# 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:** 19
**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, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/361 "2009-03-17T08:28:26Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > holy huge block of text, batman! > > not you jenkems, the real batman Thou shalt not use the Batman’s name in vain. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![BillMC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@BillMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BillMC)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/362 "2009-03-17T09:57:20Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Strange reaction. You voted for someone for stating an idea. That’s anti-Town. Why should you not collect votes for that? At the risk of this degenerating into _Hamlet: Part Deux_, so in your eyes it is perfectly ok for the masses to rip an idea to shreds, deride it, rip its head off and crap down its neck, but to actually put a vote against it, is bad? I wonder where democracy would be if disagreeing and voting against an idea was such a bad thing. Maybe I should put “it’s only an idea” after every post and then yell anti-town at anyone who votes. ..it’s only an idea. ---
**Author:** ![Almost\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@Almost\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Almost_Human)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/363 "2009-03-17T10:11:59Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > 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. > > 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. (snipped a bit) **Mentalguy** , just to be clear, my vote for you had nothing to do with saying wolves, I can understand that. And if you’d said you thought scum can very **likely** talk during the Day and you were going to play based on that assumption I wouldn’t have lifted an eyebrow. It was the fact you said scum _ **could** _ talk during the Day that made me suspicious. The part of your post here where you say: “I believe my interpretation of what sachertorte said is reasonable and will play assuming the wolves can talk during the day.” If you’d said that initially I’d have removed my vote from you ages ago. Then we got into this whole debate which just made you seem scummier to me as you didn’t seem to even consider the possibility you may be wrong. To sum up my position. I also think it’s likely scum can talk during the Day. I’m just not prepared to assume that’s the only possible interpretation of the rule change. If we just assume something is true then there’s a fair chance we’ll miss something we’d have caught if we were being properly paranoid and suspicious. Anyway, I’ll do a full reread after work and consider where to place my vote but for now. **unvote mentalguy** **Pleo** I haven’t adressed your anti town comments to you personally as I think it’s pretty much covered in this post. Needless to say, I disagree that my posts were anti town. I think it’s very pro town to not assume anything till proven, however likely it may be - doing so encourages lazy play IMO. ---
**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, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/364 "2009-03-17T12:54:33Z")
Pleonast posted: > [@Pleonast](#): > > Day One Anti-Town Actions, IMHO of **Pleonast** > I’ll switch to anyone I listed above by the end of the Day if tactically useful. (I dislike players who avoid attention by hiding with a singleton vote instead of committing to one of the larger controversies. It’s our responsibility to lynch Scum, and Townies playing lone wolf make it easier for Scum to control the lynch.) Immediately after posting: > [@](#): > > And, don’t expect Scum to vote as a bloc–they’ll vote as individuals, because that’s how we should. So which is it? The way I am reading it, you say that we should vote as individuals. Then, immediately after that, you say we need to commit to a controversy and not play “lone wolf.” Contradicting yourself in back to back posts is hard work. :dubious: I don’t think that it deserves a vote, but I would like to hear a clarification if you would be so kind. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/365 "2009-03-17T13:04:03Z")
1 - [Undecided] Adrian (Natlaw) 2 - Almost Human ([Undecided] Adrian, MentalGuy) 1 - BillMC (Pleonast) 2 - MentalGuy (ok11, willthekittensurvive?) 1 - Oredigger77 (Seeker of Truth and Beauty) 1 - Pleonast (Oredigger77) 1 - Seeker of Truth and Beauty (Hero From Sector 7G) 1 - peekercpa (Sitnam) 2 - straggler (BillMC, paulwhoisaghost) ---
**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, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/366 "2009-03-17T13:36:06Z")
I do not want this to look like a case of “You voted for me, so I will vote for you”, but my vote against Almost Human was because I perceived her trying to start a pile-on (and I still have my suspicions). Since the pile-on has stopped, I will for the time being **Unvote Almost Human** I too will decide who to recast my vote for later in the day. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/367 "2009-03-17T14:12:42Z")
> [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > and seeing that mentalguy already has 3 votes, I’m adding the 4th > **vote Mentalguy** Wow, this is not cool. This is what town does when they don’t trust their own judgment, or what scum does to hide their vote history. So which is it? ---
