# 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:** 19
**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:** [July 3, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/361 "2012-07-03T22:03:11Z")
On \*\*Mosier’s \*\*claim: I absolutely believe that he was sent a PM informing him he was the Summoner. The question is whether he subsequently received any other PMs telling him he had a new vocation. The simple fact that he’s claimed Summoner throws no light on this whatsoever. The fact that he claims to have used his power to no visible effect is of some slight interest, however. If he were Scum, and \*\*SP \*\*were Town, then he’d be \*guessing \*that \*\*SP \*\*did nothing last Night. Such a guess would have a big downside risk for Scum. So on the whole I’m inclined to believe that Mosier really does know what SP did last Night. That leaves us with four options: Mosier is Town; SP is Town; SP did nothing last Night. Mosier is Town; SP is Scum; SP did nothing last Night Mosier is Scum, SP is Town; SP did nothing and Mosier used the Memento to get a true read. Mosier is Scum; SP is Scum; SP may or may not have acted last Night. The last option would imply that if we found Mosier were Scum, it would be very likely that SP would be Scum too. So it’s a risk to link the pair in this way. The Memento option is harder to make a call on. If the Scum had picked it, using it to try to “fake” Town powers in a semi-confirmable way would be a good plan. But they don’t necessarily have the Memento, and if so they were lucky that they found someone doing nothing, who was thus happy to confirm. Overall, I’m more inclined to believe that Mosier is Town than Scum, at this point. But his observations don’t tell us anything about SP. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/362 "2012-07-03T22:19:58Z")
**unvote Suburban Plankton** I’m not picking up a scum vibe in his post-my-vote posts. I’ll work on a vote tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/363 "2012-07-03T22:33:29Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > My “rant” about a parenthetical was a whole sentence, but yeah, you totally got me there. I’ve posted a bunch of responses to **Stanislaus** ; I’m sorry that I didn’t do a very good job of explaining myself. And since I didn’t vote for you, do I get to lose that OMGUS stain? 🙂 I apologize. I was thinking that you did vote for me (when you said my post was very scummy) and I did not go back and check. Now that I look, I see that you did not. I still thought your responses were an attempt to misdirect from the actual case Stanislaus had against you. “Rant” may have been too strong a word, but I think it was more like two or three sentences and more than you addressed any other part of his case (in that post). You did talk about the timing, but not in the way Stanislaus meant it. I don’t know if that was a legitimate misunderstanding or another attempt at pulling the focus away from his actual case. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/364 "2012-07-03T22:51:36Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > TexCat, I’m hoping you can provide some enlightenment here. > YesterDay, you voted for Visor late. You were second to last to vote for him after the bandwagon had already been established. Pretty safe vote there. You ALSO voted for no lynch, which is really strange and conflicting. We’d already established that no-lynch wasn’t good strategy but you wanted to muddle things up anyway. > > ToDay, you’re advocating that we not investigate the people who voted for Visor because clearly there wouldn’t be scum there. Hey! Coincidence! That includes you! > Instead we should focus on people that voted for other people. Hey! Coincidence! That ignores your “no-lynch” vote and therefore doesn’t include you! > > Your whole voting record and rationale behind your attempts at Town direction seem really shady. I was a late voter, but I posted that I was suspicious of Visor very early in the day. I voted late when it appeared that no-lynch was not going to win the day. My theory about whether scum was on the Visor lynch or not was mostly a reaction to gnarlycharlie’s asking investigators to look at the Visor voters overnight. Since I suspect that gnarlycharlie is scum, I also suspect that he was trying to direct the investigators into a place where they would not find scum. Or perhaps where they might find one scum who was protected by the cloak. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/365 "2012-07-04T00:19:09Z")
> [@Hal\_Briston](#): > > Ok…then let’s put it this way: Do you trust the claim simply on a gut level, or do you have any other reason (that you can, of course, keep to yourself if you like) to back it up? It’s a gut feeling and no confirmation back-up from me. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/366 "2012-07-04T00:38:28Z")
I see no reason why a Scum \*\*Mosier \*\*would have volunteered the information he did; it would have been a pretty big risk for this stage of the game. I’m willing to believe his claim. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind any of our non-US friends that tomorrow, the 4th, is the day we set aside for barbecues, beer, and blowing stuff up to celebrate our Countryhood (or else it’s a Wednesday), so I expect participation to be on the light side. I know mine will be. I will try to make some more relevant contribution to things before this evening is over, though. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/367 "2012-07-04T12:50:14Z")
