# MAFIA: The Road to Canterbury - Game Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [June 21, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807 "2012-06-21T01:57:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/181 "2012-06-26T00:53:28Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > …if we commit to No-Lynch then we’ll have played 8 Days without ever getting any kind of read on anybody… I know it’s been theorized that we could achieve some sort of lame stalemate by no-lynching every day, but that’s most definitely _not_ what we’re voting to do. To be clear, I’m advocating no-lynching on Day One _only_ – once we get past the point where some townie powers have been put into play, then all bets are off and we start stringing 'em up. > [@Mahaloth](#): > > Why no-lynch? Are we only suggesting this if everyone agrees to use their power toNight? No – I wouldn’t suggest everyone use their power. Anyone who chooses to, ok, go for it. But I certainly wouldn’t _require_ (not that it would be enforceable anyway) everyone to do it. This is all a big risk, I know. I’m just finding it a better option than the high-odds of lynching an unused power role. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/182 "2012-06-26T01:08:52Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > If we no-lynch toDay, we lose this option later in the game. **Alka** , could you explain this? I don’t see anywhere in the rules that voting No Lynch is a one-shot thing; that if we use it now we lose it later. I’m not for it, at all, but I don’t get this small little bit. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/183 "2012-06-26T02:10:27Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Killing players produces 100% reliable information on their alignment I’m less concerned with ‘reliable’ than ‘useful’. And the amount of useful information you can gain from a blind lynch is damn near nil. > [@Mahaloth](#): > > Are we only suggesting this if everyone agrees to use their power toNight? This is a transparently bad idea. Besides the difficulty in making blind power use useful, think about the fact that we’d be telling the scum exactly when every single protective power will be used. By holding off for one night, they could guarantee all of their kills will be successful. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/184 "2012-06-26T05:02:53Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > My attack was not pointing out that TexCat was considering different possibilities. If you reread TexCat’s post that prompted my attack, you’ll see that I was attacking the fact that TexCat was advocating what I consider an anti-town action (no-lynch) while also claiming suspicion of another player. > > However, since then TexCat has made a better argument for a no-lynch. It’s enough to make me reconsider my suspicion, but not enough to actually agree with the strategy. No-lynch is a losing strategy, full stop. But I now think that TexCat probably made the argument for it in good faith. > [@Mosier](#): > > To be a bit more clear, I consider those two positions (I suspect someone; I think we should no-lynch) as being opposed to each other. I haven’t been able to pay a whole lot of attention to the game for a couple of days now and I don’t remember exactly how I was interpreting what you said, but you said the “I suspect Visor, but I’m going to advocate a no-lynch” sounded like hedging your bets. I remember one game where in the post where I voted for a player, I made the statement that I didn’t think it likely he was scum. I voted for him because in the circumstances of that game, I thought he was the best choice for the lynch. Players didn’t necessarily accuse me of hedging my bets, but they did claim I was being inconsistent and various other things and a big bandwagon started on me. Now a big bandwagon doesn’t develop without some Town votes, but it was a good place for scum to hide. I can see how TexCat could think that Visor is the most likely scum, but still believe it to be a better idea to no-lynch. I don’t think just mentioning things like that really indicates someone is scum. I am much more likely to believe the players going after the person are scum. The term “hedging your bets” just got my attention because it is essentially the same thing I am often accused of. Usually players will say I am “wishy-washy” or something like that because I will mention why I find something suspicious but then also mention why I could be wrong. Like in your case, I find you suspicious because this is behavior I have seen before, but with the bandwagon’s I have seen, obviously it is not unusual for Town players to feel the same