# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/221 "2012-06-27T03:51:27Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Huh? I overlooked it too. In fact, I still don’t see it. Could explain how scum get their tools back? Actually, I misread the rules for the Seraph. I was under the impression that if scum killed the seraph, they could exchange a used weapon for a fresh one, but that’s not the case. That still doesn’t really change the fact that essentially starting on night 1 instead of day 1 (which is what a no-lynch ends up accomplishing) does no good for town. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/222 "2012-06-27T05:22:32Z")
> [@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. I actually feel the opposite. That she is less likely to be scum since she was willing to openly suggest this. I think if there are scum on the no-lynch wagon it is more likely the ones that joined it later. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Sorry for my absence. Weekends will likely be ‘light participation days’ for me going forward, and yesterday was jut ‘one of those days’. Anyway… > > I’m not at all in favor of ‘no Lynch’. It gives the Scum a ‘free kill’, plain and simple. We essentially start the game down one player. And the potential return for that sacrifice is whatever information we might get from whichever players choose to take their action on Night 1. It’s a guaranteed risk for an unknown reward. > > Although I don’t know that I agree that we get \*\*no \*\*information from the voting record with a no-lynch; we still have the opportunity to analyze who wanted to skip the lynch and why. I don’t know how valuable that information might turn out to be, as I don’t recall ever actually playing in a game where ‘no-Lynch’ won the Day. > I’m not sure you’re understanding me here. I was responding to the idea that all of our Investigators should act on Night 1, because otherwise they risked getting killed before they could use their powers. I ask here why, if someone is going to advocate that idea, they don’t also advocate \*every \* player acting on Night 1? After all, the risk of getting lynched before they can use their power is not limited to Investigators only… > > FTR, I’m against the idea, and thought I had made that clear…but perhaps I didn’t. > > In my experience, Investigators are one of the most feared (by Scum) tools that Town has. They can cut through all of the confusion, misdirection, and whatever else the Scum has to throw at them, and come up with the simple result “Player X is Scum”. If we use up all of our Investigations on Night 1, that makes the Scum’s job much easier for the rest of the game, because they know there is no possible way that they can be found out. It’s not a quantitative advantage, but I think most of us who’ve had the opportunity to play Scum would agree that the job is a lot easier if there are no Investigators in the game. And by ‘blowing our wad’ on Night 1, that’s what we set up for the rest of the game. > I need to reread the Day before placing a vote. That should come later this afternoon. The investigating roles can investigate anyone and that will give us useful information (though I would like them to avoid overlap). The protective roles should probably be operating with a bit more information rather than just firing blindly. Also, some roles block actions. I don’t really want to put them in play on a Night when we are encouraging investigators to investigate. I don’t know that ‘blowing our wad’ on Night 1 is any worse than possibly not blowing it at all if our investigators get killed. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > **Story, I think the vote count needs to be fixed.** > > \*\*Tengu \*\*is lusted as voting for **Visorslash** , and also voting for **No Lynch**. I understand that multi-voting is allowed in this game, but it seems to me that one can’t simultaneously vote to lynch \*somebody \*and to lynch _nobody_. I don’t really understand why this is a problem. No-lynch is just one more thing on the ballot and you are allowed to vote for as many things on the ballot as you would like. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > when someone accused of being scum takes an irritated “this is bullshit” approach to their defense, is it more often because they’re a Townie frustrated by a weak case or a Scum upset that they got caught out on something silly? In general, I think it is a Town tell, but I have seen some experienced players that know that it is a Town tell do a good job of faking it. **Unvote Mahaloth** **Vote Visorslash** for reasons stated earlier. I have already mentioned my suspicions of Mosier and I also suspect Hal for both getting on the no-lynch wagon and the analysis Stanislaus did (though the suspicion is mitigated some by his reaction to Snickers; I don’t really know how experienced Hal is or how likely he would be to fake outrage like that). I also thought Sinjin made good points in regards to MHaye and Suburban Plankton (along with Hal). ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/223 "2012-06-27T08:44:19Z")
(I’ll try and catch up with the game today. I’ve been a bit distracted as we’re having some redundancies at work and I’ve been waiting to hear what’s happening.) ---
**Author:** ![Visorslash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee59a6/32.png) [@Visorslash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Visorslash)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/224 "2012-06-27T12:04:41Z")
@ The guy who said I was lurking I have things to do besides mafia. As do most of you. That said, we need a lynch. **Unvote; Vote: Visorslash** ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/225 "2012-06-27T12:33:33Z")
