# Mafia: Mutiny on the SS Incorrigible **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676 "2011-03-14T17:51:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/281 "2011-03-22T23:32:46Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > and maybe this is a question more appropriately addressed to our mod but … > > what happens if we decide to lynch an officer? would the original doc get the result or would the next in line get the result? If the action is resolved before the lynch it would go to the original doctor. If the action resolves after the lynch it would go to the new person. I’m not a genius here or in real life and have been known to miss big red signs that others see. I wasn’t thinking about the ranking when I suggested the doctor investigate Naf but I figured he wasn’t going to be a scum target if town and it would be nice if we could get some solid investigations on people who would be around for a while. I suspect the officer slots will be a dangerous area to inhabit for too long a period of time. At any rate, I’m a little disappointed to see the number of people who think it’s worth a vote over. ---
**Author:** ![Crackrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/919ad9/32.png) [@Crackrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crackrat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/282 "2011-03-22T23:36:36Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > and maybe this is a question more appropriately addressed to our mod but … > > what happens if we decide to lynch an officer? would the original doc get the result or would the next in line get the result? Based on the PM Idle posted, I would expect that the new doc is the one getting the result. ---
**Author:** ![Crackrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/919ad9/32.png) [@Crackrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crackrat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/283 "2011-03-22T23:45:56Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I’m not a genius here or in real life and have been known to miss big red signs that others see. I wasn’t thinking about the ranking when I suggested the doctor investigate Naf but I figured he wasn’t going to be a scum target if town and it would be nice if we could get some solid investigations on people who would be around for a while. I suspect the officer slots will be a dangerous area to inhabit for too long a period of time. At any rate, I’m a little disappointed to see the number of people who think it’s worth a vote over. Well, so far people have been basing votes on joke votes, reading/misreading the rules, and lurking. I’d say basing votes on actual anti-town strategies, intentional or not, is much more solid. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/284 "2011-03-23T00:40:03Z")
\*\*Vote Hal \*\*- Lame Votes **Vote Idle** - for pushing for us to vote all at once(which is not needed) **Vote Peek** - I think his talkativeness is off compared to his recent laid back style. **Vote glowacks** - for suggesting that he’ll vote for people without considering their motives. [Here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13589288&postcount=177) ---
**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:** [March 23, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/285 "2011-03-23T01:20:51Z")
So I guess the fact that I could really be a Town Hacker means nothing. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/286 "2011-03-23T02:56:41Z")
I have to agree. I think a vote against a role claim needs to be adequately defended. Weakly hand-waving and saying “well, you could be a scum hacker” isn’t enough. Why do you think Idle is claiming if he’s scum? Why are we so quick to space someone for what is, essentially, a rules misunderstanding? That seems to be extremely scant evidence to space someone for, and I don’t see the purpose in spacing a claimed town power role on Day One just to space _somebody_. Sorry, I don’t buy this bandwagon one bit and the fact that the role claim hasn’t slowed the voting or even expanded discussion is greatly concerning to me. I don’t know who all in this group is scum and who is town, but this seems scum-backed to me, and at this point it’s the best reason I have to lay down some votes. \*\*vote Natlaw vote peekercpa vote Mahaloth vote Red Skeezix\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/287 "2011-03-23T03:15:11Z")
> [@Crackrat](#): > > Well, so far people have been basing votes on joke votes, reading/misreading the rules, and lurking. I’d say basing votes on actual anti-town strategies, intentional or not, is much more solid. No, you’re OMGUSing which lord knows I’ve wanted to do more than once. I haven’t said anything other than that I thought his roleclaim made Naf a good target for the doctor and you disagree with that point of view so much that you’re voting me for it. All your vote is doing is making it less likely that people are going to suggest things because they don’t want to get voted for it and when people aren’t making suggestions, town doesn’t get ahead. **Unvote Idle Thoughts** **Vote Drain Bead** who is not commenting on the game state. [QUOTE=Pleonast] **Inner Stickler** - Loyal Mate You are a Loyal crew member. You win when all Mutinous crew members are dead. You were school Mates with [redacted]. You trust them implicitly and know they must be Loyal crew members. [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [March 23, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/288 "2011-03-23T03:39:12Z")