way. > [@Snickers](#): > > **Ender** , I don’t want to go on too much more about it - I think I’ve probably said enough. My reasoning against all investigators investigating N1 basically boils down to these points: > > 1. There’s very little information available on D1 to guide investigators to targets. I really feel that they’re just shooting in the dark. Yeah, they’ll investigate whomever they feel is most scummy, and that’s a good thing, but I just don’t think there’s much to go on. > > 2. There’s not going to be any confirmation, unless two of the investigators accidentally double up on the same person. And you’re right - that’s a total waste of resources since they’re all one-shot investigations, and it’d just be stupid to try to get that confirmation. I was seeing too much of “but then we’ll know their alignment” as if the results of those investigations were iron-clad confirmeds, when they’re not. (Admittedly, I’m probably reading too much into it.) 1. I don’t think the fact that there is very little information available is a problem. I would be fine with the investigators picking players at random to investigate. 2. If two investigators came back with the same result on the same player, I would consider the investigated player confirmed, but in reality all the investigators could be scum. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > To add to Alka’s point, if we commit to No-Lynch then we’ll have played 8 Days without ever getting any kind of read on anybody, which would effectively put us starting Day 1 at 7-4. All too easy for Scum to come out on top in that scenario. If Town isn’t voting as a block, then it’s easy for Scum to control the vote - and two mislynches isn’t enough to spot the patterns. > [@TexCat](#): > > Huh? I don’t think that anyone is advocating for no-lynch beyond Today. I certainly wasn’t. I certainly don’t think anyone could possibly imagine going through the 8 Days (weeks) without lynching anyone and landing at 7-4. This is a totally false argument. You are trying to say that\*\* either \*\*we lynch _every_ Day \*\*or \*_we no-lynch_ every \*Day. I think Stanislaus committed a typo here and capitalized days when he should not have. I think he was referring to 8 real days, not 8 game Days. As I have said, I don’t think the no-lynch idea was totally off the wall, but after thinking about it, I come down on the side of Alka and Stanislaus. I’m leaving my vote on Mahaloth for now, but I am willing to change to Visor(really I would change to pretty much anybody) if it means avoiding a no-lynch. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/185 "2012-06-26T08:03:37Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Huh? I don’t think that anyone is advocating for no-lynch beyond Today. I certainly wasn’t. I certainly don’t think anyone could possibly imagine going through the 8 Days (weeks) without lynching anyone and landing at 7-4. This is a totally false argument. You are trying to say that\*\* either \*\*we lynch _every_ Day \*\*or \*_we no-lynch_ every \*Day. As mentioned, and _pace_ Mental Guy, I was referring to the separate idea of waiting out the Scum kills. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/186 "2012-06-26T08:18:03Z")
So the advocates for D1 No-Lynch now seem to be clear that it’s not expected that everyone will use their power. Could they please give some indication of which/how many powers they think will get an airing and which won’t? It seems clear that protective roles aren’t being asked to act on N1. What about the trackers/watchers? The Cook? The Miller? (surely not). If we no-lynch the Squire they won’t be able to use their power. Some roles may already have chosen powers that can’t or shouldn’t be used on N1. At a rough count, how many are you really expecting to use this window your trying to create? It seems that when we talk about saving power-roles, we really mean saving investigators. Given the doubts about their alignment and accuracy why do you think it’s worth the sacrifice? ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/187 "2012-06-26T14:12:06Z")
Quickie from work: Not only do I disagree with a no-lynch, I’m having trouble seeing any possible pro-Town motive behind it. **vote Texcat** **vote Tengu** **vote Hal Briston** (Note: reversing your stance doesn’t necessarily remove you from suspicion nor my potential final vote.) When I have more time, I intend to revisit my vote on **Enderw24** , assuming he ever bothers to respond to it, and possibly revisit the whole Night 1 investigations thing. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/188 "2012-06-26T14:16:20Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > As mentioned, and _pace_ Mental Guy, I was referring to the separate idea of waiting out the Scum kills. My apologies. Obviously, I can’t read very well. That 7-4 was staring me right in the face so it should have been easy to tell what you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/189 "2012-06-26T14:19:52Z")