Greetings, travellers. It’s nice to be missed, so thank you to everyone who enquired as to my whereabouts. **Tengu** ’s attempt to add momentum to a No Lynch bandwagon is the fishiest thing I’ve smelt all Day. **vote Tengu** Just to throw some opinions out there, I think “on the balance”, it is _better_ for town investigators to get busy on Night 1, especially when cloak of lies and blocks and blocking blocks and lucky charms etc would make the results of a one-off-investigation a “cool story, bro” at best. I encourage the investigators to get to work toNight and report back in the morning. Why is **Visorlash** voting for him/herself? ---
**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 27, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/226 "2012-06-27T12:57:45Z")
If you’re not prepared to cope with the idea that you might get voted for, you shouldn’t be playing Mafia in the first place. Now that you are playing, you should do your teammates the courtesy of at least trying. It’s getting to the point where having multivotes is unhelpful: **unvote visorslash** I’m not convinced he’s not scum, but I’m just getting the impression that the lack of engagement following his early vote lead is a general dissatisfaction with the game rather than an attempt by a scum to withdraw from attention. Also, Snickers’ vote for Hal sets warning bells ringing. Snickers’ has spent virtually every post arguing about N1 investigations, including with repeated mentions of how he’s going to stop talking about it. Aside from one initial comment about visorslash, that’s all he’s talked about: > [@Snickers](#): > > Is it really the best thing, though, to burn all our investigations on night one? Yeah, it could give us good information right out the gate, but like \*\*Stanislaus \*\*said, what if it comes back that they’re all town? Does that really do us any good? I know that Day 1 is a day of pretty much no info, but surely it’s better to wait for more details to come out before burning all of our investigations at once. > [@Snickers](#): > > I’s just thinking that staggering the investigations might allow for more time to make the targets of those investigations clearer, instead of pretty much shooting in the dark. Isn’t it more likely that early investigations will probably always turn up town, just because of the odds? So we’re not really getting any good info by burning through them right away. > [@Snickers](#): > > I guess my reasoning is that this early in the game, shooting in the dark for investigations, you’re really not going to get quality results anyway. Sure, it’s more likely that someone investigated as town really _is_ town, but you’re not going to get any sort of iron-clad confirmed unless at least two of the three investigators investigate the same target. You’re always going to need that confirmation, but you’re just burning through more investigations to do so. The chance of one (or more) of our investigators being scum + the cloak + little chance of confirmation because it just burns more investigations = very little actual information, if we have our investigators all investigate on N1. IMO, only. > [@Snickers](#): > > So, the TLDR version: I don’t know that you’re even getting semi-confirmed townies by having all investigators investigate on N1. I’m not convinced you’re getting much of anything at all. But I could definitely be wrong - tell me why we’d get good info by doing so. > [@Snickers](#): > > Ooh - and what if one of the investigators is scum, and investigates a townie, and correctly reports that that townie is townie in some way that can be confirmed? (Or reveals a scum that takes one for the team and gets lynched?) What then? I know that I’m going to think that he revealed something correctly, didn’t lie, and then think he’s a vanilla townie from then on. It’s a perfect mechanism for scum to hide behind until endgame. > > I just don’t like the idea of all investigators investigating N1. I don’t think it’s a good idea. (Clearly!) > [@Snickers](#): > > So what’s the advantage of all investigators investigating N1? I guess this is what I’m not seeing. > [@Snickers](#): > > Is it just that we get results (however dubious) before they’re all killed? > > I guess I do think that later results are more reliable, because there’s more in-game info to support them. This may be a wrong assumption. > [@Snickers](#): > > Uh oh, random helpful stuff. FOS **MHaye**. 😉 > > I don’t think I’m being very clear. I’m with you that the results of investigations have issues regardless of when they happen. That said, the more game data you have, the better you’re able to judge whether someone’s results seem accurate and trustworthy, because you can compare them against all that data. Early in the game, we have very little data, so there’s nothing to compare against. Neither do we have much reasoning supporting why you might investigate someone; it’s really just picking out of a hat. I’d like to see our investigators targeting someone they think is scummy, and I think that they have more data to use to make that choice if they hold off investigating until later. (Granted, they’ll pick whoever they think is scummiest if they investigate N1 anyway, but there’s just so much less to go on.) > > No, I don’t think investigations are failures if they don’t reveal scum. Revealing townies is just as valuable. But so early in the game, we’ve so little data to compare those results to that to consider anyone investigated confirmed on D2 is premature. But I’m underestimating how valuable those results can be later in