# Mafia: Not-so-simple-Simpletown **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 6, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592 "2009-03-06T22:58:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**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:** [March 16, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/341 "2009-03-16T23:43:04Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Speaking of mischaracterization I did not say that an OMGUS was the same as a random, I said “little more then a random vote”. There is more to an OMGUS but not much. In fact I would put it as the second lowest reason for a vote with random being the worst reason. If you think there is a big difference between the two I would love to hear about it. Yes, there is a big difference between a random vote and an OMGUS. A random vote is picking a player at random to vote for. A OMGUS is voting for the player voting for you. That’s kind of the opposite of picking a random player, since it’s voting for a very particular player. I’m not sure why anyone would think they’re similar. > [@BillMC](#): > > That was sooo unexpected, like the sun rising in the morning. Strange reaction. You voted for someone for stating an idea. That’s anti-Town. Why should you not collect votes for that? ---
**Author:** ![ok11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8baadc/32.png) [@ok11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ok11)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/342 "2009-03-17T00:37:23Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > You. I get that brevity is the soul of wit, but your pithy posts make me feel like I’m pulling teeth every time I ask you something. Here we go again. How did I twist your post to my means? You quoted the rules and the explanation for their change along with the comment, “I think this is important enough to stress again.” To me, your motivation was unclear. If you were trying to make some point about the rules, why didn’t you just come out and say it right then? So I asked you about it. Incidentally, if no one prompted you to clarify, would you have left things as is? After you shared your thoughts, I expressed my dislike of posts that leave things to the readers’ imagination. Day 1 is crucial for establishing town norms. Do you disagree with me that your original post was cryptic? I wanted to discourage players from making potentially profound, but ultimately noncommittal posts. I can list the various reasons why it’s pro-town to be explicit, but I’m sure you know them as well as (if not better than) I do. As a result, I’d like you to explicitly state what “people” are twisting your words. If you were only talking about me, why would you use the word “people” and why didn’t you confront me directly? If not, than who are the others? Did you, like me, erroneously think that **UA** mischaracterized your post? Again, why didn’t you just say so? ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/343 "2009-03-17T00:44:33Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > What does what tell me? That you and mental guy are snuggling? > > It tells me that one of you wants some townie cred, I think. \*\*And that by attaching yourself to a Townie, you’re hoping to come off as innocent \*\*and indignant when the other is lynched and proven Town \ and \. How the hoo do you know the alignment of a non claimed? ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/344 "2009-03-17T01:42:32Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > [Quote=special ed] > > What does what tell me? That you and mental guy are snuggling? > > It tells me that one of you wants some townie cred, I think. And that by attaching yourself to a Townie, you’re hoping to come off as innocent and indignant when the other is lynched and proven Town \ and \. How the hoo do you know the alignment of a non claimed? [/quote] I don’t know his alignment nor do I know the alignment of mental guy, I was demonstrating the possible scum motivation of he and \*\*mental \*\*\*\*guy \*\*snuggling. That’s what snuggling tells me though, that one of them wants townie cred. I probably shouldn’t have said that one of them was Scum. I should have worded it more along the lines of, “it makes me suspicious that one of you might be trying to earn some Townie cred…” ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/345 "2009-03-17T01:51:36Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > I assume by this that you mean He must be Scum too, eh? \*\*peeker \*\*was a little slow on the draw calling your idea bad in post 244. But he must have been busy coining terms on the Scum board. \ Ok boyz and girlzs. Here we have the textbook example of a smudge. That’s when someone posts something that seems reasnonable and then backhands what initially appears to be a throwaway comment. Very very very scummy. So gettysburg wanna respond? “Coining terms”. Are you out of your rabbit as mind. Crap, if this was your fist game it would necessistate a smack down, rightfully. But you have got to have played enough that no soul is going to put up with that bullshit. Ok, rubber/glue, let’s see how this plays. Did you and your scum buddies come up with that lame piece of shit, or did you do it on your own. Direct question requires a direct response. Unless you are scared about your answer. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/346 "2009-03-17T01:58:17Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > coz this townie mobster is getting hungry for blood. In a game called Mafia where the baddies are scum, this might not be the most propitious way to refer to yourself. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/347 "2009-03-17T02:01:54Z")
**ok11** \> Maybe this will help. - [Post 221.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10937238&postcount=221) I quote the rules. - [Post 241.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10938243&postcount=241) Next, **ok11** comes along and [wrongly](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942505&postcount=335) assumes **Adrian** is using my post as justification. > [@ok11](#): > > what part of Hero’s post #221 lead you to believe that he agrees with you? Than asks me to state what I thnk the rules imply. > [@ok11](#): > > So Hero, what were you trying to say in that post? - [Post 249.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10938680&postcount=249) I clearly state what I think the rule change could mean. - [Post 256.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10939021&postcount=256) **ok11** again [wrongly](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942505&postcount=335) says to **Adrian** > [@ok11](#): > > UA, I see the logic in your interpretation. It just feels like you’re projecting your thought process unto others (MentalGuy and Hero) Than **ok11** proceeds to scold me and puts a little smudge on it. I quoted the rules because I felt they were relevant to the discussion. It wasn’t a sinister slippery and twisty post that left me all sorts of wiggle room. It was me quoting the rules. **ok11** asked me what I thought, and I promptly told him. > [@ok11](#): > > Perhaps they analyzed and drew conclusions, but just like you didn’t share them with the rest of us. Personally, I don’t like that type of post (221) because you’re not committing yourself to anything. If you’re scum, you can go back later and assign any meaning to it, depending on what suits you. - [Post 258.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10939073&postcount=258) I give **ok11** the benefit of the doubt and try to make myself crystal clear. I’m a little miffed he smudged me over post 221 but don’t think it is a big deal. I give him some tongue and cheek. > [@Hero](#): > > You have to admit, it is really interesting to see how people twisted my non-committed tiny post to their own means. I thought **ok11** would perhaps realize he was doing some misreading and appreciate the irony. If not, no big deal. - [Post 330.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942342&postcount=330) WOOOOOOOOOSH! > [@ok11](#): > > I’ve done a reread, and don’t see anyone except UA mischaracterizing your post. What people are you talking about? **Adrian** did not mischaracterize my post. Again, that was **ok11** misinterpreting. - [Post 335.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942505&postcount=335) A light goes off. **ok11** apologizes to **Adrian**. Unfortunately the dots aren’t connected yet. - [Post 337.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942645&postcount=337) I try to connect them. - [Post 342](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942645&postcount=342) and we are up to speed. > [@ok11](#): > > your pithy posts make me feel like I’m pulling teeth every time I ask you something. The feeling is mutual, bro. > [@ok11](#): > > To me, your motivation was unclear. If you were trying to make some point about the rules, why didn’t you just come out and say it right then? So I asked you about it. Incidentally, if no one prompted you to clarify, would you have left things as is? Who knows? Maybe I quote rules in some Machiavellian plan to really confuse the shit out of everyone. Woah! That dude knows the rules! What do I do? > [@ok11](#): > > Do you disagree with me that your original post was cryptic? Yes, a million times yes. People were talking about the rules and I clearly laid out exactly what was being discussed. I think people were only reading the explanation of the change and not actually looking at the difference. It took me a few times of looking through both sets of rules to spot the difference. I figured it would be helpful. > [@ok11](#): > > why didn’t you confront me directly? Because it wasn’t a big deal. I didn’t want to waste half an hour of my time explaining how you were misreading and wildly attributing motives to the most benign posts. But here we are. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/348 "2009-03-17T02:02:19Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > > Ok boyz and girlzs. Here we have the textbook example of a smudge. That’s when someone posts something that seems reasnonable and then backhands what initially appears to be a throwaway comment. Very very very scummy. > > So gettysburg wanna respond? “Coining terms”. Are you out of your rabbit as mind. > > Crap, if this was your fist game it would necessistate a smack down, rightfully. But you have got to have played enough that no soul is going to put up with that bullshit. > > Ok, rubber/glue, let’s see how this plays. > > Did you and your scum buddies come up with that lame piece of shit, or did you do it on your own. Direct question requires a direct response. Unless you are scared about your answer. Were you following along? I think you might need more tequila, **peek**. \*\*Straggler \*\*had accused \*\*paul \*\*and I of being scum buddies because we both thought his idea was bad, and I responded to his response to **paul** So I was taking it to an extreme and implying that everyone who thought straggler’s idea was bad must be my scum buddy as well. You came late to the ‘bad idea, straggler’ party, so I made a joke that you must have been coining terms on the scum thread\* See, \*\*straggler \*\*had accused me of coining the term 'voting blind" on the scum thread…then \*\*paul \*\*used it in the main thread..and me, in my infinite confusion, responded to that as if it were my term on the main thread as well. You were just a late addition to my response, as I’d already included **Bill** , and \*\*almost \*\*who too thought it was a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/349 "2009-03-17T02:04:19Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > > Ok boyz and girlzs. Here we have the textbook example of a smudge. That’s when someone posts something that seems reasnonable and then backhands what initially appears to be a throwaway comment. Very very very scummy. in fact, this is the opposite of a smudge, except I did it with sarcasm. ;-D which makes it look like a smudge if you ain’t following along. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/350 "2009-03-17T02:05:03Z")
> [@Batman\_Jenkems](#): > > **I see an edited post by Hoopy. Is that allowed?** Hey, **Punker** , Essence of love and go back to sleep. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/351 "2009-03-17T02:12:32Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > Hey, **Punker** , Essence of love and go back to sleep. you left out this: > [@Batman\_Jenkems](#): > > **Vote Hoopy** > > I don’t think editing is fair in any way. at least Rapier caught it… > [@Rapier42](#): > > Bzzzzt… bzzzzt… bzzzt. > > Attention. This is the emergency broadcast system. This is not a test. > > We’re in Day One of a pretty cool (if I say so myself) game over on the [Giraffeboard](http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=491), and could use a sub for a player ambushed by RL. > > Are you dead early? Are you about to die? Didn’t get your Mafia fix taken care of? Hie thee to the big GB! > > This concludes this emergency broadcast. We now return you to your regularly scheduled game. > > Oh, and **Vote Hoopy** , for editing. > > Sorry Sach. I’ll go away now. psst, **batman** , \*\*hoopy \*\*ain’t playing, but look what \*\*rapier \*\*did. I think you should vote for him. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/352 "2009-03-17T02:25:30Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > in fact, this is the opposite of a smudge, except I did it with sarcasm. ;-D which makes it look like a smudge if you ain’t following along. Another smudge. Sheesh. The sarcasm is duly noted. Oh well, onward. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/353 "2009-03-17T02:29:09Z")
I have debated with myself whether to even try to argue my case anymore, but since I still have people voting against me for my supposed PIS, I thought I would review what happened. sachertorte posted the rules. One of the rules read as follows: > [@](#): > > Game related communication outside the game thread is forbidden, except for scum who may communicate at Night and only at Night. Awhile later, sachertorte posted a revised set of rules. In this new set, the line above was changed to: > [@](#): > > Game related communication outside the game thread is forbidden, except for off-board communications established by the moderator. Based on this rule change ok11 posts speculation as to what changes might have been made. I do not disagree that they are all possibilities and if this was all that had been posted I believe they would have a case against me. However, in the revised rules sachertorte made the following statement as an addendum: > [@](#): > > The discrepancy is in the off-board communications. I copied the rules from Simpletown which restricted scum talk to Night only. The rules do not make that stipulation in not-so-simple Simpletown, for various not-so-simple reasons. I took this to mean that scum talk was not restricted to Night only. I have sons in school. Each year we get a set of rules for the school. For example, one of the rules is that cell phones must be turned off at all times during the school day. If I got a notice saying that rule had been removed, I would assume that there were at least times during the day that cell phones could be turned on. In the same post where she speculates on the rule changes, ok11 says: > [@](#): > > So I’ll be on the lookout for (IOW, even more paranoid about) people working together, and perfect information slips. Straggler then comes in to the picture with what is universally considered a bad idea. I am the first to state an objection to