# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/681 "2009-03-30T02:56:38Z")
Well, I leave for a couple of days and come back to a couple of dead masons. Shame they didn’t even get the chance to become shriners. I assume since the death certificate said “town mason” we can assume the masons are part of the town. I guess if there is only one mason remaining, it would not do any good for them to claim now. If there are two, I understand that they should claim, but should they do it immediately or when one is likely to be lynched? If there are three, I guess they shouldn’t claim and just take the chance that two of them won’t be offed the same night. I doubt there are more than three, but if there are it wouldn’t matter since they could still take a double hit and have at least two left. The town got unlucky last night, but the Cabalists got unlucky at the beginning of the game when two of the players assigned to them played in a way to garner an unusual amount of suspicion. Kitten was picking up votes before straggler took over the lead on Day 1. I believe it is possible that some fellow cabalists threw straggler under the bus (and with good reason). They (probably) could not afford to bus a second member though. They (assuming more than one other, could be wrong) needed to guide the vote to someone else. Sitnam is the person who picked up the most votes outside those two. While I think Sitnam has a tendency to read more into things than is there (such as sachetorte’s comment when Pleonast was killed), I haven’t seen him do anything to garner much more suspicion than anyone else. **Almost Human** voted for Sitnam both times. I have suspected AH since she seemed to want people to casually accept that my “scum can day-talk” assumption should be an automatic vote against me. In post 197, AH also sort of defends kitten. It wasn’t a real defense, but a suggestion that kitten seemed more of an overwhelmed townie. Anyway, it seemed designed to steer the vote away from kitten. So, while my vote can always be changed with a good argument, for now **Vote Almost Human** ---
**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 30, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/682 "2009-03-30T03:14:27Z")
I need a **Hero**. I’m holding out for a \*\*Hero \*\*til the end of the Night. He’s gotta be strong and he’s gotta be fast And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight. I picked \*\*Hero \*\*at random to analyze. Here are **Hero** ’s game posts: [Post 137](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10934044&postcount=137): Confirming role [Post 160](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10934471&postcount=160): Vote **Pleonast** for the comment about us having 7 mislynches. \*\*\*Pleo \*_did turn up as a werewolf_ [Post 172](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10935017&postcount=172): \*\*Almost \*\*had said, “The way I see it we should be looking hard for scum every Day”, \*\*Hero \*\*reacted sarcastically. [Post 177](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10935483&postcount=177): Apologizes to **Almost** [Post 187](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10935829&postcount=187): This was in the midst of the comments about \*\*oredigger \*\*me too’ing **Pleonast**. Hero ends up unvoting \*\*Pleo \*\*and voting for \*\*Seeker \*\*because seeker followed up Pleonast’s vote of \*\*Oredigger \*\*with a me too vote. _Complicated enough? GO back and re-read it. It confused me for a while._ [Post 210](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10936922&postcount=210): Seems to be encouraging discussion. Makes the comment that it’s easiest for Scum to hide in the advisor role. _I’m not sure that’s true, but it’s a valid opinion.It’s Ironic that he ends up giving game advice._ [Post 214](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10937069&postcount=214): Game advice. _More irony?_ [Post 221](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10937238&postcount=221): Reposts the rules about communication out of the main thread. Make no comment. _This will lead to trouble later._ [Post 249](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10938680&postcount=249) Hero comments that he was just posting the rules to allow people to come to their own conclusions. _Others didn’t like this and wondered what his opinion was. He does give his opinion, that Scum may or may not be able to talk during the Day._ [Post 253](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10938803&postcount=253): Directed at **Seeker**. Suggest that he check out **peeker** ’s other games. \*\*\*Seeker \*_had been attacking **peeker** ’s style of posting._ [Post 257](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10939045&postcount=257): More comments on the posting of when Scum can and can’t talk. Here it is: > [@hero](#): > > Adrian, I can see where you’re coming from but didn’t reach your conclusion from the rule change. > > I replied to ok11 before I read the whole thread. I see the issue has been discussed in more detail and that is good. I would really like to know why you think talking about third parties is a distraction. What exactly is it distracting us from? [Post 258](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10939073&postcount=258): Indicates his interpretation of the rule change leads him to believe we have a 3rd party [Post 260](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10939085&postcount=260): Asks \*\*Adrian \*\*for his definition of a bandwagon. _Adrian replies that it is a bunch of me too votes with no added information._ [Post 