# 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:** 6
**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 22, 2012, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/101 "2012-06-22T11:52:15Z")
My opinion is that finishing a Day with multiple votes active is incredibly anti-Town. It’s fine to use them during the Day to put pressure on more than one person. But what makes life difficult for Scum is being forced to make decisions; letting people have multiple votes on record eliminates the need to choose and thus makes life far too easy for Scum. ---
**Author:** ![Visorslash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee59a6/32.png) [@Visorslash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Visorslash)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/102 "2012-06-22T12:29:17Z")
Wait, multiple votes? 😕 That’s weird. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/103 "2012-06-22T12:45:58Z")
I had also overlooked the multiple votes in the write-up; I’ve never played a multi-vote game and haven’t had a chance to really mull it over, but the points made about generally only keeping one active at final tally make sense so far. I agree that we’ve probably beaten the investigations discussion hard enough for now; the investigators, assuming they weren’t all turned scum (that would suck) will do what they feel is best and be held accountable for their decisions, I suppose. I suspect that some of the more vehement arguments both for and against might be interesting to reflect on later in the game. I’ve played this game a handful of times and am realizing that there is a ton of math applicable that I can’t seem to wrap my head around. Can someone be bothered to take the time to explain the scuminess of **Visorslash’s** 3/15 comment (in terms an idiot like me will understand)? I’ve only played with him once before, and I recall he very quickly and consistently rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but turned up town. ---
**Author:** ![Visorslash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee59a6/32.png) [@Visorslash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Visorslash)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/104 "2012-06-22T12:54:01Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > I had also overlooked the multiple votes in the write-up; I’ve never played a multi-vote game and haven’t had a chance to really mull it over, but the points made about generally only keeping one active at final tally make sense so far. > > I agree that we’ve probably beaten the investigations discussion hard enough for now; the investigators, assuming they weren’t all turned scum (that would suck) will do what they feel is best and be held accountable for their decisions, I suppose. I suspect that some of the more vehement arguments both for and against might be interesting to reflect on later in the game. > > I’ve played this game a handful of times and am realizing that there is a ton of math applicable that I can’t seem to wrap my head around. Can someone be bothered to take the time to explain the scuminess of **Visorslash’s** 3/15 comment (in terms an idiot like me will understand)? I’ve only played with him once before, and I recall he very quickly and consistently rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but turned up town. There are 15 town players, not 15 players in the game. That’s why its so scummy. And my play generally does that to some people, but it’s how I play the game, so eh. I would rather not lynch myself obviously. Those jumping on my wagons could be looking for an easy kill. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/105 "2012-06-22T12:58:14Z")
Uh oh, random helpful stuff. FOS **MHaye**. 😉 > [@gnarlycharlie](#): > > i don’t understand your logic. investigations results in this game will suffer from the same issues whether investigations are done on N1 or N5. > > furthermore, what do you mean by quality? are you implying that investigations are failures if you don’t find scum? > > what makes you think that the investigators will reach a point where they can have a more-informed choice? they could well have been NKd or lynched before then. claiming is not a guaranteed way to save yourself. 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. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/106 "2012-06-22T15:15:40Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > I’ll go ahead and offer my brief back of the envelope analysis of the game which is sure to overlook something and is probably wrong. > > 7 knives > 1 spear > 1 venom > > 9 total possible scum kills. That leaves 10 other players, 4 of which are scum. Town could potentially lose the game with only 2 total mis-lynches. Also, investigators are limited to a single use of their power, which will certainly end up overlapping with other investigators to some degree (as they can’t really coordinate without serious risk). > > The seraph might be strong enough to counteract a lot of the scum advantages if it lands on someone like the carpenter or pardoner (who seem to have the strongest powers in my opinion), but what if it lands on a weaker role? And what if our pardoner and carpenter ended up as scum? > > I predict this will be a very difficult game for town. I am just going to respond to this post to give my opinions on the matter of the investigators. I feel, like many of the others here, that the investigative roles (including the Summoner, Clerk, and Nun’s Priest) should investigate as soon as possible. I think the more information gathered early the better and do not want to see the investigators killed before they get to use their powers. I also like the idea of splitting up the player list and having each investigator investigate from a certain section. I know, though, that that type of thing is almost impossible to organize and enforce. > [@Visorslash](#): > > Why are you even asking that question? I obviously investigated him Night Zero. I