NETA for above: If we no-lynch, then the Squire won’t be able to use their power. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/190 "2012-06-26T14:23:19Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > My apologies. Obviously, I can’t read very well. That 7-4 was staring me right in the face so it should have been easy to tell what you were talking about. Although in fact, the argument you attributed to me works well - if we no-lynch toDay, we’ll have less to go on toMorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/191 "2012-06-26T14:52:53Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Given the doubts about their alignment and accuracy why do you think it’s worth the sacrifice? Because, again, I don’t consider it a sacrifice. It’s a blind lynch that’s a sacrifice. Approximately 80% of the time a blind lynch will catch a Townie. The useful information gained from that is negligible, so unless we blindly hit Scum, we’ve taken away the edge that we have. ToDay, Town has the numerical advantage, 15-4. D2, with no lynch, we will likely have the numerical advantage 14-4, plus any information gained from investigations. D2 with lynch, we will likely have the numerical advantage 13-4, plus any information gained from investigations, plus the minimal information gained from the lynch. That extra Townie is worth a hell of a lot more than the vague information the comes from an uninformed lynch. Of course, it is possible to hit Scum with that lynch (advantage, Town, 14-4 [Edit 14-3, sorry], all information), just not very likely, therefor not weighted very high, any more than the possibility the Scum will skip the kill toNight is. The fact that a continued no-lynch leads to a stalemate has an implication that the pro-lynch side is ignoring - lynching isn’t only the only way Town can win, it’s also the only way the _Scum_ can win. So it’s incumbent on us to make the lynches count, rather than killing ourselves by flailing around blindly. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/192 "2012-06-26T15:09:19Z")
I don’t have strong scum leads yet, but TexCat fills enough criteria for me to feel comfortable with a vote. **Vote: TexCat** I think TexCat has a better than random chance to be scum, due to his/her pushing for a no-lynch before it was popular. This doesn’t mean I think TexCat is scum, but it is the strongest lean I have. ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/193 "2012-06-26T15:13:16Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > Not only do I disagree with a no-lynch, I’m having trouble seeing any possible pro-Town motive behind it. So trying to avoid the odds-on lynching of a townie power role isn’t “pro-town”? The hard-liners against this are seriously baffling me. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/194 "2012-06-26T15:26:44Z")
Hey, let’s have a vote count! **NO LYNCH** - 3 votes - texcat (122); Tengu (138); Hal Briston (155) **Texcat** - 3 votes - Visorslash (20); fubbleskag (187); Mosier (192) **Visorslash** - 3 votes - Stanislaus (98); Mahaloth (136); Tengu (138) **Enderw24** - 2 votes - fubbleskag (128); Alka Seltzer (131) **Hal Briston** - 2 votes - Stanislaus (144); fubbleskag (187) **Mahaloth** - 1 vote - MentalGuy (124) **Tengu** - 1 vote - fubbleskag (187) **KellyCriterion** - 1 vote - fubbleskag (128) **Snickers** - 1 vote - Enderw24 (140) With the current vote count, there would be a one-hour extension to the Day if it ended right now; if the tie remained following the extension the result would be **No Lynch**. Day ends sometime between 1:00PM and 5:00PM Eastern on Thursday, June 28. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/195 "2012-06-26T15:51:14Z")