262](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10939129&postcount=262): \*\*Hero \*\*asks **Adrian** , “Why did you feel it was your responsibility to stop a bunch of me too posts?” **Adrian** ’s reply, “Hero, how often do I have to repeat myself? I didn’t think it was justified. Exhaustive explanations above.” _At this point, I start a comment on the **Adrian/mental guy** snuggles._ [Post 277](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10939358&postcount=277): Banter with **peeker** , not related to the game. [Post 337](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942645&postcount=337): A little more of the stuff with **ok11** mischaracterizing his post hat contained the rules with no opinion on them. _To be honest, a few people expressed opinions on them and seemed to want everyone to comment on them. To me, it was apparent that the scum might or might not be able to talk during the Day, and I was ready to move on from there. For Some people, it became an important issue to talk about._ [Post 347](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10943326&postcount=347): A synopsis of the issue \*\*Hero \*\*had with **ok11**. [Post 379](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10945164&postcount=379): Calling \*\*Seeker \*\*back. Says that he garnered some suspicion and disappeared. [Post 390](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10946060&postcount=390): Comments on the ‘snuggling’ and ‘teaming up’ [Post 399](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10946156&postcount=399): Gives \*\*straggler \*\*game advice (and an insult) about trusting anyone who isn’t confirmed. [Post 405](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10946215&postcount=405): Apologizes to **straggler** , but still indicates he doesn’t think straggler’s snuggle with \*\*Pleo \*\*makes sense unless \*\*straggler \*\*is Scum. _Pretty interesting with hindsight, no?_ [Post 463](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10949960&postcount=463): Unvotes **Seeker** , Votes **ok11**. States that his vote is because \*\*ok11 \*\*shouldn’t vote for \*\*seeker \*\*since he’s not around to defend himself. [Post 482](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10950683&postcount=482): Makes it clear that he voted for \*\*ok11 \*\*for the timing of his vote. States that **Seeker** ’s behavior is scummy, but why did \*\*OK11 \*\*wait until after it was clear that \*\*Seeker \*\*wouldn’t be returning to vote for him? Day 2 [Post 549](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10960243&postcount=549): Defends himself from a comment by \*\*Ichini \*\*( **Seeker** ’s replacement) and votes for **Ichini**. Ichini had stated that he was suspicous of \*\*Hero \*\*for his vote on \*\*Pleo \*\*for bad math. \*\*Hero \*\*responded that it wasn’t the bad math that garnered the vote, but the intentially misleading information \*\*Pleo \*\*presented that had him vote. [Post 552](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10960373&postcount=552): Defends his vote for Ichini. _It’s difficult to summarize. Go read it yourself._ [Post 554](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10960405&postcount=554): Clarifies how he found **Pleo** ’s math misleading. Ends with “I wish I could see the look on Pleo’s face when he read the death report.” [Post 629](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10970529&postcount=629): Shows how **Ichini** ’s timeline is wrong in assuming why \*\*Hero \*\*voted for **Seeker**. [Post 633](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10971235&postcount=633): Continuing the back and forth with **Ichini**. I think \*\*Hero \*\*is winning the argument, but I’m not sure if it tells us anything about the alignment of either. [Post 643](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10973829&postcount=643): Asks about the curse. [Post 650](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10975886&postcount=650): States he didn’t know of the curse, and also states that he thought \*\*Pleo \*\*wasn’t targeted and didn’t die because of a tie. He mistakenly calls \*\*Pleo \*\ ***Ped** , but corrects that mistake later. It doesn’t make sense that he’d be talking of **Ped**. What I find interesting is that he seems to know how \*\*Pleo \*\*died. Is this a leak of PIS? [Post 655](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10976415&postcount=655): His correction of post 650. [Post 666](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10982462&postcount=666): Asks if \*\*Batman \*\*is even playing still. Recalls (_correctly_) that he had asked in thread for a sub. [Post 676](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10985054&postcount=676): Banter with \*\*peeker \*\*about his vote not containing the word vote, I think [Post 679](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10985156&postcount=679): Comments that \*\*peeker \*\*voted and unvoted without anything really happening. Wow, I think this amounts to a whole lot of nothing, but let me know what you think after reading all this. ---
**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 30, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/683 "2009-03-30T03:55:00Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > This durn thread was fucking dead yesterDay. I am going to attempt to poke the ant hill and get some movement. Ya think that’s bad? Of course not. But I don’t see how you being confusing helps anything. _You didn’t actually vote_. Than you _unvoted_. On top of your weird language I have to double guess even your votes? Help us out a little bit here and at least proof-read your crazyness to make sure it is exactly as crazy as you intend. Being snide and telling me to “keep up” sure doesn’t help. ---
**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 30, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/684 "2009-03-30T15:09:10Z")
Well, that doesn’t look good losing two masons. At this point I’ve run out of my Day 1 suspicions so I’ll read back through and see what I can find. ---
