge changes to his style from game to game, which makes looking at his style something of a null tell. I think at this point that Tomba is scummier, so I’m leaving my vote where it is, but I agree that we need to keep an eye on Blam. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/899 "2008-06-03T14:33:16Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] Here’s an idea. On Day One, **One And Only Wanderers** was basically lynched for displaying irrational aggression. Now, when confronted with irrational aggression, Mafia players fall into two camps: Group A, who say “That’s suspicious behavior!” Group B, who say “It’s weird, but it’s not a scum tell.” This sets up an interesting possible scum strategy: attack, aggressively and irrationally, a Town player who has displayed irrational aggression. The Group A players will agree with you and lynch the poor sap. The Group B players will disagree, but they won’t vote for you because they don’t see your irrational aggression as suspicious. I propose that **Blaster Master** is using that strategy in this game. He waited until he saw a town player go on the offensive with a lot of heat and not much reason. That turned out to be **One And Only Wanderers**. Knowing that some players (those in Group A) would vote for **OAOW** as soon as his irrationally aggressive behavior was pointed out, **Blaster Master** led a charge against him, and made sure that the attack was both aggressive and illogical, thus deflecting the suspicions of those in Group B. **Vote Blaster Master** [/QUOTE] You’re completely misrepresenting what my case was against **OAOW**. Aggression, in and of itself, is a null tell. I’ve been aggressive as scum (see Batman and Recruitment) and I’ve been aggressive as town (see Simpletown). However, you paint my aggression against **OAOW** as irrational. You get that it’s irrational because you’re saying I unvoted him for strategic reasons. Considering just how much time I had spent discussing my reasoning, it should be pretty clear that that was not the case. To recover my case against him briefly, he engaged in actions that I felt had a limited number of pro-town reasons. He explicitly eliminated one. That was when I defended him at first because I still saw other potential pro-town motivations for his actions. His FOS of me, based on the logic he used, seemed to me to implicitly elimate a second one. That was when I voted for him. The argument that ensued with sachetorte about it was a potential third motivation which I argued didn’t make sense. I think that is where I was actually wrong because, while it was illogical given that the other two were not his motivations, it doesn’t mean he may not have also followed it. Either way, I was very vocal and laid my logic out very clearly. I don’t think any of my logical steps were irrational. If you want to maintain that my arguments WERE irrational, then I’d like you to point out exactly which parts were as well as why I necessarily knew they were irrational. I also disagree with your assessment that I “waited until \* saw a town player go on the offensive with a lot of heat and not much reason”. This is also a misrepresentation of the events. I actually disagreed with the first vote, at first, but his nearly simul-post actions changed my impression. Either way, I was still the second vote for him, and if you want to accept **storyteller** ’s initial suspicion as heat, then perhaps I was the third. What exactly is “a lot of heat”, particularly since I generated a large amount of it. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111/900 "2008-06-03T14:50:43Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] Sorry, **Nook**. I get what you’re saying now. You’re wondering why the Group A players aren’t just as suspicious of **Blaster Master** in my scenario, since he is also being irrationally aggressive. I was thinking they fail to see his statements as suspicious because they agree with what he’s saying. It’s not logical, but I am already assuming that a lot of people regard irrational aggression as inherently suspicious, which I also don’t think is logical. I think you always have to take into account the more common flaws in people’s thinking. [/quote] Okay, I’m not following this at all. So people agreed with my irrational aggression when I pointed out that someone else was irrationally aggressive so mine no longer pinged them. So we just have a whole trail of the next 7 votes who are “not logical” and only voted for him because of the irrational aggression? This is so convoluted that I can’t even figure out if it actually makes sense. > [@](#): > > That ties into one of the things I didn’t like about **Blaster Master** on Day One. He kept trying to make hay out of the fact that **One And Only Wanderers** first said that the Constable claim did not move him to unvote, then unvoted a little while later for strategic reasons. **BlaM** said this was suspicious because no new information had come out between these two posts. I found that a very specious argument–was it really so implausible that a player might think a little more and change his mind between posts? It is possible that someone would change his mind. However, the evidence was against it. First, no new information. Then, he eliminated what I saw as the pro-town motivations. The first, that he believed him, he explicitly eliminated. The second, he eliminated by FOSing me (you may or may not agree with the logic, but that’s already been argued to death). There was a third possibility that **sachetorte** later brought up, that it was for information, but it just didn’t make sense since lynching him would have generated more information anyway, and the other two motivations against lynching him obviously weren’t an issue. So you tell me, if he explicitly doesn’t believe **storyteller** , and I believe he’s shown that he doesn’t think it’s too great of a risk to unvote him, then why ISN’T it suspicious when he unvotes him? Shouldn’t a townie, who doesn’t believe a claim and doesn’t think it’s risky to lynch him, keep his vote on him? Considering there was no intervening information, like a better lynch candidate, I could not think of any other reasons why he would want to do that if he were town. Thus, if he had no pro-town motivation for it he’s scummy to me. I also think that, considering it was the first Day, that’s a fairly decent case. Yeah, it probably wouldn’t fly on Day 3 or 4, but I didn’t see anything better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-cecilvania-game-over/449111.md?page=46)