the game for everyone who’s left and am being too simplistic about my thinking, I think. > > Anyway, I’ve said my piece about it, so I’ll move on. **Babale** said it better than I did, anyway. > [@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.) > > 3. There are a couple other factors in play (one of our investigators being scum, the cloak of lies) that make the investigations problematic. I think holding off on investigating to gather more info might help offset this. But as has been mentioned, these issues don’t go away the longer we play anyway, so this is probably worthless reasoning. > > I do think I’m discounting how valuable the results will be for later days. Anyway, I don’t think I explained myself very well. Babale says things better than I could’ve in [post 95](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15194369&postcount=95) - I really like this post. > > However, something I just noticed: Back in [post 53](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15191564&postcount=53), **Stanislaus** calculates the chance of one of our investigators being scum as 53%. Yet in [post 146](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15202973&postcount=146), you calculate the chance of our investigators revealing scum as 53%. I don’t speak math. Are the calculations of “what are the chances that one in three people are scum in a field of 15 good/19 total” and “what are the chances that one in three investigations reveal scum in a field of 15 good/19 total” really the same? (Worded like that, it seems they are.) Anyway, just seemed weird to me (and surprisingly high). > [@Snickers](#): > > Whoa! NETA: There’s an error in my quoting. **Ender** calculates the odds of the investigations revealing at least one scum as 51%, not 53%. My bad. Clearly, I need to read more closely. Apologies. > > Are these calculations valid? Should someone as math-challenged as me be trying to understand odds? And what’s for lunch, anyway? > [@Snickers](#): > > Oh. That makes sense. And I’m sure your result is correct, but I have to nitpick your equation transcribing: that should be 1 - ((15/19)\*3), not 1 - (15/19)^3 (as you posted). I was all, “raised to the third? What?” 😉 > [@Snickers](#): > > But what happens if the investigator did choose a target that night? Can investigators choose a target and get results to the town if they’re also NK’d? If the investigators all investigate N1, as seems to be the general consensus, I’m not sure this is the case. > > **storyteller** , is there any order to resolution? If an investigator is NK’d and chooses a target for investigation that night, will we find out the results of his/her research? > > I’m not a fan of the no-lynch idea, especially D1. As everyone (else ;)) is saying about D1 investigations, we need every scrap of information we can get. And as unfortunate as mis-lynching townies is, like \*\*Alka \*\*pointed out, the lynch and our votes leading up to it are one of our few pieces of unassailable data. I think the information is worth the risk of a mis-lynch. And as unlikely as it might be, town’s succeeded in lynching scum D1 before. > [@Snickers](#): > > Sorry, back to this. While the investigator can choose anyone, he or she certainly won’t choose their own selves. So those ratios should probably be 14/18, right? (Maybe? Again, I probably shouldn’t be trying to speak math.) So that gives a 53% chance of hitting one scum with the investigations, which is the same result as **Stanislaus** ’s probability of one of the scum being an investigator. So, there’s a 53% chance that we’ll get scum, but also a 53% chance that one of our investigators _is_ scum. > > That sucks. > [@Snickers](#): > > A related question: > > **storyteller** , in the scenario I mention, is the investigator’s power considered used if he doesn’t get to report results? The Parson inherits the power of whomever is first to be NK’d; does it matter if the power was used (and thus, in my estimation, lost)? ..until he jumps on Hal’s wagon (yes, 3rd vote in fact) late in the Day with a case that I don’t really love. I’m not going to say too much about that now, only because I want to see Hal’s defence first. (I don’t want to prompt or pre-empt him.) My main problem is the timing, the choice of a target who already had votes, and the fact that Snickers has done as much “strategy-not-scum-hunting” as Hal. It all looks like someone trying not to be too controversial. But to keep things interesting, and in the knowledge that I’ll be unvoting one of them: **vote Snickers** ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/227 "2012-06-27T14:44:19Z")
Good to see some players weighing in with some interesting cases and votes, and that our final player has turned up. **@gnarlycharlie** - Who are you suspicious of right now? **@Visorslash** – If you wish to play, please share your suspicions. Self-voting just damages whatever team you are on. > [@MHaye](#): > > There _is_ an argument to be made in favour of no-lynch on Day 1 only. > > … > > I toss this out so people can think about it. I need to work out whether the gains are worth the loss of one Lynch. This pings me. Gives the illusion of participation without actually contributing anything useful, with the potential of kicking off a distracting conversation for town. It doesn’t need careful working out to determine that the loss of a lynch isn’t worth exchanging the loss of one of our powers for, given the weakness of most of our roles. **MHaye** is an experienced player, and should be familiar with the mantra of “odd numbers favour town, even players favour scum”. In this earlier post, **MHaye** is in favour of lynching: > [@MHaye](#): > > Absolutely. Which is why I will be placing a vote sometime Today. We’ll get information from the lynch that will enable us to learn more, even if the victim is a Townsperson. **@MHaye** – What changed your mind here? I also want to hear who you are voting for. > [@Tengu](#): > > 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. The lynch isn’t an isolated, one-off event. Without a Day 1, the amount of information we’d get from the first scum night kill would be zero. Town trade numbers for information. Nor is there anything ‘blind’ about a Day 1 lynch. The scum certainly aren’t voting blindly. I find it odd you are arguing against established game theory. The key number in any game of mafia is the number of lynches town have available, not the number of town players. No-lynch decreases the number of lynches we get. An extra town player has little value, because no-one knows their alignment. > [@Tengu](#): > > 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. That’s quite astute. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > 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.) Early on, while coming down in favour of lynching, **fubbleskag** does at least have some sympathy for the idea of not lynching on Day 1. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > I’m a little on the fence about this. While I agree that any lynch is generally better than no lynch this early in the game, from an information standpoint, I’m leery of mis-lynching one of our many one-shot investigators before they’ve had a chance to investigate. but then, unless they all investigate night 1 (see my previous post for contemplation on this), we have the same problem on day 2, etc. to be clear, I’m not advocating a no-lynch, just thinking out loud about the pros/cons. **@fubbleskag** – At what point did you decide no-lynch wasn’t an option? Why do you think advocating a position you found worthy of consideration is an indication of scummyness? And again, which of the players you are voting for do you have a preference for lynching? Personally, I don’t find voting for no-lynch more scummy than advocating it and not committing. I need to review **Enderw24** ’s responses before I decide whether to move my vote. **Storyteller, you didn’t answer one or two mod questions on the previous pages. Is that because you missed them, or because you won’t answer please?** ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/228 "2012-06-27T15:44:37Z")
> [@Visorslash](#): > > @ The guy who said I was lurking > > I have things to do besides mafia. As do most of you. > > That said, we need a lynch. > **Unvote; Vote: Visorslash** Yes, we do need a lynch. We also have 28+ hours left in the Day. I don’t think we’re at the “Oh noez, we have to lynch somebody!..OK, I’ll sacrifice myself for the good of the team” stage quite yet. **Vote Visorslash** For trying to drum up sympathy by playing the martyr. Also for pointing out on multiple occasions how he’s ‘acting Scummy’; perhaps that’s because he’s Scum. And as a policy vote: because he voted himself. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/229 "2012-06-27T16:04:04Z")
In [Post 118](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15198470&postcount=118) **Alka Seltzer** spends the entire post pointing out how \*\*Visorslash \*\*has been anti-Town, then ends the post with > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Right now, I’m going to: > > **Vote Mahaloth** > > Possible lurking. He has posted nothing since the game started, but has been active in other threads. In [Post 131](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15201269&postcount=131) he again spends most of the post building a case on Visorslash. Then he adds this > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > To be clear, I was going to vote **Visorslash** until I reviewed and found his previous post, which I thought was worth sharing. > > **@fubbleskag** - And straight away there is a problem with your multiple votes. Right now, what is your preference, to lynch me, **Enderw24** or a lurker? Do you intend to have multiple votes in place at the end of the Day? > > Players pinging me a little right now: > > **Tengu** - Could be scum over-playing the newbie card a little. Nothing wrong with asking questions, but is doing little else. When prompted, said **TexCat** was suspicious if FOS on **Inner Stickler** was genuine, but hasn’t followed this up in any way. > **Enderw24** - Fairly active, but only posting content on strategy. I notice from another thread that he is a chess player, and I’d expect him to realise why no-lynch is such a bad strategy. > **Visorslash** - Previously noted possible slip, not as damning as I first thought. Don’t like his pre-emptive FOS on anyone wagoning him and his defence of posting style above (which has nothing to do with why he’s attracted attention in this game), but perfectly reasonable attack on **TexCat**. > **fubbleskag** - Includes an obvious [joke post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190853&postcount=31) in his case against **Enderw24**. > > **Unvote Mahaloth** > **Vote Enderw24** He had previously voted \*\*Mahaloth \*\*for lurking. Mahaloth had not posted again at this point, so was still ‘lurking’…why the unvote? And why the vote on \*\*Enderw24 \*\*as opposed to one of the other three people mentioned in this post? There’s nothing here to indicate why Ender is more suspicious than any of the other players mentioned in this post. Both of these votes almost seem like ‘afterthoughts’, as in “Oh, I can’t vote for Visorslash, even though I’ve just pointed out why I think he’s Scummy…so I’d better put a vote on someone else real quick…” ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/230 "2012-06-27T16:10:54Z")
