# Mafia--T2: Behind the Scenes **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 2, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699 "2008-09-02T17:07:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/361 "2008-09-09T02:42:40Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > A town power role should claim when there is plenty of time to discuss an alternate lynch candidate, and/or when the loss of their role would be a grave blow to the town. In other words, we wouldn’t want a lesser role to claim, then have a massive vote shift to a more powerful role. That question seems pretty cut and dry, to me (perhaps that’s why I wasn’t on the list of those asked? ;)) Shoot. No offense intended. Your response is fully received. Would you care to stack rank the value, in your opinion, of the reltative value of town power roles? If not, I understand. Kind of thought you’d be looking for dentures and doing knee massages, don’t you know. ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/362 "2008-09-09T02:47:06Z")
So far **story** has been repeating over and over 1. My comments were inconsistent 2. I mis characterized his accusation However, it should be noted his original accusation was > [@](#): > > I think you’re saying whatever you can to push suspicion on sachertorte, **whether it makes sense or holds together or what**. and later > [@](#): > > I think you are trying to make other people suspicious of sachertorte **whether or not your reasons make any sense** So his original accusation is not dependent on the sense of lack of sense of my argument, it purely based on his belief that I am trying to smudge sache. Story has started his argument with a belief I am scum, and then said that the validity of my arguments is not relavent. Lets look at the glaring contradiction. Please note he made 3 quotes. However in my original post his quote one was followed by his quote three, and his quote two was at the end. By rearranging the order of selected quotes he has tried to mix up what I was saying. In addition to his editing the order he chose to chop out a fair bit of what was said Lets look at quote one I said **I cannot see any reason to distrust what some one might say about their role prior to the reset, no one has any real reason to lie about what they were in the past.** If a current scum is lying about their prior role they do run the risk of screwing up, so I would geuss they would not. **Story** quoted the bolded part, and elected to draw the following conclusion So… you can’t see a reason someone would lie about what they were in the past (Quote 1). Explictily ignoring the second sentence. This was followed by this At the same time, I agree with you and cannot see any reason to pay the slightest bit of attention to what someone said their role was prior to the reset. Sach calls this quote 3 even though to follows directly from quote one and says > [@](#): > > But you can’t see a reason we should pay attention to what people said they were in the past ( **presumabl** y because they could be lying) As I was responding to cookies comment that there is little value in using the information quote one and three are not contradictory they are about entirley seperate issues. Quote one disagrees with cookies who suggets scum might lie about prior role. Quote 3 agrees with cookies that there is little point following the prior role shenanigans. After Storys presumption I clarified that I thought there was no point due prior role having no bearing on current role. He has ignored that in later posts. The only reason they appear contradictory is because story chopped them around, did include cookies post that I was refering to and the added in his own presumption that was incorrect and which I later clarified to him. Now his quote 2 was actually a seperate paragraph which said Sache said he is trying to flush out the quirks and catch people in a lie. Could that not equally work in scum favour, if a town is lying to cover up a known town quirk, once they have been shown to be lying they will find themsleves in a vat of molten metal rather sharpish So I see not much upside for sachs charge on the prior role windmills, and a non zero downside, which does make me wonder why he is pushing it. Story concluded this said > [@](#): > > No one has any reason to lie about what they were in the past (Quote 1) but Town might lie to cover up Town quirks (Quote 2)? However quote one is about scum, qoute 3, as you can see is a question asking if the strategy sach was following does not carry a risk for a town who may be lying to cover up their role. We all agree a townie lying is generally a bad idea (my ref to vats of molten metal), but not unheard of. This quote is mearly positing a what if and then based on a potential downside for minimal upside as detailed in the quotes 1 and 3 asks why sache is pushing it so hard. So once again, story has manipulated two seperate issues and tried to say they are contradictory. Finally (are we there yet dad?) Mischaracterised his case. I said So what I do and do not say is irrelevent.\*\* For you to think some one is scum all they need to do is raise an eyebrow (not even a vote ) in sachertorte direction.