Game thread seems a bit quiet compared to other Mafia games I have seen. No one is majorly pinging me yet… I could just throw my vote at **Tengu** again but that would be somewhat boring, and doesn’t help learn anything new. Is it worth looking through the town power roles and trying to work how best and/or when to use them? Would it help if certain power roles “outed” themselves now? Are there some power roles where the owner of that role should definitely keep their head down until much later in the game? Can we encourage certain power roles to get busy? I assume we’re still waiting to find out the results of any investigations that were strongly encouraged on Day 1? Did no one investigate? ---
**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:** [July 4, 2012, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/368 "2012-07-04T13:19:39Z")
On **Mosier** ’s claim, I was thinking along similar lines to **Stanislaus**. I’m leaning town on **Mosier** unless **Suburban Plankton** is scum. Taking a blind punt on **SP** not acting overnight would be very risky, and it strikes me a wasteful use of _The Memento_. The aspect of the claim that bothers me is that **Mosier** says he used his power as a weak investigator, looking for the scum killer. _The Summoner_’s power also had the potential to confirm town. That’s why I asked **Mosier** when he’d submitted his action. Specifically, I was wondering whether he’d seen **Hal Briston** ’s night post about how _The Pardoner_ would make a great target for _The Canon_’s restorative. That would have made **Visorslash** a potential target for watching, as he might have been targeted by _The Canon_, protective roles or a scum killer. I don’t see any evidence **Mosier** weighed up the alternative uses of his power as I’d expect a townie to. The timing of the claim wasn’t pro-town. If **Suburban Plankton** is scum, at some point he has to make a claim, which might have included a Night action (e.g. investigator). Revealing he knew **SP** hadn’t acted gives him an opportunity to change his claim. (As an aside, this is why mine and others advice on when to claim was bad, ultimately it’s up to the power role to decide what to do with it.) The roles assigned to the scum are potential coffins for them. Some are tighter fitting than others (I’ve already mentioned why _The Pardoner_ would be a really horrible role for scum to be assigned, there are others). Claims are a potential way of catching scum in this game. A point in favour of **Mosier** is that he did answer my question about timing. If he is scum, he could of course lie, but he probably wouldn’t know why I was asking. (If anyone else guessed what I was driving at, I’d be interested.) Overall, I think it’s more likely that **Mosier** is town than scum, but I’d have a lot more confidence if the claim had been handled differently. Some implications for the claim: - If **Mosier** is town, **Suburban Plankton** is almost certainly not a Godfather or Miller, as he’d have seen him target himself or be targeted. If scum have the cloak, they’d be foolish not to use it on Night 1. - If **Suburban Plankton** is town, and we see some evidence that _The Memento_ is not in play or has been used for something else, **Mosier** is very likely to be town. Those points might be worth revisiting later in the game. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/369 "2012-07-04T13:38:21Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > this is way too hasty. **gnarly’s** comment could very easily have been an honest mistake as townie and without any prior suspicions, this is a very weak vote - especially considering how Day 1 played out. upon review, not only have you not voiced any suspicions of him, neither has anyone else so far. if we’re going to make up scenarios on behalf other players to suit our needs, what’s to stop me for suggesting that your vote is simply an attempt to cover up the smudge you were correctly called out on? > > let’s assume for the moment that this was, in fact, a scum slip-up; can you explain how this implicates **Alka**? **@TexCat** , the above was directed at you, can you please respond? > [@TexCat](#): > > I think there may be no scum amongst the Visor voters. Zero scum on that wagon. Visor seemed to go out of his way to look suspicious, not defend himself, and disappear. Of course, the scum know that he’s town, and it looks like he’s the overwhelming favorite for lynching. They don’t need to be on that wagon; they can take the opportunity to vote for each other safely or throw some suspicions elsewhere. the second half of this is a possibility, but it’s certainly not strong enough to support you first two statements that there are no scum in the wagon. I’m troubled that you seem to be so eagerly dissuading us from looking at **Visor’s** voters. > [@Enderw24](#): > > Well I haven’t done an analysis of who said what when , but I think we’d find something revealing if we look at those who advocated for all investigators to investigate N1 and compare it to those who are now advocating that investigators not say anything. > > For