Unvote Snickers Vote Visorslash I still have concerns about Snickers, but that can be put to the side for the moment. I’m voting for Visorslash for a variety of reasons. 1. Truth be told, I’m not convinced that there’s even a 50% probability Visorslash is scum. But I don’t need to be. I need to be convinced that a) there’s a better than 4/19 chance he’s one of the scum and b) he’s a more likely candidate than anyone else. I believe both of these to be the case. 2. He’s gone in with the attitude from the begining that if I just convince people that there’s NO WAY scum would act like I’m acting, I’ll escape scrutiny. But that doesn’t pass the smell test. Besides, his behavior is decidedly anti-town even if he’s not scum. 3. He voted for himself. For me, this goes beyond a question of scum or town. For whatever reason, Visorslash has decided that he doesn’t really want to play this game. And for me, there’s really nothing more frustrating than trying to play a game with someone who doesn’t give a shit. This goes for all games. I like winning. But I like playing more. And he’s ruining the experience for everyone. So let him take his ball and go home and let’s get on Mafia. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/231 "2012-06-27T16:40:05Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > In [Post 118](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15198470&postcount=118) **Alka Seltzer** spends the entire post pointing out how \*\*Visorslash \*\*has been anti-Town… You are misrepresenting me. The main point of that post was that, after reviewing him, I wasn’t prepared to vote **Visorslash** solely on the basis of that slip, and I explained why. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > In [Post 131](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15201269&postcount=131) he again spends most of the post building a case on Visorslash. This is clearly untrue. Quote the actual lines where I build a case on **Visorslash**. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Mahaloth had not posted again at this point, so was still ‘lurking’…why the unvote? Because my vote had served it’s purpose and drawn attention to the inactive players/lurkers, and other votes were down against them. I can’t tell if a player is actually lurking or is not caught up on the game. A point against **Mahaloth** , and why I voted him over **KellyCriteron** , is that he did post in other threads. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > And why the vote on \*\*Enderw24 \*\*as opposed to one of the other three people mentioned in this post? There’s nothing here to indicate why Ender is more suspicious than any of the other players mentioned in this post. It was partly a pressure vote. At that point **Enderw24** had avoided commenting on any players, which is suspicious of itself but put him in company with a lot of others. I found his [dismissal](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15200706&postcount=130) of the first vote against him to be a bit off, I’ve seen scum affect indifference to votes before, and decided to see how he’d respond to his first bandwagon vote. Now he’s posted some content and a couple votes I can have a better look at him. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/232 "2012-06-27T16:49:55Z")
Hee. Love the third vote thing, **Stanislaus**. What, I should vote for someone like **gnarlycharlie** because he doesn’t have any votes instead of who I feel is most scummy? Eh, whatevs; I’m not fussed. I voted for **Hal** because I think he’s the most scummy right now, and gave my reasoning. You don’t really love my case, eh - that’s mafia! I will say this, though: the third vote thing is tired, lazy thinking, and an easy excuse when someone has little better. IMO, only. You mention my timing, though (as did **Hal** ). I don’t get this - what’s problematic about the timing? Sure, I posted at the end of the workday, for **Hal**. It wasn’t the end of the workday for me. Nor was it anywhere close to end of Day. He wants to refute it, he’s got plenty of time. And if he’s that incensed about it, why not post a rebuttal then? He had time to make a post, clearly. Would it have been better had I posted at 7 PM my time (8 PM his)? If so, why? This is just really weird to me. **Visorslash** , bizarre. You don’t want to play, that’s fine, but asked to be subbed out at least. Voting for yourself because someone called you on a possible slip? Because people might think you’re scum? Weak. Maybe it’s actually brilliant scum play, but it just reads like disgusted townie committing suicide. Thanks for hurting town, dude. **MHaye** ’s made a couple of posts that have pinged me a bit. One is [post 24](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190781&postcount=24), which originally pinged me as obvious - of course people will vote. (This was before the no-lynch discussion, which honestly I hadn’t even considered would be an option and had forgotten was mentioned in the rules.) But **Alka** ’s brought up a good point: what changed his mind that no-lynch might be a good idea? Also in post 24, he mentions being shocked that the knives weren’t taken, which pinged me, as it’s right there in the rules. I got a third ping from [post 35](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190876&postcount=35) - I made a note that it seemed weird to assume that a scum Parson wouldn’t get the powers of the first player to die. But then I thought about it, and reread the rules, and he’s right in that a scum