**Author:** ![ok11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8baadc/32.png) [@ok11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ok11)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/685 "2009-03-30T15:48:23Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > As for the second, we’re assuming that Scum/Vig?SK might hit 1 out 3 times on another Scum. The only problem I see with this is that it’s possible that the Cabalists are eliminated early and therefore have no more Night Kill. (Disclaimer: I don’t completely follow the numbers.) Why would eliminating the Cabalists be a problem? If in this scenario they hit town twice as often as they hit scum, then wouldn’t it be better if they were gone? My top two suspects on Day 2 were **Sitnam** and **Ichini**. Now that we know **kitten** ’s alignment, I’m less suspicious of **Sitnam** , because he helped to lynch scum both Days. So while it’s possible that he’s a werewolf, for now he’s done more to help the town than hurt it. So today, I’ll **Vote Ichini** Before, I was suspicious of her based on **Seeker** ’s behavior. Now, in addition to that, I think she’s scum based on her OMGUS vote. Messing up the Day 1 vote sequence/reasons seems like a null tell, because she’s a sub, and I can’t see the scum motivation for misstating something so easily-verifiable. But the way **Ichini** reacted when **Hero** corrected her is scummy. ---
**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 30, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/686 "2009-03-30T16:04:12Z")
I decided to go back and take a look at the voting from Day one to see if I could find any patterns from our known three scum. I started when the voting became interesting on page ten and the first vote count looked like: 1 - [Undecided] Adrian (Natlaw) 1 - BillMC ( **Pleonast** ) 1 - Oredigger77 (Seeker of Truth and Beauty) 1 - Pleonast ( **peekercpa** ) 1 - Seeker of Truth and Beauty (Hero From Sector 7G) 3 - Sitnam (Nanook of the North Shore, Almost Human, **straggler** ) 4 - willthekittensurvive? (**special ed, [Undecided] Adrian, MentalGuy, Batman Jenkems)** 1 - peekercpa (Sitnam) 3 - straggler ( **paulwhoisaghost, pedescribe, Oredigger77** ) 1 - No Lynch ( **willthekittensurvive?** ) Shortly there after Pleo tied up the vote 1 - [Undecided] Adrian (Natlaw) 1 - Oredigger77 (Seeker of Truth and Beauty) 1 - Pleonast ( **peekercpa** ) 2 - Seeker of Truth and Beauty (Hero From Sector 7G, ok11) 3 - Sitnam (Nanook of the North Shore, Almost Human, **straggler** ) 4 - willthekittensurvive? (**special ed, [Undecided] Adrian, MentalGuy, Batman Jenkems**) 1 - peekercpa (Sitnam) 4 - straggler ( **paulwhoisaghost, pedescribe, Oredigger77, Pleonast** ) 1 - No Lynch ( **willthekittensurvive?** ) With this post > [@Pleonast](#): > > I understood that **paul** ’s vote was more for the way **straggler** has been defending his awful idea, rather than the idea itself. The complaints about the idea I took as arguments against the idea. **paul** , would you like to clarify exactly why you’re voting for **straggler**? > > And, **Bill** I don’t really care if you’re voting for **straggler** or not. I was objecting to the reasoning you used, not the actual vote. > > Because I am beginning to think **straggler** is a good lynch candidate. His [“scrubbing up clean”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10945950&postcount=387) remark about **Sitnam** is too vague. What exactly does it even mean? That **Sitnam** hasn’t made any anti-Town mistakes? Good for him if hasn’t; it’s a standard we should all aspire to. > > And **straggler** ’s [“pile-on”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10947830&postcount=448) is really bothering me now. What’s with the winky smiley? Is he being sarcastic, or hinting at something he knows? Then he sets himself up as **kitten** ’s avenger. I think this kind of two-sided post is exactly the sort of thing scum do to try to look Townie. > > I’m happy to see **kitten** lynched, because of their Scummy voting tactic, but I want to **straggler** lynched more. > **unvote BillMC** > **vote straggler** > > On preview: I considered voting for **Seeker** for just that reason, but it seemed too meta-gamey. bleached I think that creating a tie was the goal because then the contentious players would still be around while there and the danger in getting caught was small. I mainly see this in the light of knowing that Pleo was scum but I think it’s a fair assumption to make. Then it gets interesting, Natlaw creates a three way tie. > [@Natlaw](#): > > I think that **straggler** definitely isn’t playing pro-town, especially with his latest post he seems to try to up hold an ‘aggressive scum hunter’ image. But would a new player as scum not think at some point decide to back down (with it not unlikely scum can Day talk)? > > About scrubbing **Sitnam** , I don’t think [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10941881&postcount=322) is a shining town one. He accuses **Almost Human** of limiting the choices to **MentalGuy** , **straggler** and **Pleonast** , but actually he does the limiting himself by ignoring the discussion and voting started by those posts. > So straggler wiped over