\*\* To which Story responded > [@](#): > > An absolute mischaracterization. All they need to do is make an inconsistent argument. I did not mischaracterise anything, I simply stated exactly what happend, I questioned sachs push, you called me scum because… > [@](#): > > I think you’re saying whatever you can to push suspicion on sachertorte, **whether it makes sense or holds together or what**. In summary He has no contradictions, the 3 quotes are addressing different issues He has no mischaracterisation, I just called him on what he wrote. He does have Chopping the order and content of quotes, Adding his own presumption to make up a contradiction His own stated reason, he thinks I am trying to smudge sach wheather my reasons holds up or not does not matter. So he starts with scum, then says any reasoning is not important. ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/363 "2008-09-09T02:57:32Z")
Just to add because it’s the reasoning behind the vote that always matters most, and storys reasoning is beyond contrived I will be voting for story at number 1. I just need some time to follow up on the rest of this thread before posting a 2 and 3. night all. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/364 "2008-09-09T02:58:38Z")
But that is how it works **NBC** (got the network right). You deserve it. **story** is driving again with assists. Lord help the town. Unless some of our newer players start contibuting then the town is phuqued. Ah well, it is only a game. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/365 "2008-09-09T03:05:15Z")
OK. After finally catching up, I have some reason to make my first vote: \*\*1. Almost Human 2. NBC (Naturally Blonde Chap) 3. CatInASuit \*\* 1. Like more than one has said, **Almost Human** has been all over the place, and has thrown more than one suspicion to the most vocal players. Might/Might not be the behavior of newbie scum, trying to get a bandwagon rolling 2. **NBC** : I feel the line of argument that she’s been throwing smudges around compelling. But not compelling enough to put her first in line 3. I must confess: There’s no third candidate yet. But I need a placeholder, so I don’t forget to vote. And there seems no chance for **CatInASuit** to be lynched, due to the whole Sarah Connor thing. ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/366 "2008-09-09T03:07:05Z")
Well I geuss **story** could just be shaking the tree and seeing what falls out, which could be a pro town move as well. There was precious little to be going on at the time and maybe my post seamed like an easy target to stir things up and get some discussion going. /oog If my long post seamed a little ranting it should not be taken as thus, I really am in good humour with all of this oog/ ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/367 "2008-09-09T03:12:09Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > OK. After finally catching up, I have some reason to make my first vote: > > 1. **NBC** : I feel the line of argument that she’s been throwing smudges around compelling. But not compelling enough to put her first in line > . At the risk of being overly defensive, the throwing smudges around is one line that said, So I see not much upside for sachs charge on the prior role windmills, and a non zero downside, which does make me wonder why he is pushing it. So it at worst it would be smudge not smudges. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/368 "2008-09-09T03:44:59Z")
NBC - > [@NaturalBlondChap](#): > > So his original accusation is not dependent on the sense of lack of sense of my argument, it purely based on his belief that I am trying to smudge sache. Story has started his argument with a belief I am scum, and then said that the validity of my arguments is not relavent. The things are not mutually exclusive, and honestly, you’re relying on a very strangely narrow reading of what I said. “I think you’re trying to push suspicion on sach whether or not your reasons make sense” doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the validity of your arguments or that they’re not relevant. That’s just not a reasonable interpretation of what I said. The fact that your arguments don’t hold together, don’t work together, suggests that you hold whatever opinion is convenient for you at the moment - that you’re not trying to develop a coherent argument where the pieces fit together, but rather starting with a conclusion and throwing shit against the wall, even shit that doesn’t mesh with the other shit you’ve thrown (and how’s that for a disgusting metaphor?), to support that conclusion any way you can. The fact that your argument is inconsistent is the whole point. Now, regarding the inconsistencies themselves, I am struggling - honestly - to parse your response. I just don’t understand what you’re saying in most places. But I’ll see if I can address the points one by one: > [@](#): > > Lets look at the glaring contradiction. Please note he made 3 quotes. However in my original post his quote one was followed by his quote three, and his quote two was at the end. By rearranging the order of selected quotes he has tried to mix up what I was saying. Really? That’s what you’re hanging your hat on here? “Yes, I said things that contradicted one another, but I said them _in a different order,_ so they weren’t contradictory?” In addition to his editing the order he chose to chop out a fair bit of what was said > [@](#): > > I said > **I cannot see any reason to distrust what some one might say about their role prior to the reset, no one has any real reason to lie about what they were in the past.