**Author:** ![willthekittensurvive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@willthekittensurvive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/willthekittensurvive)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/368 "2009-03-17T14:31:49Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Wow, this is not cool. This is what town does when they don’t trust their own judgment, or what scum does to hide their vote history. So which is it? you’re right,I have no idea, no smoking guns, nothing to base a vote on, just posters making noise to make noise, and other posters trying to incriminate them on that. It was a cowards way out, so im starting a no lynch vote **unvote mental guy** **vote no lynch** can’t we all be friends? ---
**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, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/369 "2009-03-17T15:13:54Z")
> [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > you’re right,I have no idea, no smoking guns, nothing to base a vote on, just posters making noise to make noise, and other posters trying to incriminate them on that. > > It was a cowards way out, so im starting a no lynch vote > > **unvote mental guy** > > **vote no lynch** > > can’t we all be friends? No, we cannot all be friends. Some of the players want to kill us. You’re consitently hiding behind other’s opinions. You aren’t trying to find Scum. You’re trying to avoid suspicion. Town players shouldn’t mind getting suspcion if it helps to find Scum. Finding Scum is our only goal. Surviving isn’t even important for Town. Your play is anti-town. Beyond that, I can see the Scum mtivation in your play. **Vote willthekittensurvive?** ---
**Author:** ![\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/eada6e/32.png) [@\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Undecided_Adrian)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/370 "2009-03-17T15:44:58Z")
I think the discussion around **MentalGuy** has now come to an end. **Almost Human** and **pedescribe** have backed off their votes. The vote itself was not even the central issue, but the central argument aroud the PIS “tell” has now been resolved to my satisfaction. But after it was essentially over, **willthekittensurvive** just throws his vote on the pile, missing the whole exhaustive discussion. He is very willing to back off, but the no lynch vote is even more cowardly than following the majority. It seems like lazy an nonconfrontational playing to me, but is imho the best tell so far, I agree with **ed** there. **Unvote Almost Human Vote willthekittensurvive** ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/371 "2009-03-17T16:00:02Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > 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.Strange reaction. You voted for someone for stating an idea. That’s anti-Town. Why should you not collect votes for that? Again I think we’re talking past each other. I’m asking if the reasoning behind an OMGUS vote is much different then a random. A random vote says I have no reasons to think your scum but I’m going to vote for you. An OMGUS vote says you voted for me so you must be against me. There are no other reasons attached and it doesn’t even make a case for the person voted for being anti-town let alone scum. I think that the reasoning behind is little better for the OMGUS and if more reasons are attached then it’s not an OMGUS. Not that it matters because thanks to my shitty timing you’re about to vote for me again. > [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > you’re right,I have no idea, no smoking guns, nothing to base a vote on, just posters making noise to make noise, and other posters trying to incriminate them on that. > > It was a cowards way out, so im starting a no lynch vote > > **unvote mental guy** > > **vote no lynch** > > can’t we all be friends? bleached I am probably biased because I just did a read through in my other game where a recently lynched scum just made the exact same post to the effect of ‘I don’t have any idea what is going on I’m just trying to get through with the minimum of bloodshed’ so this strikes me as extremely scummy. I pretty sure that Pleo will see this as another me too but **Unvote Pleo Vote willthekittensurvive?** ---
**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, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/372 "2009-03-17T16:01:39Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > 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. Serves you right for being subtle 🙂 I understand why it wasn’t a big deal to you, but it was a big deal to me. Ultimately, it would have helped you save time, and help me save face. Since you saw from the start that I misunderstood **UA** (and was completely oblivious to it), I really wish you said, “You are twisting **UA** ’s words.” Because when you said, “You have to admit, it is really interesting to see how people twisted my non-committed tiny post to their own means,” it just added to my confusion and reinforced my wrong belief. Let’s look at the sequence of events from my perspective. First, **[Undecided] Adrian** disagreed with my interpretation of the rules by saying, > [@'\[Undecided](#): > > Adrian;10938136’]and that scum can talk during the day is the only explanation of the rule change (especially the given reason) that makes sense. See **Hero From Sector 7G’s** post #221, which came after **ok11’s** post, to be fair. The second sentence threw me off, because I’ve been looking at **sachertorte’s** posts all along. I didn’t get why it would matter that your post came after mine. Consequently, I thought **UA** was using that post to somehow demonstrate that his interpretation is the _only_ valid one based on what you were stressing. I asked **UA** about it, but he didn’t clarify until much later. So, I started scrutinizing your post. I didn’t see anything in those quotes that I haven’t already read multiple times. Since by then it was obvious that people had different interpretations, I wanted to know what you saw that the rest of us didn’t. You responded with, “I was hoping other people would analyze it