In light of his claim, **unvote Inner Stickler**. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/289 "2011-03-23T04:07:11Z")
In light of IS’s claim: **unvote Inner Stickler** I’m not really sure I trust Idle’s claim, since the power seems like it might be testable, but it says nothing about his alignment, but on the other hand I don’t see any point in lynching a claimed power role day one. **unvote Idle Thoughts** > [@fluiddruid](#): > > I have to agree. I think a vote against a role claim needs to be adequately defended. Weakly hand-waving and saying “well, you could be a scum hacker” isn’t enough. Why do you think Idle is claiming if he’s scum? Why are we so quick to space someone for what is, essentially, a rules misunderstanding? That seems to be extremely scant evidence to space someone for, and I don’t see the purpose in spacing a claimed town power role on Day One just to space _somebody_. > > Sorry, I don’t buy this bandwagon one bit and the fact that the role claim hasn’t slowed the voting or even expanded discussion is greatly concerning to me. I don’t know who all in this group is scum and who is town, but this seems scum-backed to me, and at this point it’s the best reason I have to lay down some votes. > > \*\*vote Natlaw > > vote peekercpa > > vote Mahaloth > > vote Red Skeezix\*\* This vote is a mischaracterization. Slight reminder: he voted myself and peek for a so-called rules misunderstanding that was addressed and cleared up before he voted. And has been cleared up again, and yet no unvotes. His votes are parked. Sans claim, I would still be voting him. Then you pick four people out five (how exactly did you come to those four of the five who you are voting for?) Plus the whole “I don’t know who on this list is scum and who on this list is town” non-justification for a vote. You might as well have [random.org](http://random.org)’ed your votes. Furthermore, your phrasing of “but this seems scum-backed to me” really chafes me. So if Idle is scum how does that play out as far as a scum backed bandwagon? **vote fluiddruid** Next up: I feel like Stanislaus is laying low. There’s been a bunch of safe posts coming from that direction. **vote Stanislaus** Mahaloth. Your vote on peeker is meta as hell. I’m really not sure how you came up with that. Looks like a placeholder vote that you’re not calling out as such. Care to explain more, or is that the be all end all? I’m really not thrilled with Drain’s lack of participation. **vote Drain Bead** And to clarify: In order from strongest to weakest votes: **Hal Briston** , **fluiddruid** , **Stanislaus** , **Drain Bead** ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/290 "2011-03-23T04:22:00Z")
In addition: Barring a counter claim, I feel like IS should be considered for promotion toDay. If I’m understanding about how the Doctor results are reported, it should produce an investigation result that could be trusted on the same level of trust as a claimed mason, ie pretty darn trustworthy. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/291 "2011-03-23T04:31:50Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Anyway, regardless of it, I’m still happy with my four votes. Mostly because we’re forced to vote for four people if we want any votes to count. None of the reasoning I have for each of them is strong, I admit. They’re all weak reasonings…but again, having to pick four people to make any one vote count is the way it is. There’s a difference between a weak reason and absolutely no reason at all. You’ve pretty much said that you know the reason you’re voting for them is completely unreasonable, yet you’re happy with it. You _should_ be immediately changing your vote upon learning the information, or at least giving additional reasons why the behavior is still questionable. Instead you continue to act like the fact that it’s questionable behavior has already been assumed. You even unvoted one person so it’s not because you’re not paying attention! > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > So I guess the fact that I could really be a Town Hacker means nothing. You’re right, it means absolutely nothing. Anyone can claim it, can’t possibly be counter-claimed, and proving you’re a hacker not only uses up any power you have but doesn’t prove anything about whether you’re Loyal. If it is true, you’re a better potential target for scum. 5/10 **vote Idle Thoughts** – Our captain has still yet to come in to explain or change his votes. 