** If a current scum is lying about their prior role they do run the risk of screwing up, so I would geuss they would not. > > **Story** quoted the bolded part, and elected to draw the following conclusion > > So… you can’t see a reason someone would lie about what they were in the past (Quote 1). > Explictily ignoring the second sentence. The second sentence was elided because it supports the first. You said you don’t think someone would lie about their past role. You said “no one” has any real reason to lie. The second sentence, which I removed, gave a reason supporting this belief (that scum wouldn’t lie because they could screw up). > [@](#): > > This was followed by this > At the same time, I agree with you and cannot see any reason to pay the slightest bit of attention to what someone said their role was prior to the reset. > > As I was responding to cookies comment that there is little value in using the information quote one and three are not contradictory they are about entirley seperate issues. Quote one disagrees with cookies who suggets scum might lie about prior role. Quote 3 agrees with cookies that there is little point following the prior role shenanigans. I’m sorry, man, and maybe there’s some kind of communication barrier here, but I simply can not see your quoted statements as anything but utterly contradictory. “They won’t lie about the roles, but we shouldn’t pay attention to what they say?” That makes no sense, then or now, and your efforts at clarifying it have not done so, at least not for me. > [@](#): > > However quote one is about scum, qoute 3, as you can see is a question asking if the strategy sach was following does not carry a risk for a town who may be lying to cover up their role. We all agree a townie lying is generally a bad idea (my ref to vats of molten metal), but not unheard of. This quote is mearly positing a what if and then based on a potential downside for minimal upside as detailed in the quotes 1 and 3 asks why sache is pushing it so hard. This just makes NO SENSE. Your first sentence was “I cannot see any reason to distrust what some one might say about their role prior to the reset, **no one** has any real reason to lie about what they were in the past.” No one. That means NO ONE, not “Scum.” You weren’t discussing two separate issues. If your first sentence was meant to apply strictly to current scum, then your choice of the words “no one” and “some one” was terribly misleading. > [@](#): > > I said > So what I do and do not say is irrelevent.\*\* For you to think some one is scum all they need to do is raise an eyebrow (not even a vote ) in sachertorte direction.\*\* > > To which Story responded > I did not mischaracterise anything, I simply stated exactly what happend, I questioned sachs push, you called me scum because… My quotes elided because the quote function doesn’t import them and it’s very late at night. This part makes me mad. People, other than you, have “raised an eyebrow” at sachertorte. I have not accused _them_ of being scum. I have accused _you,_ because your reasoning was faulty and internally inconsistent. Your stubborn insistence that my case against you is specifically related to you calling out sachertorte is the scummiest part of this whole thing, and I _won’t_ let it stand unchallenged. I called you scum _because your reasoning seemed opportunistic_, not because you raised an eyebrow at sach. Say the opposite until Judgment Day, but you’ll still be mischaracterizing my argument. My vote stands. > [@](#): > > In summary > He has no contradictions, the 3 quotes are addressing different issues Too bad you didn’t indicate that the quotes were addressing different issues when you, you know, _wrote_ them. > [@](#): > > He has no mischaracterisation, I just called him on what he wrote. Liar. > [@](#): > > He does have > Chopping the order and content of quotes, So what? Abbreviating quotes for clarity has been standard practice in these games for as long as I’ve been posting, and the reorder didn’t change the meaning of your post one iota. If you’re going to make up a scum tell, at least make up one that makes sense. > [@](#): > > Adding his own presumption to make up a contradiction As I said above, I did not do this. Your own language contains a contradiction; your post hoc “clarifications” don’t change that one bit. > [@](#): > > His own stated reason, he thinks I am trying to smudge sach wheather my reasons holds up or not does not matter. So he starts with scum, then says any reasoning is not important. I don’t know what this means. So I’ll reiterate one more time: **I think your argument against sachertorte was internally inconsistent. I think you wanted to throw some crap against the wall and see if any of it stuck, and because you weren’t terribly concerned about whether or not your argument was sound (as scum, you KNOW whether sach is scum or not, so developing a coherent argument isn’t necessary for you), you made arguments that didn’t make sense together. None of this has jack all to do with sachertorte in particular, who could be scummier than Chipper Jones for all I know. And if he IS, or if he’s NOT, it doesn’t matter in the least, because either way, your argument against him was sloppy and (I believe) scummy.** ---