and draw their own conclusions, but that didn’t happen,” which ticked me off a bit, because that’s what I’ve been doing from the get-go. Hence, my reaction: thinking that you made that first post with the intention of making it look like you were participating in the discussion, but without opening yourself up to criticism by taking a stance one way or another. A second reread makes me see that I’m in the wrong here, so I apologize. If anyone needs me, I’ll be in the corner wearing the dunce cap. ---
**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 17, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/373 "2009-03-17T16:12:28Z")
> [@BillMC](#): > > At the risk of this degenerating into _Hamlet: Part Deux_, so in your eyes it is perfectly ok for the masses to rip an idea to shreds, deride it, rip its head off and crap down its neck, but to actually put a vote against it, is bad? Yes! That is exactly what I’m suggesting! The Town needs to have discussion to 1) come up with the best ideas to win and 2) catch Scum via slips or anti-Town motivation. In order to have discussion, we need players to post. If players have to second-guess everything they think of, then we might lose that one brilliant idea that sounds crazy but would actually be hugely helpful to us in the current game. So we really, really do want players to openly and freely post their ideas. And since voting for a player simply for expressing an idea tends to make players reticent to post them, that kind of voting is extremely anti-Town. > [@Almost\_Human](#): > > **Pleo** I haven’t adressed your anti town comments to you personally as I think it’s pretty much covered in this post. Needless to say, I disagree that my posts were anti town. I think it’s very pro town to not assume anything till proven, however likely it may be - doing so encourages lazy play IMO. I mostly agree with you here, and your explanation of your actions makes sense. I had interpreted your reaction to **MentalGuy** as saying only that we should not assume that Scum can Day talk. I think we should assume that, simply because it’s a worse case for us. But part of your intention (correct me if I misunderstand again) was that Scum Day-talking is not the only interpretation of the rule change. And I agree that we need to stay open for other possibilities (while being vigilant against the effects of Scummy Day-Talk). > [@Batman\_Jenkems](#): > > So which is it? The way I am reading it, you say that we should vote as individuals. Then, immediately after that, you say we need to commit to a controversy and not play “lone wolf.” My statements are not contradictory. We (at least until we have openly confirmed Townies) should never vote as a bloc, simply because we cannot trust anyone else. That does not mean we should not vote for the same players. That is, players voting the same way is not necessarily a bloc–it means individual players have separately come to the same conclusion. And that’s a good thing, because 1) we shouldn’t trust each others’ judgements, and 2) it avoids group-think and mob mentality. And I’m not suggesting that a player ever vote for someone they don’t think is Scum. I write up my list of anti-Town actions so that I can better keep track of who I think might be Scum. (Also, so everyone else can what I’m thinking.) I put my initial vote on the player I think is most likely to be Scum. It’s a marker so everyone has a record. But I think that the other players on my list are still likely to be Scum, so if near the end of the Day one of them is close to a majority, I’ll vote for them instead of wasting my vote on someone who will not be lynched. I’m not going to vote for a player not on my lists. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > Again I think we’re talking past each other. I’m asking if the reasoning behind an OMGUS vote is much different then a random. A random vote says I have no reasons to think your scum but I’m going to vote for you. An OMGUS vote says you voted for me so you must be against me. There are no other reasons attached and it doesn’t even make a case for the person voted for being anti-town let alone scum. I think that the reasoning behind is little better for the OMGUS and if more reasons are attached then it’s not an OMGUS. Not that it matters because thanks to my shitty timing you’re about to vote for me again. Ah, you’re comparing the merits of a random vote and an OMGUS vote, rather than the votes themselves. I think a random vote is only useful to generate discussion; it’s anti-Towniness depends on context. An OMGUS is always anti-Town, but only slightly so. A still think your vote for me was motivated by OMGUS, because of the timings of your vote and unvote. But an OMGUS vote is only a little anti-Town, and there’s more egregious actions out there. ---
**Author:** ![willthekittensurvive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@willthekittensurvive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/willthekittensurvive)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/374 "2009-03-17T16:19:50Z")
Okay looks like I’m on the defensive now, non confrontational that would be me… cowardly maybe, scum no…I can see how I put a big bullseye on my forehead, and am not sure how to defend myself, except by finding some way to lay doubt on someone else…hope I get past this round, but I still don’t get how we are supposed to find scum on the first round, wouldn’t an anti town player just keep his mouth shut and vote? willthekittensurvive? ---