instance, if you’re currently advocating that investigators not reveal themselves and on D1 your position was for investigators to not investigate (either all of them or any of them), that shows a pattern of wanting town to remain in the dark. I look forward to your analysis on this. > [@Enderw24](#): > > Also, I’m going to > vote Snickers. > > Something pinged my radar yesterDay. That ping hasn’t been alleviated with the passage of time. Can you be more specific about what pinged you? > [@Visorslash](#): > > I’ll post a bit later today on what has pinged me. > [@Visorslash](#): > > Vote: TexCat > > I am not convinced she is town. this is what we waited four days for? look, it’s great that you’re not dead and all, but the fact is that so far you’re the only confirmed town, which means that your thoughts when it comes to scum-hunting have a different weight to them than anyone else - we don’t have to wonder about your motivations, only your logic. you have an obligation to the rest of town to tell us everything you know, everything you think you know, everything you think you don’t know (see a pattern here?) > [@Enderw24](#): > > TexCat, I’m hoping you can provide some enlightenment here. > YesterDay, you voted for Visor late. You were second to last to vote for him after the bandwagon had already been established. Pretty safe vote there. You ALSO voted for no lynch, which is really strange and conflicting. We’d already established that no-lynch wasn’t good strategy but you wanted to muddle things up anyway. > > ToDay, you’re advocating that we not investigate the people who voted for Visor because clearly there wouldn’t be scum there. Hey! Coincidence! That includes you! > Instead we should focus on people that voted for other people. Hey! Coincidence! That ignores your “no-lynch” vote and therefore doesn’t include you! > > Your whole voting record and rationale behind your attempts at Town direction seem really shady. interesting points. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > Overall, I’m more inclined to believe that Mosier is Town than Scum, at this point. But his observations don’t tell us anything about SP. very good point. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Game thread seems a bit quiet compared to other Mafia games I have seen. > > No one is majorly pinging me yet.. I could just throw my vote at **Tengu** again but that would be somewhat boring, and doesn’t help learn anything new. > > Is it worth looking through the town power roles and trying to work how best and/or when to use them? Would it help if certain power roles “outed” themselves now? Are there some power roles where the owner of that role should definitely keep their head down until much later in the game? Can we encourage certain power roles to get busy? > > I assume we’re still waiting to find out the results of any investigations that were strongly encouraged on Day 1? Did no one investigate? are you even reading the thread? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/370 "2012-07-04T13:50:04Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > are you even reading the thread? I thought I did.. although I do start skimming if someone skews off on a tangent that I don’t think is productive. At the moment, I want to know the results of any investigations. If the investigators have already posted their findings up-thread, I’ll read a bit more closely. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/371 "2012-07-04T14:30:11Z")
It’s important to me to have a vote registered before any bandwagon develops, so nobody can accuse me of jumping on it. It’s the 4th of July and I likely wont be able to read the thread any more today, but I’ll get a chance to revisit the vote before end of Day tomorrow. For now, I will **vote: Texcat** as an extension of my vote yesterday. I don’t like that he (she?) tried to get a no-lynch passed (and almost succeeded, prior to the huge Visorslash wagon!) and that today all of his suggestions for how to proceed are to scrutinize any group of people that doesn’t include him. The scum lean is still small (as it was in Day 1) but I think he has a better-than-random chance to be scum. That’s good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/372 "2012-07-04T14:43:59Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Game thread seems a bit quiet compared to other Mafia games I have seen. > > No one is majorly pinging me yet.. I could just throw my vote at **Tengu** again but that would be somewhat boring, and doesn’t help learn anything new. > > Is it worth looking through the town power roles and trying to work how best and/or when to use them? Would it help if certain power roles “outed” themselves now? Are there some power roles where the owner of that role should definitely keep their head down until much later in the game? Can we encourage certain power roles to get busy? > > I assume we’re still waiting to find out the results of any investigations that were strongly encouraged on Day 1? Did no one investigate? **FOS Kelly** for obviously not reading any of Day 2 before posting. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/373 "2012-07-04T20:52:09Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > **@TexCat** , the above was directed at you, can you please respond? > > the second half of this is a possibility, but it’s certainly not strong enough to support you first two statements that there are no scum in the wagon. I’m troubled that you seem to be so eagerly dissuading us from looking at **Visor’s** voters. > > I look forward to your analysis on this. > > Can you be more specific about what pinged you? > > this is what we waited four days for? look, it’s great that you’re not dead and all, but the fact is that so far you’re the only confirmed town, which means that your thoughts when it comes to scum-hunting have a different weight to them than anyone else - we don’t have to wonder about your motivations, only your logic. you have an obligation to the rest of town to tell us everything you know, everything you think you know, everything you think you don’t know (see a pattern here?) > > interesting points. > > very good point. > > are you even reading the thread? I thought gnarly posted in the wrong thread. The fact that he was responding to Alka would mean that he and Alka were also talking in the scum thread. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/374 "2012-07-04T21:19:12Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I thought gnarly posted in the wrong thread. The fact that he was responding to Alka would mean that he and Alka were also talking in the scum thread. The line of logic tying gnarly to the scum boards is already weak at best, but this is bordering on ridiculous. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2012, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/375 "2012-07-04T22:38:42Z")
We seem to have a lot of players with very low post counts. It’s too late in the Day to multivote a bunch as an encouragement, but as they can’t all be Scum, it’s worth saying the following: You guys are killing us. We’ll lose this game, because you’re not playing. In such a game, it’s easy to hide in plain sight. I’m going to **vote Inner Stickler** for doing precisely that. He’s happy to push discussions that don’t themselves lead to finding scum. E.g. Directing investigators. So he throws out an option here > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I do not like specifying exactly who each investigator should be investigating, nosiree. I think the best plan is something on the order of if your username starts with ADGJMPSV or Y investigate in the top third of the player list, if it starts with BEHKNQTW or Z search in the middle third and so on for CFILORU or X. Obviously this isn’t the only way to break it down or the best way, but I think it’s a lot less prone to manipulation than handing down target assignments from the collective on high. > > Plus how much fun is it to have your role usage determined by committee? But he’s not married to it, because he goes on to say: > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > If we want to throw something out there to address potential overlap, I think that’s fine. Personally, I’m willing to ride to odds to a certain extent and let them make their own decisions re: targets. He’s non-committal in strategy discussions: > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I don’t see that learning 3 alignments in one swoop is any different than learning them in a staggered fashion. The biggest danger is that an investigator will be killed before they can use their power. Since the Cloak persists until the bearer dies, we can’t even doublecheck an investigation with another investigator. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Right. The investigator must weigh the odds of using their power early and relatively unhindered vs. later and risking dying before they can use it or being blocked in some manner. I’m not saying that one option is necessarily better than the other, mind you. and happy to stir the pot by bringing up old ideas: > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Is that true in this game though? Scum have a finite number of NKs here. The strategy, as far as I can see appears to be to run out the clock on scum kills and mitigate damage due to mislynches. As for what comes after that, I’m not clear if we’re supposed to hang out in a stalemate forever or lynch anyone who suggests we start lynching on the basis that only a scum would want to lynch someone. …and happy to spread WIFOM > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > If scum would be crazy to choose no-lynch, then that strikes me as the perfect place for scum to hide. > > Meh, Mosier’s second post, I think it was, set my scumdar off. High level of pessimism? Sounds like scum gloating to me. He has, however, made a case. But it’s a very weak one - accusing Mosier of scum gloating. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > 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 thiabang, 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?.. > ] **vote mosier** > > I really don’t like how his reaction to the game is how screwed town is. I think it’s a very weak case, but the timing is also interesting. TexCat has announced some suspicion of Mosier, and then Inner pops up to add some fuel to that fire. It looks a little like trying to make something happen once there was some potential back up out there. Inner’s an experienced enough player to know that he needs to make some effort a case, but this seems very half-hearted. Then there’s a series of essentialy non-descript posts toDay - they don’t do more than scratch the surface, and seem to be made mainly to demonstrate presence rather than to drive discussion forward. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I can’t see scum voluntarily forgoing a NK. My money’s on a block or protect. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Given that we’ve already decided there’s little point to fake claiming in this game, I’m not sure why it’s worth noting one trusts a claim or not. I won’t be surprised at all if Mosier dies and flips Summoner. ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/376 "2012-07-04T22:45:05Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > * * * > > As I said in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15212813&postcount=227), I find it strange **MHaye** would go from advocating the importance of the lynch to considering no-lynch. His response [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15217170&postcount=250) sidesteps my question, what changed his mind? Strikes me as possible scum forgetfulness of his earlier post. Scum are more likely than town to make this kind of mistake, as they don’t have the same investment in the arguments they are making. > > He makes a vote for **Visorslash** in the same post, which he says is weak. His follow-up review turns up [nothing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15218475&postcount=265) worth voting for, and he has no observations to share. I assume you mean “Why did I change my mind about lynching Day 1?” I didn’t. I’ll say it again. I did not _change my mind_. I started off the game in what I might call the traditional mindset; namely that, despite the high likelihood of losing one of our own to the lynch, and therefore taking a step towards the Mafia winning, that a Day 1 lynch generates enough information, over the course of the game, to be worth the loss. It wasn’t until around the time I made post 169 that it occurred to me that I had not considered the special nature of this game, namely that everyone has a one-shot power, and we might gain more information from allowing everyone a chance to use their power. A put it out to be thought about because I am under no illusions that I have a monopoly on brains, and I wanted to get other people’s input on them. I also knew that I would not be able to devote much time to thinking about the issue at that point (RL obligations that I chose not to bore you with at the time, to do with my fiancee returning home the next day). Saying “hang on, there’s something I haven’t thought about before, does it change the plan?” is not “changing my mind” it is “ensuring all relevant factors are taken into consideration.” Your attempt to label it as a change of mind is not correct. Had I actually come down in favour of no lynch, then you could call that a change of mind. Your reaction was disappointing, and I would describe it as a knee-jerk. You show no signs of having actually considered whether the design of this game mandates departing from normal practice. I would also categorise Stanislaus’s reaction (post 171) as a knee-jerk. (I can’t claim to be innocent of this; my initial declaration that I would vote also falls into the knee-jerk category.) I was a little disappointed. Now that’s out of the way, I’ll get back to a reread of Today. I need to place a vote before I retire tonight, as I shall be out all day tomorrow, getting home at about 6pm (or the earliest moment Dusk could fall). ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/377 "2012-07-04T22:53:42Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > I only plan on placing a single vote, but my next choice would be MHaye for the reasons sinjin gave, especially the late in the Day vote on the wagon leader. Answer me this question. What would you have said if I had not voted Yesterday? Not “voted no lynch” but failed to place a vote at all? ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/378 "2012-07-04T23:27:20Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > The line of logic tying gnarly to the scum boards is already weak at best, but this is bordering on ridiculous. It occurred to me over dinner that this might so ridiculous it’s not an approach scum would risk taking… I’m not sure if I’ll have a chance to read again thoroughly or post anything of value before end of Day, so I’m going to try to place a vote now (“try” because I’m posting from my phone): \*\* vote InnerStickler\*\* for the reasons outlined by **Stanislaus** ---