that post, but it also a point against Sitnam. > The ‘you’ there is **straggler** , who hasn’t been back to respond to this. I agree that it is scummy of him, but if he is a new, floundering townie, he at least gave a list of suspicions, they he should be definitely be clearer about his reasons. > As **Almost Human** noted though, **Sitnam** , you have placed two throw away votes and pre-argued votes for **kitten** and **straggler** without actual voting yet. > > Bah, on preview: “Don’t do ties! Ties are bad!” Sorry, **sachertorte** :o. > So I’ll move my vote to **straggler** later to break a tie if needed, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt as a new player. Same for **kitten** - her actions are as bad as straggler, but she seems a more honest helpless beginner. > > \*\* Unvote [Undecided] Adrian\*\* > \*\* FoS straggler\*\* (my vote goes here if still tie tomorrow) > \*\* Vote Sitnam\*\* > > Of the **MentalGuy** / **Adrian** declaring friends, I’m still a bit suspicious of the latter (eg [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10944772#post10944772) ‘I think the discussion around MentalGuy has come to an end’ pings me - on one hand a simple remark about the current discussion, on the other a bit trying to steer town away from the topic). bleached I don’t like this post because of two things it defends known (now) scum and creates an even larger pool of people that could be revenged lynched by the mod. Another problem is that with a tie the people with the votes are in no danger of being lynched just the voters so the top three candidates are safe while the 12 voters are now in danger of a random selection. BillMC breaks the tie without a lot of reason > [@BillMC](#): > > After contemplating another beer, I’m going to go with my original gut feeling - I didn’t like his idea, but I also dislike how **staggler** has played. Whether he’s scum, or just a bull in a china shop newbie, his play is not pro-town. > > **Vote Straggler** bleached But I view this as pro-town because it breaks the tie. This sequence is suspicious enough that I think Natlaw will be another cabalist Vote Natlaw ---
**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 30, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/687 "2009-03-30T16:05:21Z")
Crap my vote is wrong **Vote Natlaw** ---
**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 30, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/688 "2009-03-30T16:45:32Z")
I’ve already written this once and the bastard board timed out and ate my post so this one isn’t going to be as eloquent - sorry. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > Well, I leave for a couple of days and come back to a couple of dead masons. Shame they didn’t even get the chance to become shriners. I assume since the death certificate said “town mason” we can assume the masons are part of the town. > > I guess if there is only one mason remaining, it would not do any good for them to claim now. If there are two, I understand that they should claim, but should they do it immediately or when one is likely to be lynched? If there are three, I guess they shouldn’t claim and just take the chance that two of them won’t be offed the same night. I doubt there are more than three, but if there are it wouldn’t matter since they could still take a double hit and have at least two left. > The town got unlucky last night, but the Cabalists got unlucky at the beginning of the game when two of the players assigned to them played in a way to garner an unusual amount of suspicion. Kitten was picking up votes before straggler took over the lead on Day 1. I believe it is possible that some fellow cabalists threw straggler under the bus (and with good reason). They (probably) could not afford to bus a second member though. They (assuming more than one other, could be wrong) needed to guide the vote to someone else. Sitnam is the person who picked up the most votes outside those two. While I think Sitnam has a tendency to read more into things than is there (such as sachetorte’s comment when Pleonast was killed), I haven’t seen him do anything to garner much more suspicion than anyone else. **Almost Human** voted for Sitnam both times. I have suspected AH since she seemed to want people to casually accept that my “scum can day-talk” assumption should be an automatic vote against me. In post 197, AH also sort of defends kitten. It wasn’t a real defense, but a suggestion that kitten seemed more of an overwhelmed townie. Anyway, it seemed designed to steer the vote away from kitten. So, while my vote can always be changed with a good argument, for now > > **Vote Almost Human** So you’re voting for me because I “seemed to want people to casually accept that my “scum can day-talk” assumption should be an automatic vote against me.” and that I sort of defended kitten. Let’s discuss the first part of that. I voted for you due to this post: > [@MentalGuy](#): > > Straggler, I believe this is a bad idea. Early accusals and votes are pretty much a crap shoot, and can only be based on the slimmest of evidence. They do however, give us a chance to see how people respond to them, and votes can be changed. By withholding votes until the end, you are losing information I believe. Also, I believe locking in votes would give too much power to the wolves since they can talk during the Day. > > I am holding off voting for a bit, but Straggler, I think you have become one of my top suspects. Note here you say CAN talk during the Day so way to misrepresent me when you say I "Seemed to want people to casually accept that my “scum can day-talk” **assumption** should