I haven’t done a search or anything, but it seems we haven’t heard much lately from some peeps. Namely: Inner Stickler gnarlycharly Suburban Plankton KellyCriterion S’up with all y’all? ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/196 "2012-06-26T16:08:35Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > Because, again, I don’t consider it a sacrifice. It’s a blind lynch that’s a sacrifice. > > Approximately 80% of the time a blind lynch will catch a Townie. The useful information gained from that is negligible No, it’s not. The information we gain isn’t just the role reveal. It’s the vote record. It’s who follows who. It’s how the votes build up. It’s very likely we’ve voted for one scum already toDay. How they respond to that matters. If we get a role claim, how people respond to that will give us useful information. There will be/are multiple lynch candidates - how the scum split themselves among those matters. It may not let us make decisions immediately, but as we develop info over the game, we can go back and use what happened toDay to find Scum. If we don’t start building up info toDay, we’ll spend the rest of the game with less evidence than we could have. > [@](#): > > , so unless we blindly hit Scum, we’ve taken away the edge that we have. Alka’s already shown how not lynching actually brings us closer to LyLo faster. > [@](#): > > ToDay, Town has the numerical advantage, 15-4. > D2, with no lynch, we will likely have the numerical advantage 14-4, plus any information gained from investigations. > D2 with lynch, we will likely have the numerical advantage 13-4, plus any information gained from investigations, plus the minimal information gained from the lynch. > > That extra Townie is worth a hell of a lot more than the vague information the comes from an uninformed lynch.Of course, it is possible to hit Scum with that lynch (advantage, Town, 14-4 [Edit 14-3, sorry], all information), just not very likely, therefor not weighted very high, any more than the possibility the Scum will skip the kill toNight is. 1. No, the info’s worth more than the Townie. If you keep counting, you’ll see that under your scheme, we reach LyLo (assuming no extra kills or blocks for simplicity) after 5 lynches. If we lynch toDay, we reach LyLo after 6 lynches. Your way gives us fewer chances to hit Scum. ```auto No-lynch D1 Lynch D1 D1 15 4 D1 15 4 N1 15 4 N1 14 4 D2 14 4 D2 13 4 N2 13 4 N2 12 4 D3 12 4 D3 11 4 N3 11 4 N3 10 4 D4 10 4 D4 9 4 N4 9 4 N4 8 4 D5 8 4 D5 7 4 N5 7 4 N5 6 4 D6 6 4 LYLo D6 5 4 LyLo No. Lynches 5 No. Lynches 6 ``` 1. What’s the info from investigations actually worth? What weighting are you giving the chances of scum having an investigator? You argue that a c.20% chance of lynching Scum is negligible, but the c.50% chance of an investigator being Scum doesn’t seem to phase you. To put it another way, if an investigator announces toMorrow that I’m Town, does that mean you’ll never vote for me? 2. It seems you can make the same argument for no-lynch every day. Unless you think the info you get is going to be solid, your logic would always say that an extra Townie is worth more than the lynch. When and why does this change? > [@](#): > > The fact that a continued no-lynch leads to a stalemate has an implication that the pro-lynch side is ignoring - lynching isn’t only the only way Town can win, it’s also the only way the _Scum_ can win. So it’s incumbent on us to make the lynches count, rather than killing ourselves by flailing around blindly. Right, and under your plan, Scum need one less mislynch than they do now. So it makes it easier for them. Do you really think the Scum are watching this growing movement towards no-lynch and thinking “Damn, they’ve got us over a barrel now!” The idea that they won’t have to risk negotiating their way round a lynch will be catnip for them. The pressure of the vote record; the pressure of defending or bussing team-mates; the pressure of _making cases_; these are the things that worry scum. Ducking that and being rewarded by needing one less mislynch must feel like Christmas. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/197 "2012-06-26T16:20:44Z")
> [@Hal\_Briston](#): > > Just came in to say pretty much the same thing. I know I posted a method of communally choosing investigative targets, but that was without thinking whether or not we _should_. After giving it some thought, I’m in favor of letting the investigators investigate on their own terms, whenever and on whomever they choose. > [@MHaye](#): > > The issue I have with doing it all at once is that trying to issue orders to Town powers is ultimately futile. We have no executive oversight of the PM they send to Storyteller, so we can never actually know, until they claim, what they did. Lynching the player for not doing what we said might, at that point, be a game-losing proposition. > > I will not support a “do it all N1” suggestion. I wasn’t wholly comfortable with my own suggestion; this pushes it too far. These two posts ping me because both of them suggested how the investigators possibly should and then retracted their suggestions. Hal suggests just letting the investigators work on their own terms. THIS is always the case, so why bother saying it. MHaye’s post is more troubling. He brings up the possibility that we would lynch an investigator for not following thru on town’s investigation “orders”. When in the course of Mafia has that ever been the case? Sure we try that sometimes with SK’s but never town power roles. This “scare” tactic just seems off to me. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Yes, but the same argument cold be said of all of the powers. So why don’t we just have everyone use their abilities Tonight (or Today, as the case may be), then just play what’s effectively an all-Vanilla game from here on? This doesn’t even make sense and SubPlank is a better player than this. **Vote MHaye** I’d be willing to switch to either Hal or SubPlank. For the moment I’m not getting into multiple votes. ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/198 "2012-06-26T17:01:44Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > Hal suggests just letting the investigators work on their own terms. THIS is always the case, so why bother saying it. Because I had suggested a way to organize a targeted investigation before thinking through whether or not we _should_. Once I realized it probably wasn’t a good idea, should I have not corrected myself, since that would be saying something that is “always the case”\*? \*A claim I have my doubts about, by the way. Has there _never_ been a game where town has organized a directed, mass investigation? ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/199 "2012-06-26T17:59:38Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > I don’t have strong scum leads yet, but TexCat fills enough criteria for me to feel comfortable with a vote. > > **Vote: TexCat** > > I think TexCat has a better than random chance to be scum, due to his/her pushing for a no-lynch before it was popular. This doesn’t mean I think TexCat is scum, but it is the strongest lean I have. Perhaps it is just my OMGUS reaction kicking in, but I find this wishy-washy post suspicious. This looks to me like scum hoping to start a bandwagon on an easy target. And Mosier was my third vote. 😉 Why exactly is it scummy to want to no-lynch? I am quite sure that scum want us to lynch. Because we are more likely to mis-lynch than not, and this is particularly true on Day One. Scum need mis-lynches in order to win. Throw in the possibility of some powerful roles claiming to escape the lynch, and scum would be crazy to vote for no-lynch. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/200 "2012-06-26T18:19:34Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Perhaps it is just my OMGUS reaction kicking in, but I find this wishy-washy post suspicious. This looks to me like scum hoping to start a bandwagon on an easy target. And Mosier was my third vote. 😉 > > Why exactly is it scummy to want to no-lynch? I am quite sure that scum want us to lynch. Because we are more likely to mis-lynch than not, and this is particularly true on Day One. Scum need mis-lynches in order to win. Throw in the possibility of some powerful roles claiming to escape the lynch, and scum would be crazy to vote for no-lynch. I think I’m starting to get a minor Scum lean on you. You’re completely ignoring all the arguments AGAINST a No-Lynch in order to accuse **Mosier** of being Scummy. **Mosier** still hasn’t pinged me at all, which is why I think you’re pinging me, if that makes sense. I think it would help if you addressed **Stanislaus** ’s post earlier, the one with the table that talks about why Scum could, in fact, want us to vote No-Lynch. Could you respond to it please? My stronger Scum lean is still on **Visorslash**. He came in here, talked like a jerk, was called on it, said “I’m always a jerk! Screw you guys!” and then disappeared. Whether or not he’s Scum, he’s certainly doing absolutely nothing to help town. In fact, he’s actively hurting Town if he’s also Town. If he is Scum, he is simply terrible at playing Scum. If he’s Town, he’s distracting us from Scumhunting. **Visorslash** , if you’re really Town, please TRY to contribute and stop lurking! If End of Day was now, I’d vote for \*\*Visorslash \*\*because he’s acting more scummy than **TexCat**. If both **Visorslash** and **TexCat** are Scum, lynching him is a good decision. If **Visorslash** is Scum and **TexCat** is not, lynching him is also a good decision. If **Visorslash** and **TexCat** are both Town, I’d rather we lose the unhelpful **Visorslash** rather than **TexCat**. Luckily, it’s still not End of Day, so **Visorslash** or **TexCat** have a chance to change my mind. Additionally, it’s possible that a third player will ping me before EoD. With that in mind, I think it’s time to start pressuring people; therefore I will place my vote where I would were it End of Day. **Vote: Visorslash** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=11)