**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 17, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/375 "2009-03-17T16:36:07Z")
> [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > still not enough data(or dataprocessingpower), so of all the random votes I could make, only three have some merit, not a lot of it, but its all Igot, > special ed and paulwhoisaghost for teaming up and admitting it, but if they were scum that would be pushing it, and mentalguy for the alleged information slip > and seeing that mentalguy already has 3 votes, I’m adding the 4th > vote Mentalguy > other then that I got nothing else to base my vote on… I can’t believe I missed this post (mostly because I was distracted by my shiny shiny name in the next post :D). This isn’t just a me-too vote, it’s admitted pile-on vote. This is enough for me to vote for **kitten** , but I think **Bill** voting down ideas is more anti-Town. > [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > you’re right,I have no idea, no smoking guns, nothing to base a vote on, just posters making noise to make noise, and other posters trying to incriminate them on that. > It was a cowards way out, so im starting a no lynch vote > unvote mental guy > vote no lynch > can’t we all be friends? This is bad also, although no as bad as the first vote. No lynching is bad, because it hands the initiative to the Scum and it leads us to a Day Two where we have nearly no more information than Day One. > [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > I still don’t get how we are supposed to find scum on the first round, wouldn’t an anti town player just keep his mouth shut and vote? It’s very hard to lynch Scum on Day One without a large dose of luck. But we still need to try. And laying low and simply voting (or even avoiding a vote) are anti-Town. We’ll get those players Tomorrow. ---
**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 17, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/376 "2009-03-17T16:37:54Z")
> [@Batman\_Jenkems](#): > > 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. Townies voting for themselves is anti-Town. Scum voting for themselves is pro-Town. Are you being pro- or anti-Town here? **And, is there a rule that prevents us voting for ourself, or did you miss this vote** ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/377 "2009-03-17T16:41:51Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > **And, is there a rule that prevents us voting for ourself, or did you miss this vote** - Players may vote for themselves if they wish. - I didn’t miss anything. ---
**Author:** ![\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/eada6e/32.png) [@\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Undecided_Adrian)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/378 "2009-03-17T16:44:19Z")
> [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > Okay looks like I’m on the defensive now, non confrontational that would be me.. cowardly maybe, scum no…I can see how I put a big bullseye on my forehead, and am not sure how to defend myself, except by finding some way to lay doubt on someone else…hope I get past this round, but I still don’t get how we are supposed to find scum on the first round, wouldn’t an anti town player just keep his mouth shut and vote? Keeping your mouth shut is exactly what you did. The problem is that confrontation is the only way to figure out who is who in the game. We never have enough confirmed information to decide, especially not on the first day, so there is always suspicion and guessing involved. You need to analyze other posts for yourself, since you can’t completely trust other players’ analyses, and providing others with the opportunity to figure out your thought processes is pro-town. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/379 "2009-03-17T17:25:22Z")
Calling **Seeker** back to the game. You were getting some suspicion and didn’t respond to it. Why did you choose to vanish instead? ---
**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:** [March 17, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/380 "2009-03-17T17:32:27Z")
You guys don’t waste a lot of time do you? Couldn’t wait until I had more free time before going all insane huh? That’s ok, i’ll just brain dump as I read back over the thread. Some of the following will seem out of place, but I’m responding in something resembling thread order as I reread it. The early controversy seemed to resolve around the change in the rules and what it may or may not mean. The first thing I thought when I saw it was that the scum could talk during the Day now. Sure, there could be other explantions, or even if no change to the actual game just a change to the rules for obfusication reasons, but the safest assumption for Town is that the scum can Day talk now. If we have reason to believe otherwise later then we can revise that assumption. Heh. If anyone claims scum when they aren’t, I will personally arrange for a dozen drunken idiots to show up at their house and point and laugh at them. (See Seeker? You’ve been accepted into the fraternity already!) The thing with play styles is you can pick up on changes in them. People often develop a certain way of posting, of commenting, voting etc, when they play a specific side repeatedly. If they then start posting in a different way, that can indicate to someone that they have changed sides. It’s not enough in and of itself, since people can change over time, or they can be like Blam and make it a point to change up regularly. But it is something to look out for. Straggler, yes, it is very common for Day 1 votes to be flimsy. It’s Day 1, there’s not generally much to go on. There’s nothing wrong with a flimsy Day 1, it gives people something to react to, and that is what we as Town should be looking at to figure out the scum, reactions. Oh and not to be an ass, but as others have said, that strategy is pretty terrible. Scum can and will split up their votes, vote for each other, and do anything else necessary to win. Lynch all liars is pretty much standard issue. Sure, there could