Parson wouldn’t get those powers because scum lose their town power when they become scum. As long as they don’t select and use the memento. And even if they did select the memento, I think they’d want to use it to save a stronger power anyway (perhaps the Carpenter’s or the Physician’s). It’s worth noting that the Parson’s power might only come into play if we lynch, however, and last I can tell, **MHaye** is at least considering a no-lynch vote. But he corrected himself about the knives, and I rethought about the Parson, so these pings evaporated. I’ve also gotten the obvious pings from **Visorslash** , but these just read as pissy townperson to me, as I mentioned above. The last ping I have in my notes is from **Stanislaus** , in [post 32](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190860&postcount=32). My thoughts were that both of these are saying the same thing. But he’s right, and they’re not - only scum know what tools they’ve selected, town certainly doesn’t. They’re saying similar things, to be sure, but they’re not identical. So this is really minor and probably stupid. Anyway, that’s what I’ve got so far. Maybe I’ll need to do a reread to see if anything else jumps out. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/233 "2012-06-27T17:46:58Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > You are misrepresenting me. The main point of that post was that, after reviewing him, I wasn’t prepared to vote **Visorslash** solely on the basis of that slip, and I explained why. > > This is clearly untrue. Quote the actual lines where I build a case on **Visorslash**. OK, rereading both of your posts from the point of view that you’ve just stated, I can see what you’re saying here. But on first read, you certainly didn’t come across to me that way. At best, you seem ‘on the fence’ about \*\*Visorslash \*\*in those posts. You spend a fair amount of time talking about him, only to go on to state how your suspicions of him aren’t enough to warrant a vote. Maybe your words and your votes are inconsistent, maybe they’re not. Still it strikes me as odd that you would address the bulk of your posts to Visorslash and then end each of them with a vote on a different player, that you had previously mentioned not at all (in the case of **Mahaloth** ) or only in passing (in the case of **Enderw24** ). ---
**Author:** ![gnarlycharlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@gnarlycharlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnarlycharlie)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/234 "2012-06-27T18:09:35Z")
okay, catching up now. there are a number of points i will comment on but will not address specific posts. 1. no-lynches i think there are very few times where a no-lynch is good strategy. i’ve only played in one game that a no-lynch was clearly the right thing to do. that was however at the endgame. for this game, i definitely wouldn’t agree with a no-lynch for D1. true, usually, town gets lynched on D1 but as has been mentioned we still get information from the voting record, the reactions for being voted, reactions of someone else being voted and more. unless there is a more compelling reason than that, a no-lynch is a bad idea. 1. investigations as i mentioned earlier i prefer that that all investigators use their powers tonight. however i would not support a plan to dictate how they decide to use their powers. that way each one is responsible for their choices. this applies to all roles. i don’t subscribe to the thinking that investigators should wait so they are not shooting blindly. that implies that an investigator is only useful if he finds scum. finding town is just as important as it it clears a player. in this game, there is the question whether results will be accurate because the investigator might be scum or the target affected by the Cloak. but this problem will persist not only on N1 but on other Nights as well. 1. multi-votes i don’t think having more than one vote at EOD is anti-town. it’s part of the game. in De’endee, all had two votes available to them. at first people used only one vote. after a few Days, everyone was using both votes. everyone can use them. get over it. 1. **Visorslash** and his self-vote it is possible that he’s scum. i’ve seen scum do it and i’ve seen town do it. i’ve done it twice and i was town both times. his supposed slip is a good as any reason for a D1 vote. however, the other reasoning not so much. i feel the anti-town behavior reason is flawed. anti-town does not equal scummy. you can criticize his play all you want but that doesn’t make him scum. in my experience, scum are more likely not to rock the boat. i’ve seen a similar argument for **Texcat** ’s towniness for being the first to suggest a no-lynch. statistically he’s probably town. there are 4 out for 19 who are scum. also, i doubt the scum who came before him would have chosen him. he’s too much of a lightning rod. he’d have to be the first scum, which is even statistically lower. if he is town, i wouldn’t be surprised if this is his last game here. * * * this brings me to a point of discussion that hasn’t been introduced, that scum chose it’s team. i’m inclined to believe that most if not all scum are experienced players and likely have played with each other. i’d also argue that they are the ones who usually don’t get lynched early in the game. so here’s what i have. feel free to correct my assumptions. fairly new to mafia: **Tengu** , **Babale** , **Snickers** , **EnderW24** (?); **Mosier** (2nd game) unsure: **Alka Seltzer** - haven’t played with him but sounds like an experienced player usually lynched early: **Visorslash** , **Texcat** while by no means are those i mentioned surely town, i will focus on those not mentioned first. now, i will do a reread. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/235 "2012-06-27T21:28:04Z")