be an automatic vote against me. Why I’m your choice I don’t know as your slip was pointed out far sooner: > [@ok11](#): > > I think I spotted the first perfect information slip: > How do you know wolves can talk during the Day? Who says we’re playing against wolves? > > vote MentalGuy and > [@pedescribe](#): > > The problem with this is that you’d need to get a majority of people to agree with your plan and overcome the logistical problems to support it–both of which are highly improbable. > > Whoa. Good catch! > > **Unvote SoT&B** > **Vote MentalGuy** And I gave the reason for my vote here: > [@Almost\_Human](#): > > The possibility of scum talking during the Day has already been discussed so you should really have known it wasn’t a fact. > > It’s a pretty good reason for a Day 1 vote for the time being. > > **vote MentalGuy** and followed up later after some back and forth between us with an unvote here stating exactly why I’d voted and why I was now unvoting: > [@Almost\_Human](#): > > (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. Please explain to me how I “seemed to want people to casually accept that my “scum can day-talk” assumption should be an automatic vote against me”. So those were my reasons for voting and unvoting you on Day 1 - pretty reasonable for a Day 1 too I think. But now we have more information with the extra dead players and hey look - apart from kitten, every single one of them thought scum could Day talk: > [@'\[Undecided](#): > > Adrian;10938136’] > > - **ok11’s** accusations against **MentalGuy**. He didn’t claim the scum were wolves, that was in the post he quoted, 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. > **pedescribe** and **Almost Human** posted after that, though, and seem to be eager to get a pile-on going. > > Therefore I’m voting for the last to pile on: > vote Almost Human\*\* (snipped and bleached) Granted UA was town but he was also a mason. What’s the betting masons can now talk during the Day and he therefore assumed scum could too. Straggler - cabalist: > [@straggler](#): > > .. and in the secured discussion area where only scum can communicate? Pleonast - werewolf: > [@Pleonast](#): > > The 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. > > The rule change/clarification allows that Scum can Day-talk, whereas the old versions does not. \*\*Newbies calling Scum wolves is not unexpected. > \*\* > 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? (snipped and bolded) Bolding because I just want to point out Pleo said it was natural for newbies to call scum wolves - irony or cover up? Nanook - again town, but again mason so in a group. > [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > 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. My conclusion is the people who assumed scum could Day talk turned out to be scum or masons. Nobody else that I’m aware of was quite so adamant and none were as adamant as mentalguy. I think most of us may well have thought it likely but that’s about it. To answer your second point against me - that I sort of defended kitten. So what? I saw it as overwhelmed town, others saw it as newbie scum. They were right, I was wrong. If I was right every time there’d be no point playing the game. So for the reasons I voted for you on Day 1 now looking even more like PIS than they did originally. For your complete misrepresentation of my arguments against you and voting with very weak reasoning. And finally, while it may not be relevant but maybe it is, in light of the fact we have werewolves in this game and you used the term I’m going to **vote mentalguy** OMGUS? More I’d forgotten about you till you voted for me and in rereading to defend myself I seem to have found more reasons to find you scummy. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/689 "2009-03-30T18:07:22Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > And although I didn’t understand your numbers if your conclusion about mis lynches is correct the you are probably right about the relative number of scum. > > I’ll coffee up and see if I can parse it better later. Yes, the executive summary is that although three plus three equals six scum seems like a ‘normal’ scum number for twenty players, but with scum able to be Night killed it doesn’t seem balanced. So that means the scum factions are more likely to be bigger (or one big, one smaller with more powers). ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/690 "2009-03-30T18:38:57Z")
Some major snippage, still a lot left with underlining by me: > [@special\_ed](#): > > -Seems to be encouraging discussion. Makes the comment that it’s easiest for Scum to hide in the advisor role. _I’m not sure that’s true, but it’s a valid opinion.It’s Ironic that he ends up giving game advice._ > -Game advice. _More irony?_ > -Reposts the rules about communication out of the main thread. Make no comment. _This will lead to trouble later._ > -Hero comments that he was just posting the rules to allow people to come to their own conclusions. _Others didn’t like this and wondered what his opinion was. He does give his opinion, that Scum may or may not be able to talk during the Day._ > -A little more of the stuff with **ok11** mischaracterizing his post hat contained the rules with no opinion on them. _To be honest, a few people expressed opinions on them and seemed to want everyone to comment on them. To me, it was apparent that the scum might or might not be able to talk during the Day, and I was ready to move on from there. For Some people, it became an important issue to talk about._ > -Gives \*\*straggler \*\*game advice (and an insult) about trusting anyone who isn’t confirmed. > -Apologizes to **straggler** , but still indicates he doesn’t think straggler’s snuggle with \*\*Pleo \*\*makes sense unless \*\*straggler \*\*is Scum. _Pretty interesting with hindsight, no?