2/10 **vote Hal Briston** – No OMGUS vote on Mahaloth; I suppose I didn’t make explicit that, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would consider irrational behavior inherently scummy. In fact, it looks like you’re using the same logic to vote for Idle, unless there’s something inherently scummy in his misunderstanding of the rules; what I find completely irrational (and thus inherently scummy) is that despite his apparent understanding that what the others did is hardly cause for concern, he’s perfectly happy voting for them. No vote for fluiddruid. While I don’t fully agree with the reasoning to not vote for Idle I definitely see a little logic to it. However, I am mainly voting for him because of his insistence to not move a vote he now knows to be baseless and his idea that claiming something completely unverifiable actually means something. Inner Stickler’s claim can at least in principle be verified by a reciprocal claim, and if there’s a second pair of mates (why not?) they’d feel foolish if one counter claimed and Stickler flipped Mate. – > [@NAF1138](#): > > Why not. Nothing else happening in this game. So instead of offering your ideas about what forced multi-voting is going to force us to do, or who we should be most concerned about having the doctor look at, or anything else, you make a completely random claim that accomplishes nothing positive but could in fact hurt the town: A Loyal cracker is useful is the scum can control the brig, but unless they can avoid being lynched it won’t be terribly helpful. If the scum control the brig and can avoid being lynched, they’ve won unless there’s a cracker not in the brig. By claiming, you’ve just told them who to brig first if they think they can swing it. Ok, maybe you’re trying to mislead the scum by claiming that so that they’ll brig you and the real cracker will be able to crack you. Unfortunately there’s no guarantee there’s a loyal cracker at all, so diverting their attention doesn’t really matter. 4/10 **vote NAF1138** – Drain Bead oh Drain Bead, may we have some of your thoughts? 1/10 **vote drain bead** Yes, my strongest votes are on those that are claiming. Their claims are meaningless (Stickler’s is not). There is no way to verify Loyal claims by testing for powers, so why should adding a power role to your assumed claim of Loyal make us any more likely to think you’re Loyal? Not only are they meaningless, but if true they draw attention. Only if there are literally no vanillas are those claims at all useful to make right now. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/292 "2011-03-23T04:42:30Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > I’m not really sure I trust Idle’s claim, since the power seems like it might be testable, but it says nothing about his alignment, but on the other hand I don’t see any point in lynching a claimed power role day one. We’re almost certainly going to lynch a claimed power toDay, or else lynch no one. If what Idle did is any defense at all, anyone that’s under the gun is going to claim Loyal Hacker. ---
**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:** [March 23, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/293 "2011-03-23T05:06:54Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > There’s a difference between a weak reason and absolutely no reason at all. You’ve pretty much said that you know the reason you’re voting for them is completely unreasonable, yet you’re happy with it. Uh..what? First, where have I said that? Quote it to me. Second, my voting is as follows: **Peeker** , for trying to sneakily give a pass on his fourth vote. **Natlaw** , for mentioning something to try to appear as Town when it was already known. **Inner Stickler** , for voting to lynch lurkers (an easy-type vote). That leaves one person ( **Red S** ) whom I’m voting for for voting for one person. One. So what’s with this “them” usage? So if you think I’m voting for “them” for those reasons, you’re wrong. Kindly show me how those votes (plural) are unreasonable? > [@](#): > > You _should_ be immediately changing your vote upon learning the information Well, since I was never voting on THREE of them, to begin with, for that reason, I’d say it wasn’t needed. > [@](#): > > …or at least giving additional reasons why the behavior is still questionable. I already had (but it’s listed above since you didn’t seem to catch or get it the first time). As for continuing to vote for Red S…I’ve already said that it’s akin to a random vote. It’s Day One, y’know. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/294 "2011-03-23T11:40:07Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > > [@Natlaw](#): > > > > I don’t see how your claim effects my suspicion at all? As you said scum can be a Hacker as well. > > It might chance my vote later “to save a power role” (especially if you end up tied with IS or someone else who I find more suspicious at that point) but that reasoning is also why a scum would (fake) claim hacker. > > :dubious: > > So you’re willing to lynch a (in my personal and possible biased opinion) good Town Power role, because there’s the chance the claim could be a scummy one? No, notice the distinction I make between my suspicion of you and my vote for you? Also I don’t agree you power is all that great - it very situational and it’s more powerful in the hands of scum who know all alignments than town (only know your own for sure and possibly alive Mates). > [@fluiddruid](#): > > I have to agree. I think a vote against a role claim needs to be adequately defended. Weakly hand-waving and saying “well, you could be a scum hacker” isn’t enough. Why do you think Idle is claiming if he’s scum? Why are we so quick to space someone for what is, essentially, a rules misunderstanding? That seems to be extremely scant evidence to space someone for, and I don’t see the purpose in spacing a claimed town power role on Day One just to space _somebody_. He has not claimed a **town** power role. He has claimed a power role which both town an scum can have. **Unvote Inner Stickler** , for the mason claim. Need to think about how likely two pairs of Mates are, but if no counter claim I agree with the advice of promoting him to Doctor. **Vote fluiddruid** for the above (claiming a claim should be auto reason to unvote) **Vote Idle Thoughts** for my earlier reason and the same as fluiddruid (“I claimed a power that says nothing about alignment, unvote me now!”) **Vote Hal briston** for still having random votes at this point **Vote peekercpa** since he changed his votes now I’ll probably look for someone else when I get back from work. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/295 "2011-03-23T11:43:31Z")
NETA to fluiddruids "Why do you think Idle is claiming if he’s scum? " - as I mentioned before, precisely because of the “don’t lynch a claimed power role!” argument you’re making (and Idle pushing it doesn’t make me feel better about him either). To be clear, I didn’t vote Idle for the rules misunderstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/296 "2011-03-23T11:47:01Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > I don’t like this reasoning, mainly because I think there are better targets [to investigate] > > 1. players likely to be doctor > 2. players likely to be head of engineering > 3. brigged lurkers (don’t see a reason to investigate brigged possible-scum because that should only happen if we got a better scum candidate up for lynch and the brigged one would be up for review the next Day) > 4. not players who are about to be lynched (or have a big chance to be lynched if the vote swings) I missed a thing others have mentioned before: 5) (or 1b) but not players who (could) become the Doctor after the lynch/arrest of that Day happens (they would get their own investigation result). ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/297 "2011-03-23T11:55:44Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > You came out and said you were Loyal (with it underlined) like it was supposed to mean something to us. You obviously were acting like you didn’t know (or didn’t catch) that the role PM was in the OP. If you did know, why did you post it like you did? If you didn’t know, then who’s not reading the rules now, _ **Natlaw** _? Again, I didn’t vote you for the rules misunderstanding. I did now it (if I hadn’t read the rules I would have used just town, not the Loyal color-for-town of this game). For why I did it, see: > [@Natlaw](#): > > The way the underline merges with the y makes Loyal much more badass then the alternatives. I’ll admit I settled for this instead of a Day One first post unprovoked claim in honor of Pleonast hosting this game as I just don’t see the advantage of it. ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/298 "2011-03-23T12:16:12Z")
Just a note: it is NOT necessary to promote IS to Doctor IF Hal Briston winds up lynched. In that case the current doctor would still make the examination order, but IS would get the result. I honestly don’t know what to think about half of a mates claim, but I guess I can let it ride for now. ---
**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:** [March 23, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/299 "2011-03-23T13:00:01Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > So instead of offering your ideas about what forced multi-voting is going to force us to do, Hi, I’m NAF, I don’t believe we have met before. Nice to meet you. I have no opinion about forced multi-voting and am not sure what continuing to talk about it would accomplish at this stage anyway. I wasn’t able to participate for a good bit of time, and my participation is going to continue to be spotty for probably a large part of the game. By the time I jumped in, it seemed to me the time for that sort of talk had passed. (Taking care of a 16 month old doesn’t leave a ton of time for mafia.) I am hoping to improve my play as I adjust to this new way of having to approach the game. I posted about this before the game started. The discussions being had were not fruitful for me, so why would I perpetuate them? Nothing was happening, non? My goal in those situations is to shake things up. It almost doesn’t matter who gets lynched today as long as we lynch someone and there are good reasons for all the votes. > [@](#): > > or who we should be most concerned about having the doctor look at not a fan of telling other people how to play the game. > [@](#): > > or anything else, you make a completely random claim that accomplishes nothing positive but could in fact hurt the town: A Loyal cracker is useful is the scum can control the brig, but unless they can avoid being lynched it won’t be terribly helpful. If the scum control the brig and can avoid being lynched, they’ve won unless there’s a cracker not in the brig. By claiming, you’ve just told them who to brig first if they think they can swing it. Ok, maybe you’re trying to mislead the scum by claiming that so that they’ll brig you and the real cracker will be able to crack you. Unfortunately there’s no guarantee there’s a loyal cracker at all, so diverting