it. While I feel there is a lot wrong with his idea, the only real objection I give in my post is that I feel it would give wolves(yes, since straggler was saying wolves and I had the werewolf game on my mind I said wolves) too much power since they can talk during the Day. This was simply my assumption based on the remark sachertorte made at the end of the revised rules. ok11, who is eager to spot PIS’s, claims this is one. Based on sachertorte’s comment at the end of the revised rules, I do not see how this could be an example of a PIS. I believe my interpretation of what sachertorte said is reasonable and will play assuming the wolves can talk during the day. Supposedly based on the above information, I get votes against me from ok11, pedescribe, and Almost Human. Adrian, apparently interpreting sachertorte’s comment the same way I did, comes to my defense. He and I both think it looks like a pile-on starting and vote against Almost Human. I don’t want to speak for Adrian, but I believe we both realize our actions may make it look like we are working together. It is at this point that I make what I think is my first real mistake of the game. In the post where I vote against Almost Human I include the following sentence: > [@](#): > > I realize that this makes it look like [Undecided] Adrian and I are working together, but that is okay, since I think we are working together, just on the town side. As I re-read the thread, I realized the above statement does seem to imply much more than I was intending. Based on Adrian’s defense of me, and the fact that that then led us to both vote against Almost Human, it was going to appear that we were working together. I did not really think there was much I could do to counteract that perception and between that and my somewhat frustrated mental state (from some people’s unwillingness to believe that the rules could legitimately be interpreted the way that I had done), I somewhat flippantly added the second half of the sentence(partially meant to imply that some on the bandwagon against me might be working together for the other side). I realize now that reading it from a dispassionate perspective, it looks as if I am saying that Adrian and I have some sort of formal arrangement. I really just meant that I felt Adrian was playing pro-town. I also stated in another post that I was more likely to trust Adrian than some of the others that seemed to try to be starting a bandwagon against me. I stick by that statement but do realize it only a matter of degree. If Adrian starts suggesting straggler’s plan is a good one or that we vote to lynch someone because they do not use proper punctuation, then I will definitely think something is up. I will say part of my trust is based on how I am assuming the rules in the game work. He has no apparent reason to defend me over anyone else and I don’t think anyone has been allowed to investigate anyone yet. If this happened on Day 2, I might have the suspicion that he was an investigator and defending me to try to steer the vote somewhere else , or was doing it simply because he had investigated me and knew I was town. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/354 "2009-03-17T02:44:53Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > Another smudge. Sheesh. The sarcasm is duly noted. > > Oh well, onward. No smudge. I don’t think you’re particularly scummy for not following along. I think you just lost track of the thread of that conversation. I admit, there were many other comments in between them… ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/355 "2009-03-17T03:14:18Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Pleonast’s Day One Comment OmnibusThe first version of the rules forbade Scum from Day-talking. The second one does not. Conclusion: we can no longer be certain Scum are not allowed to secretly talk during the Day. This says nothing about other types of secret communication.Really? I waited until I had something more to say than “I’m here”. I don’t think it’s bad logic, although I agree it’s not very convinving evidence. But there’s a real problem with your vote–it was my logic, not **Seeker** ’s. Why did you vote them and not me?Bad advice. For some roles, claiming early is better than later. A Miller-type role (Town who investigates as Scum) should claim well before lynch-or-lose–probably best to claim on Day One. An investigator who has about 3 useful investigations (that is, the alignment of 3 living, unclaimed players) should reveal as soon as they reach that point. I’m sure there’s more examples. Basically, each player needs to consider how important their information is versus the value of their life and the risk that they’ll be killed before they can reveal. Unthinking adherence to secrecy is not helpful for us.I consider it very unsportsman-like to use priviledged information from one game in another game. Just do not do it. And it shouldn’t matter if some players go by different handles; we shouldn’t be carrying information from one game to the next.Your plan is bad; believe us when we say so. Take the quoted idea above. There is no simple way to find “genuine discrepancies and inconsistencies” that separate Scum from Town. This is especially true at the beginning of the game when Scum have all the information and we have none. And “voting blocs” are impossible to form, except for Scum and Masons. If we knew who we could trust well enough to vote with, we’d already know who the Scum are. And, don’t expect Scum to vote as a bloc–they’ll vote as individuals, because that’s how we should.I disagree. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t lie. Sure, if I was Scum, I’d lie about that, but about anything else, there’s no advantage to lying, even as Scum. The way to win as Scum is to play like a Townie. Any deviation from that opens you up to discovery. And the rest of us should take that into account–if you play deceptively, expect to get lynched, even if you are on our side. > > And asking for advice is an excellent way to generate discussion. The more discussion there is, the more likely a Scum slips up.And I think I spotted the first player skimming. The rule change/clarification allows that Scum can Day-talk, whereas the old versions does not. Newbies calling Scum wolves is not unexpected.I would so love it if Scum coordinated their votes! That’s how I catch them best. But Scum know this and will try to not coordinate their votes (or kill me Night One, that works too :smack: ). Your plan makes it easy for Scum to vote like Town–simply vote for whatever player you have some reason. Don’t think that Scum need to vote together (or even for Townies) to win.And you should know that the rules were changed to allow the possibility that Scum can talk during the Day. I would consider it very likely that Scum can talk. Why would the moderator change the rules to permit the possibility of Scum talking but then not actually permit Scum to Day-talk? Either you’re suggesting we have a Gastard Mod, or you have more information about Scum then the rest of us.Interesting comment coming from someone who’s been laying low. I expect to see more participation from you.I agree with you about **peeker** , but unfortunately he always plays this way. I Vig’d him several games ago for it, but I’m not a Vig this time and I don’t feel he’s crossed the anti-Town threshold yet this game. If he starts justifying votes in puzzles, then I’ll vote for him. If he’s simply spouting effluvia, it’s better to let our Vig take care of it (and any other anti-Town behavior that doesn’t rise to the lynchable offense threshold).Don’t be foolish. Trusting someone who happens to agree with your reasoning/ideas is setting yourself up to trust Scum. Scum can play pro-Town (and should) and Town can play anti-Town (and should be punished for it).What in Valhalla? Are you a newbie or a stupidly bold Scum? Only Scum and Masons have any reason to trust others and they should not be explicit about it. Well, unless you’re Scum and you’re trying 1) gain the trust of **Mental** and 2) setting yourself up so that when you’re outed, we take out them too.If you think someone is Scum, vote for them. If you have a reason to vote for them, tell us. The way you’re accusing someone of being Scum does not help us. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I have debated with myself whether to even try to argue my case anymore, but since I still have people voting against me for my supposed PIS, I thought I would review what happened. > > sachertorte posted the rules. One of the rules read as follows: > > Awhile later, sachertorte posted a revised set of rules. In this new set, the line above was changed to: > > Based on this rule change ok11 posts speculation as to what changes might have been made. I do not disagree that they are all possibilities and if this was all that had been posted I believe they would have a case against me. However, in the revised rules sachertorte made the following statement as an addendum: > > I took this to mean that scum talk was not restricted to Night only. I have sons in school. Each year we get a set of rules for the school. For example, one of the rules is that cell phones must be turned off at all times during the school day. If I got a notice saying that rule had been removed, I would assume that there were at least times during the day that cell phones could be turned on. > In the same post where she speculates on the rule changes, ok11 says: > > Straggler then comes in to the picture with what is universally considered a bad idea. I am the first to state an objection to it. While I feel there is a lot wrong with his idea, the only real objection I give in my post is that I feel it would give wolves(yes, since straggler was saying wolves and I had the werewolf game on my mind I said wolves) too much power since they can talk during the Day. This was simply my assumption based on the remark sachertorte made at the end of the revised rules. > > ok11, who is eager to spot PIS’s, claims this is one. Based on sachertorte’s comment at the end of the revised rules, I do not see how this could be an example of a PIS. > > I believe my interpretation of what sachertorte said is reasonable and will play assuming the wolves can talk during the day. > Supposedly based on the above information, I get votes against me from ok11, pedescribe, and Almost Human. > Adrian, apparently interpreting sachertorte’s comment the same way I