**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:** [September 9, 2008, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/369 "2008-09-09T04:33:26Z")
To DB: Sorry it couldn’t work out. I’ll contact the subs. No harm done. To everyone: I just realized I screwed up in my description of the assassain T-1000. So as a special I-screwed-up present, I give you complete (benign, I could post all the original PMs and their recipients without it breaking the game) info about it. The original (intended, apparently he didn’t get it) recipient was indeed Rysto. The PM goes: > [@PM](#): > > The Assassain T-1000 > > SYSTEM BOOTING. ORDERS FROM SKYNET: RETAKE LAB AND FACTORY. CAPTURE ALL TIME TRAVEL EQUIPMENT. KILL ALL RESISTORS. IDENTIFICATION PING COMPLETE. THE OTHER TERMINATORS ARE \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR. KILLING SYSTEMS: DAMAGED, BUT ONLINE. SHAPESHIFING SYSTEMS: ONLINE. REPAIR TIME: 14 DAYS > > Win condition: You win when there are fewer town than scum, or when 14 game days have passed, whichever comes first. > Power Rules: You may not talk with your scum buddies. You may not do the night kill unless they want you to. But each day, you may PM me with someone to copy. Each night, I will tell you what powers they had, and you may use them that night in addition to the night kill if the others elect you to do that. You may not target the same person twice in a row. Note a few things. One: there is no mention of the scum site anywhere. Two: The blank is filled in with the other scum names. Three: Each day, T-1000 targets someone, and the power lasts from dusk to dusk. This is different than what I said earlier. Ignore my previous ruling, as it was made out of ignorance. Vote count coming! ---
**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:** [September 9, 2008, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/370 "2008-09-09T04:47:05Z")
Vote Count! Complete Votes: CatInASuit: 1. Santo Rugger, 2. storyteller, 3. peeker Storyteller: 1. NBC, 2. NAF, 3. peeker Cookies: 1. peeker, 2. Santo Rugger, 3. Cookies Diggit Camera: 1. Almost Human, 2. NBC, 3. CatInASuit Incomplete Votes: Blaster Master: 1. peeker NOTE: INCOMPLETE VOTES DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS DUSK TALLIES Extra Effects: Sarah Connor is currently intimidtating anyone voting for CatInASuit. Totals: Peeker: (8) (BlaM 1st, Cookies 1st, Storyteller 3rd, CatInASuit 3rd) Santo Rugger: (5) (CatInASuit 1st, Cookies 2nd) NBC: (5) (Storyteller 1st, Diggit Camera 2nd) Almost Human: (3) (Diggit Camera 1st) Storyteller: (3) (CatInASuit 2nd, Storyteller 3rd) NAF: (2) (Storyteller 2nd) Cookies: (1) (Cookies 3rd) CatInASuit: (-2) (Sarah Connor Special Effect, Diggit Camera 3rd) ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/371 "2008-09-09T05:15:23Z")
Sure: Pretty obvious: 13. Paranoid Doc (blocks and protects) 12. Doc (typical doc) Vig can take out Assassin, John can give us good info: 15. The T-800–Vig, except without suicide. 16. John Conner–Every night, he asks someone a question. They answer. And everyone hears it via tape recorder the next day. Only powerful when used skillfully: 8. Politican (can buy someone else’s vote, would direct his vote by PM filtered through us) 9. Bus Driver (switches two people at night and who targets them) Self confirmable, plus can kind of protect. Roleblocker can hurt town, too, though, while commuter is valuable mostly to themselves. 11. Commuter (can hide (be untargetable) at night, can’t use power two nights in a row) 10. Roleblocker (typical roleblocker) This group is pretty worthless, although the first two are self confirmable: 14. Suicidal Vig 7. Sarah Conner 11-7: Vanilla ---
**Author:** ![CatInASuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@CatInASuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatInASuit)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/372 "2008-09-09T08:19:28Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I think I’m on the same page as storyteller, with the addendum that NAF also fits the bill as a potential “was scum and is still scum because his original role had a quirk.” But let me be clear, I’m not saying that because NAF and Rysto were non-vanilla scum pre-reset that they are necessarily scum right now. Only that the probability that one of them is scum is slightly higher than for the general population. It really isn’t something to lynch them for (and would a sucky reason to do so at this time), but something I plan to keep in mind as the game develops. Essentially, **IF** there