_ > > Day 2 > -Asks about the curse. > -States he didn’t know of the curse, and also states that he thought \*\*Pleo \*\*wasn’t targeted and didn’t die because of a tie. He mistakenly calls \*\*Pleo \*\ ***Ped** , but corrects that mistake later. It doesn’t make sense that he’d be talking of **Ped**. What I find interesting is that he seems to know how \*\*Pleo \*\*died. Is this a leak of PIS? > > Wow, I think this amounts to a whole lot of nothing, but let me know what you think after reading all this. Again this is what I noticed Yesterday, making smudging comments, then saying you really mean nothing by it. Though I get now the feeling you are deliberately trying to get people to bite (congrats, I did then) and hoping for them to make a mistake of some sorts? In my view, that works from both a scum or town perspective, though leaning to the scum side (hence my vote Yesterday). About the things underlined, did _you_ see a town, scum or some other motivation? Again this was a suggestion you made, but don’t do yourself. Also, why specifically pick a random person to check out? Why not pick someone you had a ping about (which I would do sooner). Or look at the votes with the new alignments revealed? Speaking of which, that got me a vote from **Oredigger** and it is something I noticed myself, so I’ll go respond to that. For **pedescribe** , could you still rephrase the [curse thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10976087&postcount=651)? ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/691 "2009-03-30T19:56:53Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I don’t like [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10950064&postcount=464) because of two things it defends known (now) scum and creates an even larger pool of people that could be revenged lynched by the mod. Another problem is that with a tie the people with the votes are in no danger of being lynched just the voters so the top three candidates are safe while the 12 voters are now in danger of a random selection. BillMC breaks the tie without a lot of reason > > This sequence is suspicious enough that I think Natlaw will be another cabalist Vote Natlaw First of all, I had no intention to let the tie stand or meant to create a big ‘revenge pool’. I actually started my post before Pleonast and Hero voted, but with a five minute search wait and reading another site, I took my time. I FoS’ed straggler to indicate where I would move my vote, though I’ll admit a scum would probably leave that option open, if he created a tie like that. My tie creating vote does look suspicous with the two alternatives turning up Cabal, but the reasons for a Cabalist not to vote like I did: -Creating a tie is bad as scum, it draws attention; - **Sitnam** , **BillMC** and **rexnourves** (now **Svinlesha** ) hadn’t voted yet when I did, so it wasn’t all that likely Sitnam would get lynched - making it a even bigger risk; -If I were Cabal, I would totally have yelled at **straggler** (if Day talk) and **kitten** (at Night if no Day talk) to shape up, especially if I risked a vote like that to save them. First two points would go for Werewolf as well, though you didn’t accuse me of one - just want to make clear I’m town. Voting records (not all unvotes from Day One included, if you want them I can post them): _ **Day One** _: **straggler** (6): (BillMC), paul, pedescribe, Oredigger, Pleonast, BillMC, Sitnam **kitten** (4): special ed, Adrian, (Oredigger), MentalGuy, Jenkems **Sitnam** (4): Nanook, AHuman, straggler, Natlaw **Oredigger** (1): Seeker _(now Ichini)_ **Pleonast** (1): peekercpa **Ichini** (1): ok11 **ok11** (1): Hero _ **no lynch** _ (1): kitten Note there were a lot more unvotes, but I only included the ones on straggler and kitten. _ **Day Two** _: **kitten** (6): Oredigger, Nanook, Adrian, MentalGuy, Sitnam, special ed **Sitnam** (3): AHuman, Svinlesha, ok11 **Hero** (2): Ichini, pedescribe **special ed** (1): Natlaw **MentalGuy** (1): BillMC **Ichini** (1): Hero So only other person ‘saving’ Cabalist Day One was **Almost Human** (assuming **Sitnam** is not Cabal, which is against the odds imo). **MentalGuy** is now voting for her for that reason. AH voted MentalGuy Day One and with Todays votes for each other, I doubt they are the same faction. Couple that with MentalGuy placing the fourth vote for kitten at one point (so he is probably not Cabal) that leaves it open for AH to be a Cabalist. Almost Human placed her vote for Sitnam that Day when the score was straggler 1 - kitten 3 - Sitnam 1. I agreed with her reasons to vote him though. Day Two, Almost Human placed the first vote for Sitnam again, however at that point **kitten** had already collected four votes. So using the Cabal motivation for Almost Human’s vote is would have been less risky and Day Two a consistent vote, though unlikely to save kitten. Today Sitnam got a quick vote/unvote from her as well - I’ll have to reread to see if the “[My gut’s telling me he’s scum but I guess that isn’t really a good enough reason to keep a vote on him](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10984266&postcount=672)” makes sense. I can think of that he voted Cabalist twice - but a wolf could do that (For the record, AH did not mention he could not be one). On the same motivation thought, why would scum get too involved in a voting mess of the first Day? I’ll take another look at the one off voters Day One: **Ichini** , **peekercpa** , **ok11** and **Hero**. On preview: three post streak! ---