busier day at work than usual; quickie between work/dinner, hope to be back after the kid goes to bed > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Greetings, travellers. > > It’s nice to be missed, so thank you to everyone who enquired as to my whereabouts. > > **Tengu** ’s attempt to add momentum to a No Lynch bandwagon is the fishiest thing I’ve smelt all Day. > > vote Tengu > > Just to throw some opinions out there, I think “on the balance”, it is _better_ for town investigators to get busy on Night 1, especially when cloak of lies and blocks and blocking blocks and lucky charms etc would make the results of a one-off-investigation a “cool story, bro” at best. I encourage the investigators to get to work toNight and report back in the morning. > > Why is **Visorlash** voting for him/herself? **unvote KellyCriterion** > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@fubbleskag** – At what point did you decide no-lynch wasn’t an option? 06-23-2012, 8:44 PM. I was in the shower, washing my face, which I do after washing my hair but before washing the rest of myself. Except my feet, I never wash those. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Why do you think advocating a position you found worthy of consideration is an indication of scummyness? As I said, I don’t see a pro-town value in a no-lynch. Some/all of them could be Town and just genuinely wrong - I’ve been that many times. But, as they say, it’s Day 1. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > And again, which of the players you are voting for do you have a preference for lynching? Of the three, I haven’t formed a preference as of yet. > [@gnarlycharlie](#): > > this brings me to a point of discussion that hasn’t been introduced, that scum chose it’s team. i’m inclined to believe that most if not all scum are experienced players and likely have played with each other. i’d also argue that they are the ones who usually don’t get lynched early in the game. this is an interesting line of thought. ---
**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 27, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/236 "2012-06-27T22:16:44Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > Hee. Love the third vote thing, **Stanislaus**. What, I should vote for someone like **gnarlycharlie** because he doesn’t have any votes instead of who I feel is most scummy? Eh, whatevs; I’m not fussed. I voted for **Hal** because I think he’s the most scummy right now, and gave my reasoning. You don’t really love my case, eh - that’s mafia! I will say this, though: the third vote thing is tired, lazy thinking, and an easy excuse when someone has little better. IMO, only. How clever of you to spot that the throwaway comment in brackets "(yes, 3rd vote in fact) was absolutely the core of my case. How right you are to ignore the lengthy quote of your posts that shows you to be hardly different from Hal in terms of your dedication to analysing strategy rather than hunting scum. > [@](#): > > You mention my timing, though (as did **Hal** ). I don’t get this - what’s problematic about the timing? Sure, I posted at the end of the workday, for **Hal**. It wasn’t the end of the workday for me. Nor was it anywhere close to end of Day. He wants to refute it, he’s got plenty of time. And if he’s that incensed about it, why not post a rebuttal then? He had time to make a post, clearly. Would it have been better had I posted at 7 PM my time (8 PM his)? If so, why? This is just really weird to me. But I don’t mean timing as in hours and minutes. I mean timing in terms of the build up of votes and the approaching deadline. We were about 48 hours to go, which is when people who don’t have a vote begin to stand out. Given that you’d steadfastly avoided any discussion of who might be scum, or commenting on others’ cases, it seemed odd for you to suddenly appear with a case that felt a little “back of the envelope” on someone who was already in the frame. It felt a little like an attempt to keep yourself safely unexceptional. ---
**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 27, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/237 "2012-06-27T22:26:30Z")
> [@gnarlycharlie](#): > > 1. multi-votes > > i don’t think having more than one vote at EOD is anti-town. it’s part of the game. in De’endee, all had two votes available to them. at first people used only one vote. after a few Days, everyone was using both votes. everyone can use them. get over it. Who won De’endee? For those who weren’t in it, that’s a rhetorical question. The Scum did. I was part of them, and using multi-votes to avoid accountability was part of my strategy. If you vote for the leader and the runner up, you might as well not have voted for all the difference you make to the result. That’s a great place for scum to be. If you vote for the Town leader and throw away a solo vote on a Scum teammate, you can duck responsibility for the mislynch and later look good if they get nabbed. If your votes don’t express a preference, they contain much less information. So we should be suspicious of people who muddy the vote record. > [@](#): > > this brings me to a point of discussion that hasn’t been introduced, that scum chose it’s team. i’m inclined to believe that most if not all scum are experienced players and likely have played with each other. i’d also argue that they are the ones who usually don’t get lynched early in the game. > > so here’s what i have. feel free to correct my assumptions. > > fairly new to mafia: **Tengu** , **Babale** , **Snickers** , **EnderW24** (?); **Mosier** (2nd game) > > unsure: **Alka Seltzer** - haven’t played with him but sounds like an experienced player > > usually lynched early: **Visorslash** , **Texcat** > > while by no means are those i mentioned surely town, i will focus on those not mentioned first. now, i will do a reread. This is a really good point, with the caveat that if the first scum chosen were fairly new, they may not share these insights into who the “smart” picks should be. And, of course, one of the scum may well have tried to make an unexpected pick precisely to avoid being predictable. But it’s well worth bearing in mind, especially once we find our first scum. ---