is a scum quirk, then Rysto and NAF have higher likelihood of being scum. Let me try to understand this correctly. Are you saying that because, after a random distribution of roles, NAF1138 and Rysto had a quirky scum role, they are more likely to be scum after another random distribution of the roles 😕 How?? I cannot see how you can assign more probability to the roles they have based on two random shuffles. The other problem is that based on your argument, if we lynch one of them and they turn out to be town, you could argue to lynch the other based on this argument. This makes me nervous. Please explain further. ---
**Author:** ![CatInASuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@CatInASuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatInASuit)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/373 "2008-09-09T08:30:25Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > Eh. > > Upon reflection, my initial suspicion of **Rysto** has lessened considerably; if he still _is_ the T-1000 and has a quirk he wants to hide, he could just as easily have claimed to have received the previous PM and had no quirks as lied about receiving the PM in the first place. > > But I don’t apologize for the vote. It’s the third vote on a list that includes _myself_, for Pete’s sake, and it’s cast early in the Day. We’re all going to be reaching a bit to support our second and (especially) third votes, especially early in the game, where even finding a strong FIRST target for a vote is typically a challenge. IMHO, I think the issue is that it looked you were using the fact something that occured out of game, ie. Rysto not receiving a PM, to place a vote on him in game. To me, it is metagamey and looks like it could be used as an excuse later on. However, you are right, it is only Day 1 and finding 3 people to vote for, especially with any klind of reasoning, is going to be difficult. ---
**Author:** ![CatInASuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@CatInASuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatInASuit)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/374 "2008-09-09T08:49:35Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > EXACTLY! But if she’s a threat on Day 3, that means she’d have to be gone by Night 2 if she’s not going to affect any powers. Which means we have to kill her Today or Tomorrow, or hope that she’s taken out by a Vig or scum Tonight or Tomorrow Night. It seems that you’re agreeing with me; if nothing else you’re giving quite convincing arguments that it may not be a bad idea. Ok, let’s put it this way. I agree that the Sarah Connor role will become anti-town in the future. However, trying to propose a Town player to be lynched on Day 1 is very wrong. If you are town, why would give the scum an easy first Day by lynching another Town player. If you are scum, you are asking the town to lynch a claimable and confirmable role. If you lynch Sarah Connor on Day 1, you also halve the chances of the scum hitting a protected character and being return killed at Night. Your opinions on Vigilantes would indicate that you would approve of this. This is not just a bad idea, it’s wrong. Never mind giving the player a chance to play the role their way. You are asking the town to give up a role, which at this moment in time is pro-town. As for throwing it out and complaining that you are being voted for it being a bad idea. :dubious: Day 1 role claim is a bad idea, lynching a town role is a scummy idea. ---
**Author:** ![Flyfisheron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/fbc32d/32.png) [@Flyfisheron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyfisheron)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/375 "2008-09-09T11:41:04Z")
Sorry folks, not ‘lurking’, just trying to get my head fully around the different lines of reasoning going on over the last 2 1/2 pages. At the same time, trying to get a feel for my thoughts regarding this whole Sarah Conner thing. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/376 "2008-09-09T13:11:29Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Since I have the same thoughts as storyteller, I obviously don’t think his jumping on Rysto is necessarily scummy. To some extent, in the vacuum of lack of information, lynching Rysto isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Unsporting and sucky for Rysto, but there is a logical reason for doing so. (Same with NAF). Well, now I feel better about the “lynch Rysto” thing - it is kind of sucky. I mean, the board was crap for everyone. On the other hand, now that we know he did indeed have the role we thought he might, I’m feeling the lynch is more logical. I’m voting him because of that “I didn’t get my PM” thing, which I admit is capricious and kind of crappy, but there you go, and NBC and peekercpa for the inconsistencies others have pointed out. \*\* 1. Vote Rysto 2. Vote NBC 3. Vote peekercpa \*\* ---