**Author:** ![BillMC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@BillMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BillMC)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/692 "2009-03-30T19:57:31Z")
So we’re down two masons, two cabalists and a werewolf - good doggie. Looking at the lynch/nk’s - there is a potential pattern, but it does seem very unlikely: - Day 1 we lynch Straggler, a Cabalist. - Night 1, Pleo gets killed - one of the folk who voted for Straggler. - Day 2 we lynch Kitten, another Cabalist. - Night 2, Nanook and Adrian get killed - both of whom voted for Kitten - Day 3 - we lynch another Cabalist? three of the voters turn up dead? This is my first game on this board, are games here twisted enough to have a cabalist power like this? ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/693 "2009-03-30T20:03:26Z")
Meh, forgot the no votes: _Day One_: _ **no vote** _: rexnervous _(now Svinlesha)_ _Day Two_: _ **no vote** _: peekercpa, paul, Jenkems, kitten And on preview: Bill breaks my streak! ---
**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 30, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/694 "2009-03-30T20:42:15Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > My tie creating vote does look suspicous with the two alternatives turning up Cabal, but the reasons for a Cabalist not to vote like I did: > -Creating a tie is bad as scum, it draws attention; > - **Sitnam** , **BillMC** and **rexnourves** (now **Svinlesha** ) hadn’t voted yet when I did, so it wasn’t all that likely Sitnam would get lynched - making it a even bigger risk; > -If I were Cabal, I would totally have yelled at **straggler** (if Day talk) and **kitten** (at Night if no Day talk) to shape up, especially if I risked a vote like that to save them. > > First two points would go for Werewolf as well, though you didn’t accuse me of one - just want to make clear I’m town. Just a quick note on you’re scum wouldn’t do that idea. #1 is obviously wrong because Pleo was scum and created a two way tie right before you created the three way tie. I disagree with #2 because while you’re right that there is a large chance it wouldn’t work that chance is what gives you deniability, especially if it had worked. You would be here posting that it wasn’t your fault because the other four hadn’t voted yet it was one of them that had push to vote in the wrong direction. I think you’re right about the night talk that was given to kitten because he disappeared yesterday and I think it was to try and lower the suspicion level, which is some good advice normally. ---
**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 30, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/695 "2009-03-30T21:34:33Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > Some major snippage, still a lot left with underlining by me: > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > -Seems to be encouraging discussion. Makes the comment that it’s easiest for Scum to hide in the advisor role. I’m not sure that’s true, but it’s a valid opinion.It’s Ironic that he ends up giving game advice. > > -Game advice. More irony? > > -Reposts the rules about communication out of the main thread. Make no comment. This will lead to trouble later. > > -Hero comments that he was just posting the rules to allow people to come to their own conclusions. Others didn’t like this and wondered what his opinion was. He does give his opinion, that Scum may or may not be able to talk during the Day. > > -A little more of the stuff with ok11 mischaracterizing his post hat contained the rules with no opinion on them. To be honest, a few people expressed opinions on them and seemed to want everyone to comment on them. To me, it was apparent that the scum might or might not be able to talk during the Day, and I was ready to move on from there. For Some people, it became an important issue to talk about. > > -Gives straggler game advice (and an insult) about trusting anyone who isn’t confirmed. > > -Apologizes to straggler, but still indicates he doesn’t think straggler’s snuggle with Pleo makes sense unless straggler is Scum. Pretty interesting with hindsight, no? > > > > Day 2 > > -Asks about the curse. > > -States he didn’t know of the curse, and also states that he thought Pleo wasn’t targeted and didn’t die because of a tie. He mistakenly calls Pleo Ped, but corrects that mistake later. It doesn’t make sense that he’d be talking of Ped. What I find interesting is that he seems to know how Pleo died. Is this a leak of PIS? > > > > Wow, I think this amounts to a whole lot of nothing, but let me know what you think after reading all this. I’ll address the underlined parts in order. Underlined section #1: When \*\*Hero \*\*reposted the rules with no interpretation, it did lead to a great deal of conversation and eventually some votes. My feeling at the time was that he was reposting the rules. It was no big deal. Now that it’s brought to my attention again, it might be interesting to see why it was such a big deal for some people. Underlined Section #2: Some people wanted to talk a great deal about if the Scum could Day talk or not. I didn’t really see what talking about it would lead to.. Could we figure it out? No. I felt it was best to acknowledge the possibilities, and act accordingly. Some people seemed to want a definitive decision. I didn’t attribute any scumminess to either side of the debate. I was only pointing out that some of **Hero** ’s posts dealt with the debate. Underlined section #3: I