**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:** [July 4, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/379 "2012-07-04T23:28:34Z")
Eek, almost missed the vote deadline! Stupid work. Grumble grumble. I have been reading, but haven’t had a chance to post this week. So, where will I cast my vote? Let me see… **Stanislaus** suggested that we all wait before revealing any investigative results. While I disagree with this, I see why he would suggest it. **Mosier** ’s comment > [@](#): > > We might need to revisit the idea someone posted earlier that scum are likely to be experienced players. I don’t see any benefit at all for scum to skip night one. seems a little Scummy to me. This is very close to WIFOM, and there are lots of other explanations (such as a protection or role block), so **Mosier** ’s comment seems to be saying “I’m not Scum; I’d never NOT kill! Honest!”. FOS here. **TexCat** then proceeds to vote for **gnarlycharlie** for what seems like a typo. When called out on it, she suggests that two Scum posted in the wrong forum in a way that could easily be seen as referring to something applicable in this forum? That seems a little far fetched. OK, very far fetched. FOS again. All of these things happened in the first few posts, and the thread has been pretty quiet since then (partially my fault, I know!). **sinjin** pushed for revealing results, which could have been a Scum tell, but since I agree with him… If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that **Visorslash** is acting Scummy. As is, I suppose he’s just being an a-hole. “See? I was brilliant all along! I’ll be back ASAP to give you my thoughts” and then disappearing for 4 days, returning only to give a quick one-liner? If the Pardoner isn’t **Visorslash** , I’d say you wasted your vote. So, who shall I vote for? I think it will be **Mosier**. He tells us that he’s only voting early because he doesn’t want to seem Scummy, where I think a Town Mosier won’t be so cautious as to how he is viewed. I’d not be surprised if he never shows up to revisit his vote. If he is, I will consider changing mine. So, let’s make it official: **Vote: Mosier** ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/380 "2012-07-04T23:41:12Z")
My thoughts so far. On the no-kill. I was surprised by the no-kill Night. There could be many explanations, but one that needs to be kept in mind (at least until disproved) is that the Mafia might have failed to submit a kill. I’ve seen it nearly happen in the past, and once or twice solo operators have failed to act at Night. So don’t rule it out. Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. I’m not surprised that Visorslash survived last Night, as I’d expect the Mafia to kill someone who hasn’t yet had a chance to use their power, and Visorslash (probably) has. Visorslash is now a confirmed Town. That’s a good thing, because he becomes a thorn in the Mafia’s side. Sooner or later the Mafia will have to try and eliminate him. Until they do, perhaps he could make use of the fact that we can trust him by analysing the cases other players present. Visorslash? What do you think of the cases so far? Gnarlycharlie’s slip. Gnarlycharlie gets some heat (and a vote from Texcat) because of [post=15224371]post 299[/post]. Gnarly claims that he was referring to the investigation powers as a whole, and should have written “them” instead of “it.” Texcat, on the other hand, claims that when using “it,” Gnarly is referring back to what Alka Seltzer was referring to; that is, the Cloak of Lies. That is slightly more plausible than confusing “it” and “them” to me, but I don’t think that’s right either. The comment arose from Alka’s response to Gnarly’s suggestion that the investigators look into the voters for Visorslash. I don’t see how Gnarly can leap from there to the Cloak very easily. There is a third possibility, namely that Gnarlycharlie was pondering the timing of the use of his own power. That makes sense of Gnarly’s sudden use of the singular. Also, as Alka Seltzer points out in 314, the Mafia’s problem re the cloak would be who to use it on, not when to use it. (Among other things, if you defer putting the cloak on the subject, you risk multiple investigations of that subject getting different results, betraying the placing of the Cloak.) Currently I am inclined to think that Gnarly slipped into thinking about his own power, not the investigations. You might want to take into account that I have a poor track record analysing such “slips” as this – see my vote for Visorslash Yesterday. Mosier’s claim. Mosier, in [post=15230661]post 331[/post], claimed to be the Summoner, and to have watched Suburban Plankton, who did nothing. Unfortunately, this seems to me, if true, to be a waste of a Power. The actual result tells us nothing, and the choice of subject would have to be lucky to tell us anything. It might have been better to save the Watcher power for a later Night. Failing that, Visorslash might have been a better choice. Mosier explains his rationale behind the choice of SP in [post=15233711]post 352[/post]. I have to say I’m a little sceptical of it. I’ve been a Mafia aligned watcher (in a Storyteller game, even), and the biggest problem I had was justifying my choice of subjects in a pro-town way. It smells a little of evasion. Stanislaus makes some good counterpoints in [post=15234846]post 361[/post], particularly the risk involved if Mosier is Mafia and guessed what SP did last Night. In [post=15231390]post 334[/post], Alka asks when, roughly, Mosier submitted his action. Mosier replies “in between,” which Alka acknowledges but declines to comment until others weigh in. Alka finally explains in [post=15236590]post 368[/post] that he was wondering whether Mosier had seen a suggested Night action potentially targeting Visorslash. I lean slightly towards Mosier being Mafia, simply because faking that claim is difficult, but a Mafiate Mosier would have to avoid Watching Visorslash. I want to review one more case before bed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=20)