**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 28, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/238 "2012-06-28T02:10:40Z")
I still prefer a no-lynch Today, but it looks like we are going to lynch someone. As I said [earlier](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15197425&postcount=113) my suspicions lie with Visorslash. His voting for himself almost seems like a admission of his slip to me, and I’m guessing that he disappeared so has not to inadvertently give anything about his teammates away. \*\*Vote: Visorslash \*\* ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/239 "2012-06-28T04:59:59Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I still prefer a no-lynch Today, but it looks like we are going to lynch someone. As I said [earlier](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15197425&postcount=113) my suspicions lie with Visorslash. His voting for himself almost seems like a admission of his slip to me, and I’m guessing that he disappeared so has not to inadvertently give anything about his teammates away. > > \*\*Vote: Visorslash \*\* My original vote on Visorslash was made in case I was for some reason unable to return before end of Day. I wanted to make sure I was voting against the no-lynch idea and voting for someone I thought had at least a slightly better than random chance of being scum. While reading and getting caught up on today’s play, though, I decided I was going to vote for Snickers. His response to Stanislaus just seems too focused on the wrong things, like he is trying to distract from the real issues that Stanislaus had with him. The post I quoted, though, does make some good points about Visorslash and makes me doubt whether I want to switch or not. After thinking it over though, I think I will **Unvote Visorslash** **Vote Snickers** I don’t really expect it will change the final outcome, and I am not really against a Visorslash lynch (though I would prefer to see him subbed out), but my first preference is to lynch Snickers. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/240 "2012-06-28T05:02:06Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > That’s a strange way to look at it. I think it was a pretty fair assessment of the game. Do you disagree with anything in particular that I said? Do you think town won’t have a difficult time catching scum this game? There are, in fact, several game mechanics stacked against town. [snip] > The above isn’t pessimism, and it’s certainly not gloating. It’s realistic. We can’t afford tiny mistakes, like overlapping investigations or voting for a no-lynch. I don’t understand how you can honestly say that pointing such out is a scum tell. So, let me define scum gloating quickly. Traditionally, scum gloating happens when town mislynches and a scum player posts at the reveal, “Oh no, this is a terrible thing, we’re so sunk.” but inside, of course, they’re chortling, “Oh ho ho, we’ve got them by the short hairs, now!” It’s not a matter of whether the assessment is fair, it’s a matter of why the assessment was made, and a very pessimistic assessment made at the very start of the game reads like an attempt to encourage town not to try, because if the odds are against you, why bother? > [@Enderw24](#): > > 1. He voted for himself. For me, this goes beyond a question of scum or town. For whatever reason, Visorslash has decided that he doesn’t really want to play this game. And for me, there’s really nothing more frustrating than trying to play a game with someone who doesn’t give a shit. This goes for all games. I like winning. But I like playing more. And he’s ruining the experience for everyone. So let him take his ball and go home and let’s get on Mafia. I’m very glad this is your last reason and I hope it’s not very serious because that’s a terrible thing to burn a lynch on. If you think he’s scum, vote him for being scum. If you think he’s town but a poor sportsman or whatever, don’t vote for him! Why would you hand scum a freebie like that! Let him hang around as a sandbag and scum control obstacle. A player with an attitude like that is ripe for a vigging but not a lynch. Voting for visorslash because he voted for himself is a crap reason to vote. Why is it a crap reason to vote? Because it looks like a great reason to vote but there’s nothing about it that makes it especially likely to be a scum thing to do. Townies, especially frustrated townies often choose to vote for themselves if they feel that there’s no escape and they want to get on with it so that town can hopefully move onto scum. Those are the sorts of things that scum love to vote for because they’re ridiculously easy to build cases around without actually interfering with scum behavior. **vote mosier** I really don’t like how his reaction to the game is how screwed town is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=13)