did, comes to my defense. He and I both think it looks like a pile-on starting and vote against Almost Human. I don’t want to speak for Adrian, but I believe we both realize our actions may make it look like we are working together. It is at this point that I make what I think is my first real mistake of the game. In the post where I vote against Almost Human I include the following sentence: > > As I re-read the thread, I realized the above statement does seem to imply much more than I was intending. Based on Adrian’s defense of me, and the fact that that then led us to both vote against Almost Human, it was going to appear that we were working together. I did not really think there was much I could do to counteract that perception and between that and my somewhat frustrated mental state (from some people’s unwillingness to believe that the rules could legitimately be interpreted the way that I had done), I somewhat flippantly added the second half of the sentence(partially meant to imply that some on the bandwagon against me might be working together for the other side). I realize now that reading it from a dispassionate perspective, it looks as if I am saying that Adrian and I have some sort of formal arrangement. I really just meant that I felt Adrian was playing pro-town. I also stated in another post that I was more likely to trust Adrian than some of the others that seemed to try to be starting a bandwagon against me. I stick by that statement but do realize it only a matter of degree. If Adrian starts suggesting straggler’s plan is a good one or that we vote to lynch someone because they do not use proper punctuation, then I will definitely think something is up. I will say part of my trust is based on how I am assuming the rules in the game work. He has no apparent reason to defend me over anyone else and I don’t think anyone has been allowed to investigate anyone yet. If this happened on Day 2, I might have the suspicion that he was an investigator and defending me to try to steer the vote somewhere else , or was doing it simply because he had investigated me and knew I was town. You make a good defense. I tip my hat. **Unvote MentalGuy** ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/356 "2009-03-17T03:16:43Z")
Oops. I didn’t mean to quote Pleo there. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/357 "2009-03-17T03:17:39Z")
holy huge block of text, batman! not you jenkems, the real batman ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/358 "2009-03-17T03:49:01Z")
> [@](#): > > (Originally Posted by special ed): > What does what tell me? That you and mental guy are snuggling? > > It tells me that one of you wants some townie cred, I think. **And that by attaching yourself to a Townie** , you’re hoping to come off as innocent and indignant when the other is lynched and proven Town > [@peekercpa](#): > > How the hoo do you know the alignment of a non claimed? I was about to use this as my tipping point to vote for **special ed** , but he does clarify what he meant when he says “you’re hoping to come off as innocent and indignant when the other is lynched and proven Town”. He’s not claiming to know the alignment of a non-claimed, he’s claiming that one of the two guys in question has latched to the other, knowing they’re town. Could be either of them. At the moment my vote sits between (in no particular order): - **special ed** - **paulwhoisaghost** - **Sitnam** **Sitnam** is playing this game exactly the same way I would if I were scum. Every time I rub him with a cloth hoping to find some dirt, all I’m hearing are squeaky polishing noises. Not liking it. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/359 "2009-03-17T04:18:57Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > You make a good defense. I tip my hat. > > **Unvote MentalGuy** Thank you. Unfortunately, that still leaves me with three votes and I am afraid some people may be afraid of giving a third vote to someone else and creating a tie. While I am not as sure of this as the scum being allowed day talk, I think I know what sachertorte is going to do if there is a tie. He is going to randomly select a player from the pool of people that voted for the tied players and lynch them. Since several players still have yet to vote, this is hypothetical, but I could switch my vote to create a tie, thus giving myself some chance of survival. I must say I cannot see any reason for any player not to do this if they are in this situation near the deadline. For this reason, I would strongly urge everyone to vote for who they honestly feel is scum to begin with. Then, if there are ties, for the players who gave single votes to switch their votes to create a situation where the vote leader cannot create a tie by switching their vote. ---
**Author:** ![Batman\_Jenkems](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@Batman\_Jenkems](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batman_Jenkems)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/360 "2009-03-17T08:27:14Z")
haha, my fault. I didn’t realize non-players would be posting. In smash that never happened. I am retarded **Vote Me** being retarded is a scum tell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=19)