be specific instances where someone pro-town could lie in a pro-town way, but that would have to evaluated at the time. For general, if someone is caught lying, they should be lynched. I can’t believe people jumped on wolves as PIS. You know the RL version of this game is generally called Werewolf right? Wolves are pretty bog standard scum. Doubly so when you consider the other game going on at the same time is wolves. Oh and for the record, I don’t think it’s going to Assassins again. Sach mentioned that the Assassins were driven out in the color post. Not that it actually matters, since it’s all flavor in the end. Sitnam, lynching the loud isn’t just a Day 1 issue. The more people post, the more likely they are to screw up somewhere, make a mistake, whatever. People jump on these mistakes without really thinking them through. This is why you need to think about not just what someone said and did, but WHY they said and did it. Too often the why gets lost, and you end up with Daphne almost getting lynched(see the Split). But you’re wrong about the lurking thing. Let’s say for example there are 4 scum. In your average game, those 4 would be spread out over various posting levels. Sometimes they clump up, like the T2 game where pretty much all the scum were top posters, but in general they end up spread. And I for one generally give someone the benefit of the doubt if they claim an OOG reason for not posting. My reasoning is simple. This is a game, and if you’re willing to lie about OOG stuff in order to try and win, then I really don’t want to be playing with you. > [@straggler](#): > > .. and in the secured discussion area where only scum can communicate? > [@straggler](#): > > You guys have your own whole board to dicsuss your scummy tactics? What else can you tell us? The names of the other people on that board, perhaps? There’s a contradiction here by the way. And an offboard site for the scum to post on has been SOP for just about every single game player here that I’m aware of. Man Pleo, I disagree with a lot of what you say. > [@](#): > > 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. Priviledged information, yes I absolutely agree. But this idea that we should forget past games? That’s terrible. People SHOULD be looking for changes in playstyle, contradictions of previously expressed ideas, and similar. Especially if said changes and contradictions are beneficial to a scum player. > [@](#): > > And, don’t expect Scum to vote as a bloc–they’ll vote as individuals, because that’s how we should. While generally true, it’s not always the case. Scum can and will form blocs if it is beneficial to them, and we need to be aware of it and watch for it. To use an extreme example, look at the end of Smash Brothers at Idles site. Yes I know, Town couldn’t have possibly have used that since it ended the game. On the other hand, they could have read a bit more into my last minute vote and considered the possibility of it happening, especially when KidV was killed on the last Night. Town seemed to assume that KidV bluffed them into killing him, rather than considering the possibility that killing him was intentional and was done to further some plan. Let’s not get tunnel vision here. > [@](#): > > The way to win as Scum is to play like a Townie. No the way scum win is by deflecting suspicion as much as possible while still advancing their own game plan. Simply playing Townie isn’t enough. Though the conclusion you draw, to watch for deviations from Town play, I agree with. I don’t think changing the rules to allow for something but not actually implementing it is paticularly gastardish. YMMV. Of course, I still think we’re better off assuming Day talking scum for the time being. I have no idea what you were trying to say in that response to AH Sitnam. Ped, I also don’t think the tie rule is paticularly gastardish either. I look on it as the nuclear option to stop us from having a tie. Bill, I don’t understand your comment about Pleo’s vote. Is this because of some back issue between you two? If so, let me state Mhaye’s standard line. Grudges are BAD. Don’t bring old issues into a new game. Peeker, neither of those things you state strike me as smudges. But you calling them that sure feels like one. You call that a huge block of text? HAH! > [@BillMC](#): > > At the risk of this degenerating into Hamlet: Part Deux, so in your eyes it is perfectly ok for the masses to rip an idea to shreds, deride it, rip its head off and crap down its neck, but to actually put a vote against it, is bad? > > I wonder where democracy would be if disagreeing and voting against an idea was such a bad thing. > > Maybe I should put “it’s only an idea” after every post and then yell anti-town at anyone who votes. > > ..it’s only an idea. Yes, it is. Voting for ideas just quashes thought within this game, which is bad for Town. And it’s a good thing this is Mafia and not democracy or we might be in trouble. My first instict is to vote for kitten, just because the bizarre pile on and then near immediate unvote is just scummy as hell. But then I stop and realize the issue is less likely to be newbie scum than newbie player in general. It’s something you see from new players a lot, the desire to live. For everyone new, if you are Town, you should not be afraid to die. Pretty much everytime a Town player dies, we gain information. And that is what Town needs more than anything else, information. The core of Mafia is Town has numbers, Scum has information. Town wins by trading just enough bodies for just enough information to root out the scum. And that’s interesting. **Is a vote of Me not valid?** Because if it is, you have some explaining to do Mr. Jenkems. I’m going to wait on the response to that before I vote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=20)