just thought it was interesting. Obviously it illuminates nothing about \*\*Hero \*\*or any other living person. I just kinda felt it was interesting that he said the snuggle didn’t make sense unless \*\*straggler \*\*was Scum. Then straggler turns up Scum, but so does **Pleo**. And they’re on different factions! It’s interesting. Is it useful, not so much. Underlined section #4: An honest question. This could be a leak of PIS. It might not be. If there were other things that looked scummy for **Hero** , then it could be added to the pile. Standing alone, it doesn’t look like much. Underlined section #5: I looked at **Hero** ’s posts hoping to find something that would either lead to suspicion on him or even on someone else. I didn’t find it, but I still decided to share my research with everyone. I hoped it might spark some debate or conversation if not be a useful analysis itself. > [@Natlaw](#): > > Again this is what I noticed Yesterday, making smudging comments, then saying you really mean nothing by it. Though I get now the feeling you are deliberately trying to get people to bite (congrats, I did then) and hoping for them to make a mistake of some sorts? > In my view, that works from both a scum or town perspective, though leaning to the scum side (hence my vote Yesterday). > About the things underlined, did _you_ see a town, scum or some other motivation? Again this was a suggestion you made, but don’t do yourself. > Also, why specifically pick a random person to check out? Why not pick someone you had a ping about (which I would do sooner). Or look at the votes with the new alignments revealed? I was looking for things with a Town, Scum, or some other motivation. I wasn’t really able to unearth anything blatantly anti-town or pro-scum. I really ended up with a non-feeling more than a feeling. I really couldn’t guess as to Hero’s alignment at this point from his posting. I’m not sure why I picked someone at random, I just did. And I just might do it again. I’m not seeing the smudginess that you claim to see, just a brief history of one player’s post along with some very brief comments. Had I found something more noteworthy, I probably would have said so. One drawback I did find to this approach is that it does tend to limit your focus on interactions that may involve more than just 2 people. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/696 "2009-03-30T22:51:21Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > Of course not. But I don’t see how you being confusing helps anything. > > _You didn’t actually vote_. Than you _unvoted_. On top of your weird language I have to double guess even your votes? Help us out a little bit here and at least proof-read your crazyness to make sure it is exactly as crazy as you intend. Being snide and telling me to “keep up” sure doesn’t help. Well I feel sufficiently chastised. I was trying to poke the ant hill. My unvote was to make sure that **digger** was aware and that a real sticking vote could be forthcoming. And I no knot of the weird language that ewe (Hal reference) set fourth. Please edumacate me. As for the crazyness, can’t do much about it. It’s the way I play. Is it really time for peeksplanation 101. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/697 "2009-03-30T23:16:59Z")
> [@BillMC](#): > > So we’re down two masons, two cabalists and a werewolf - good doggie. > > Looking at the lynch/nk’s - there is a potential pattern, but it does seem very unlikely: > > - Day 1 we lynch Straggler, a Cabalist. > > - Night 1, Pleo gets killed - one of the folk who voted for Straggler. > > - Day 2 we lynch Kitten, another Cabalist. > > - Night 2, Nanook and Adrian get killed - both of whom voted for Kitten > > - Day 3 - we lynch another Cabalist? three of the voters turn up dead? > > This is my first game on this board, are games here twisted enough to have a cabalist power like this? Nope. **sach** is devious but not gastard. At least I can’t envision it. UNLESS, you know something the rest of us don’t. But, then why share? Harumph. ---
**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 30, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/698 "2009-03-30T23:18:23Z")
**Peeker** I don’t think you are following this game very close at all. Have you done any re-reading? How many times have you read _just the posts that have happened toDay_? ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/699 "2009-03-31T00:18:11Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > **Peeker** I don’t think you are following this game very close at all. Have you done any re-reading? How many times have you read _just the posts that have happened toDay_? Otie dotie. Don’t no where this is coming from. Anything specific? Seriously, I’d just like to know your Current viewpoint. Any help would be appreciated. PEEKSPLANATION: What you got? I am trying to engage in dialogue in order to see what falls out. If you think that this is anti-town then friggin’ just post it. Holy crud. But this smudgy way that you have of playing is not necessarily endering. Peeksplanation 2: stop it or say something direct. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/700 "2009-03-31T00:30:04Z")
Yaknow, fugg it. Are you seeker’s dopple? **Vote Hero** Did you get the vote this time? Seriously, lame ass attacks on this old fuck will be challenged. Tell me how to play to make you happy. Is that seriously what you want. Shoot, we went through an entire day that the Mother Loving Og admitted SUCKED. Is the silence something where you find comfort. Are intense discussions uncomfortable? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=36)