**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:** [September 9, 2008, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/377 "2008-09-09T13:22:40Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > At least he’s got me, whom he has consistently labeled as “scum”… 😃 When have I consistently labelled you as scum? > [@NaturalBlondChap](#): > > Sache said he is trying to flush out the quirks and catch people in a lie. Could that not equally work in scum favour, if a town is lying to cover up a known town quirk, once they have been shown to be lying they will find themsleves in a vat of molten metal rather sharpish > So I see not much upside for sachs charge on the prior role windmills, and a non zero downside, which does make me wonder why he is pushing it. You don’t get to conflate “revealing scum quirks” with “revealing town quirks.” I specifically asked for scum quirks. You also don’t get to claim non-zero downside without _outlining what those downsides are_. If you can fathom some method by which revealing scum quirks exposes Town powerroles I’d love to hear it, because you know what? There is NO downside. Information is good. Information about the scum is ALWAYS good. Scum have that information 100%, if we can get that same information for free Town moves forward and scum gains nothing. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > I must confess: There’s no third candidate yet. But I need a placeholder, so I don’t forget to vote. And there seems no chance for **CatInASuit** to be lynched, due to the whole Sarah Connor thing. Nothing against DiggitCamara here, but I’d like to point out that while a -3 on CatInASuit seems like a big deal (and it would be under normal voting circumstances) the +3 or -3 with pedescribes’s voting system equates to one vote in a normal voting game. If you push it, you could argue that -3 is even less than one vote since each person assigns 6 points to people (but not the same person). Not a big deal. I just think we shouldn’t overestimate the significance of the -3/+3 thing. > [@NaturalBlondChap](#): > > At the risk of being overly defensive, the throwing smudges around is one line that said, > > So I see not much upside for sachs charge on the prior role windmills, and a non zero downside, which does make me wonder why he is pushing it. > > So it at worst it would be smudge not smudges. Again with the accusation that I’m pushing something with a downside where there is none. There is no downside to discussing what pre-reset scum know about scum quirks. > [@CatInASuit](#): > > Let me try to understand this correctly. > > Are you saying that because, after a random distribution of roles, NAF1138 and Rysto had a quirky scum role, they are more likely to be scum after another random distribution of the roles 😕 > > How?? > > I cannot see how you can assign more probability to the roles they have based on two random shuffles. The other problem is that based on your argument, if we lynch one of them and they turn out to be town, you could argue to lynch the other based on this argument. This makes me nervous. > > Please explain further. IF pedescribe assigned the roles post-reset 100% randomly, then you are correct, there is no correlation between having a scum role pre-reset and post-reset. However, we do not know that pedescribe assigned roles randomly after the reset. Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t. The thesis is IF there is a scum role with a secret, we know that that role is still scum because none of our pre-reset scum have claimed a secret quirk. This is not random, and increases the chance that previous scum are current scum. Again, we don’t know that there is or is not a scum quirk, we can only fathom some probability of either case. That is why this is all a discussion about probability. To argue that a dead Townie NAF means Rysto is scum would be a terrible abuse of probability and would make me cry. ---
**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:** [September 9, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/378 "2008-09-09T13:58:02Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > OK. After finally catching up, I have some reason to make my first vote: > > \*\*1. Almost Human > 2. NBC (Naturally Blonde Chap) > 3. CatInASuit > \*\* > > 1. Like more than one has said, **Almost Human** has been all over the place, and has thrown more than one suspicion to the most vocal players. Might/Might not be the behavior of newbie scum, trying to get a bandwagon rolling Snipped Um who’s said I’ve been all over the place? I’ve just gone back over everything and I can’t see it. And I’ve ‘thrown suspicion’ at one player, Sach, which I’ve said was relatively mild hence the lack of a vote. And at this point I’m a lot less suspicious of him than I am of you. My post about Sach was interpreted as though I were casting suspicions towards NAF - I’ve since said that wasn’t my intention so no, I haven’t “thrown more than one suspicion to the most vocal players” I don’t have a problem with NAF being suspicious of me. He said that, to him, the way I posted felt scummy > [@](#): > > Nope. This could just be how she posts, how she thinks, or she could be reacting to a gut response and indulging in some confirmation bias and letting it color the tone of her post. I don’t know her well enough yet to make judgement beyod her having