their attention doesn’t really matter. Maybe. Maybe not. The value of power roles in mafia is over rated. Don’t think that I just threw out a claim willy nilly. I won’t hold that against you, since you don’t know me. But that’s not who I am. So while I appreciate what you have to say, I think you are wrong. Not just with your vote on my, but really on all your votes. Do you really think pushing to space one of the claimed power roles is really the best choice on Day 1? Honestly? How do you defend that? Your reasoning doesn’t speak to anything that gives the scum a solid advantage in the claim and doesn’t take into account the circumstances surrounding the claims. Your votes are bad, thanks for playing. **vote glowacks** For the record I am not crazy about the way I am having to play this game right now either. But your reasons for voting are very poorly thought through. You are voting for people because you don’t like the way they are playing not because they have done anything worthy of a vote. That’s the easy way out of a vote and a good scum tactic. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676/300 "2011-03-23T13:01:58Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > Vote fluiddruid for the above (claiming a claim should be auto reason to unvote) > Vote Idle Thoughts for my earlier reason and the same as fluiddruid (“I claimed a power that says nothing about alignment, unvote me now!”) > [@](#): > > NETA to fluiddruids "Why do you think Idle is claiming if he’s scum? " - as I mentioned before, precisely because of the “don’t lynch a claimed power role!” argument you’re making (and Idle pushing it doesn’t make me feel better about him either). > To be clear, I didn’t vote Idle for the rules misunderstanding. I’m sorry, but all of this is garbage, plain and simple. You don’t get to lay down an unexplained vote, then come back and claim what it was later, especially in such a disingenuous way. Oh, it wasn’t for what you objected to, of course, it was for some other thing (that he also did not say, for what it is worth). I’m sorry, but if you’re Town (which at this point I don’t think that you are), you need to cut that out. Plus, I didn’t say that a claim should be an auto reason to unvote. I said it should be defended. **You put a vote on with no stated justification whatsoever** , just a general ‘suspicion’. Tell me how what I posted, taken in context what you posted, indicates that I claimed we should automatically unvote a role claim? I’d like to hear this argument. In addition, based on your votes, you think we’re both scum? That doesn’t make any sense. Why would a scum player be the first to clearly leap to stop a bandwagon against a scum player, and to places 4 votes for who voted for him? Does this scenario really seem reasonable to you and if so, why? If Idle’s not scum and I am, why would I stick my neck out for him? I don’t see these scenarios making sense and your turnaround on me makes me even more suspicious of you than before. In regards to Red Skeezix’s vote and questions, which for the record I don’t find particularly scummy behavior, just that I don’t agree: > [@Red Skeezix](#): > > This vote is a mischaracterization. Slight reminder: he voted myself and peek for a so-called rules misunderstanding that was addressed and cleared up before he voted. And has been cleared up again, and yet no unvotes. His votes are parked. Sans claim, I would still be voting him. I can’t really see this as scum behavior. What is scummy about it? We’re still just ultimately disagreeing on how this whole four-vote process works. > [@](#): > > Then you pick four people out five (how exactly did you come to those four of the five who you are voting for?) I picked the four most recent ones (though I didn’t consider Inner Stickler based on his claim), I believe. Hence the ‘bandwagon’ thing – my feeling is that some of you are latching on to a vote on a town power role with limited justification. > [@](#): > > Plus the whole “I don’t know who on this list is scum and who on this list is town” non-justification for a vote. You might as well have [random.org](http://random.org)’ed your votes. Bullpuppy. I have to lay four votes for them to count and I consider this sufficient justification. If you want my argument on who I think is scummiest at this point - it’s Natlaw. But I want my votes to count and the behavior is scummy, I just think it’s worth nothing that it’s unlikely in the extreme that all four of you are scum players. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, your phrasing of “but this seems scum-backed to me” really chafes me. So if Idle is scum how does that play out as far as a scum backed bandwagon? I don’t understand this question. I said it seems scum-backed to me - particularly because of the extremely light debate on the topic and reasons that don’t make particular sense to me. There’d be no reason for scum to back a bandwagon against scum, so in that case I would be incorrect. In other words, I’m positing that Idle is town (which is what I think is likely). Characterizing my argument to try to make sense if he isn’t town and then rejecting it for not doing so … well, it misses the point entirely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-mutiny-on-the-ss-incorrigible/574676.md?page=16)