one post that is, in my eyes, very scummy. But with 5 real life days left in the Day I don’t think it is enough to vote on, so I didn’t. There isn’t a whole lot of anything in most peoples posts yet. But I am working on pointing this kind of stuff out and breaking down my thought process. So I am pointing it out and breaking down my thought process. Ironically in my post about Sach I was pretty much doing the same thing as him as I see it “pointing it out and breaking down my thought process” which might be partly why I’m cool with his post. And I’m not claiming newbie player as I’m only new to this board but I’ve definitely eased up on the style and amount of my posting while I’ve been getting settled which may be why I pinged him but that’s just supposition. I do, however have a problem with your suspicions of me which as far as I can see are completely unfounded. Your reasons for voting me are: 1 People have said I’m all over the place - FALSE 2 I’ve been throwing suspicion at the more vocal player **s** - FALSE or at least mistaken Do you have any other basis for your suspicion because right now it just looks like you’ve been skimming? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/379 "2008-09-09T14:51:21Z")
Let’s review what’s been said about me, shall we? **storyteller** ’s argument was that “I didn’t receive a PM” would be exactly what he’d expect scum trying to cover up a quirk to say. First of all, how am I to answer this? I mean, if we’re going to examine specific statements I ask ourselves “Do I think that scum might say that in this situation”, well, we Townies are in for a short, ignoble defeat. This just gets a raised eyebrow from me right now while I see if I can dig up **story** ’s previously stated opinions on motivations. I do acknowledge that **story** has backed off on this argument, but it was on the grounds of “No, scum might just claim that there was no quirk at all”. > [@sachertorte](#): > > I think I’m on the same page as storyteller, with the addendum that NAF also fits the bill as a potential “was scum and is still scum because his original role had a quirk.” But let me be clear, I’m not saying that because NAF and Rysto were non-vanilla scum pre-reset that they are necessarily scum right now. Only that the probability that one of them is scum is slightly higher than for the general population. It really isn’t something to lynch them for (and would a sucky reason to do so at this time), but something I plan to keep in mind as the game develops. Essentially, IF there is a scum quirk, then Rysto and NAF have higher likelihood of being scum. > > Since I have the same thoughts as storyteller, I obviously don’t think his jumping on Rysto is necessarily scummy. To some extent, in the vacuum of lack of information, lynching Rysto isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Unsporting and sucky for Rysto, but there is a logical reason for doing so. (Same with NAF). **sachertorte** ’s argument is that one way for **ped** to keep scum quirks hidden would be to assign players who had a scum quirk pre-reset to scum roles post-reset. As non-vanilla scum are more likely to have quirks than vanilla scum, the argument puts the most suspicion on NAF and I. I have a couple problems with this post. First, I don’t understand why the focus is on me in **sach** ’s last paragraph. **NAF** is completely an afterthought, but **sach** has not provided any reasons why I’m any more likely to be scum than **NAF**. I am having trouble coming up with a town motivation for this omission, but there’s an obvious scum motivation: if a scummy **sachertorte** wants to drum up support for a bandwagon based on the whole quirk thing, it’s more likely to succeed if people vote for one person instead of splitting the vote across two people. With a Borda vote a split might not seem to be a concern but personally I wouldn’t expect people to devote 2 of their votes to the quirk thing. The other issue I have is how **sach** says that he’s on board with **story** ’s argument when really he’s not: he’s presenting a completely different argument that happens to target the same person. It looks like a snuggle to me. And now that I’m thinking about it, I’m also quite concerned that **sachertorte** , who is always preaching “motivations, not actions”, has said that he’s on board with **story** instead of criticizing the argument on the same grounds that I just did. ---
**Author:** ![CatInASuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@CatInASuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatInASuit)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/380 "2008-09-09T15:12:17Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > IF pedescribe assigned the roles post-reset 100% randomly, then you are correct, there is no correlation between having a scum role pre-reset and post-reset. However, we do not know that pedescribe assigned roles randomly after the reset. Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t. Let’s ask shall we. **pedescribe, were the roles randomly assigned before and after the reset?** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699.md?page=20)