realize you are joking about the investigation, but I will assume your original question is serious. Suburban had posted once at the time you voted and it was fluff. I was wondering if you had seen something in that post, or if you just liked voting for players who posted fluff, or if there was no reason behind your vote at all. I find votes with no reason to pretty worthless, since whoever is being voted for can just ignore them. I realize there is not going to be a real strong reason on Day 1, but even something likes TexCat’s claim of Inner being too helpful, or your possible slip in the count of players are better reasons than just picking someone out of thin air. > [@Tengu](#): > > Ah, well, I rather assume TexCat is being jokey throwing out something like that this early in the day, and for such a silly reason. It is not really a silly reason, but I do feel it is a bit premature. Oftentimes scum will try to blend in by posting helpful information on a regular basis to look engaged, but not really do much scum hunting. > [@Visorslash](#): > > I had no reason to vote SP. But neither does anyone for anything really, especially D1. Though, the votes will matter more as we learn more information. We’re not going to learn anything if we don’t lynch. > > As an aside, I believe it almost 100% correct that the scum will take the poison, spear and knives. If the scum have the pardoner and the spear it could get messy at LyLo. I agree that the best information comes from the deaths and the voting records, but I don’t agree that there is no useful information before then. Why do you think it 100% that they took the poison and spear? I agree that scum will have an affinity for killing tools, but the Spear essentially makes them trade a scum for a townie. I think in most cases a 1 for 1 trade like that is considered good for Town. > [@Visorslash](#): > > We have a 1/5 chance of lynching an investigator (3/15) I am willing to take those odds easily. This is a possible slip, but it is not as obvious as some I have seen. I could see a Town player thinking there are 15 of us and using that as the default number. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > A quick lunchtime post: > > Because of the way the scum were chosen, they have a couple of advantages that they wouldn’t normally get in open set-ups: > > 1. They know better than Town what powers Town have. > 2. They know better than Town what powers Scum have. > 3. They have pitch-perfect roleclaims that can’t be counterclaimed. > > I think the last one is the most serious for us: simply claiming a role is no defence at all, and shouldn’t be treated like one. Roleclaimers need to be tested somehow, either by their claimed actions and results, or by being investigated. Whether we decide to postpone a lynch to wait for investigation will be a decision we’ll have to make on a case by case basis, but my fear is that roleclaims will raise more questions than they answer. > > I would strongly suggest that Town don’t rely on roleclaims to get themselves out of trouble: if you find yourself in danger of being lynched, you should try to argue your way out of it; failing that you need to claim in good enough time for your claim to be investigated. I will be strongly tempted to lynch anyone who makes a roleclaim with just hours to go. I think this is probably the best argument for not using all our investigations at the beginning. We would like some way to test roleclaims. I still lean toward getting as much info as early as possible though, before players get killed and can’t use their power. > [@Babale](#): > > Hi guys! Excited to play this game for the first time! > > So, I see that the main discussion is regarding investigator roles. Here’s my take on it: Right now, we: > > 1. Don’t know who to trust and > 2. Don’t know who to mistrust. > Both of those make it very hard to make a good, informed decision as for who to interrogate. Interrogating can dispel or substantiate trust or mistrust, but if we have no idea who we trust and don’t trust, it’s too early to investigate. Further, the rest of us Townies don’t know whose investigation to believe. If A investigates B and tells us that B is Scum, that could mean: > 3. A and B are both Scum; B is taking one for the team. > 4. A is Scum and B is Town; A is framing B. > 5. A is Town and B is Town; Scum C used the Cloak of Lies on B. > 6. A is Town and B is Town; A thinks B is anti-town and believes Town would be better off without him. > 7. A is Town and B is Scum; A is trying to lynch the scum. > > If A investigates B as Town, > > 1. A is Scum and B is Scum; A is covering for B. > 2. A is Scum and B is Town; A is trying to score Town points. > 3. A is Town and B is Scum; A is fooled by the Cloak of Lies. > 4. A is Town and B is Scum; A thinks Town interests would be better served by lynching C first, and will reveal B’s Scumminess later. > 5. A is Town and B is Town; A is clearing another Town’s name. > > Now, some of these are obviously less likely than others. #4 in both lists, for example, require a Townie to act in a pretty anti-Town way. But that’s happened many times, hasn’t it? And even if we ignore those options, we still have no idea what’s really happening. And this is before we even think about a Scum false-claiming as one of the Investigator roles, or even a Town trying to gain favor for their bandwagon. > > Now, I’m not saying Investigator roles are useless. But I think we need to have at least some suspicions before we use them. Maybe we’ll have those suspicions by Dusk; maybe not. I don’t think suspicions are necessary before investigating. Just knowing whether someone is Town or Scum is very useful information. I do realize in this game we will not actually know that 100% until some other information is gathered, but I think the information that we can get will be helpful. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I was thinking along similar lines, but I notice from his profile **Visorslash** hasn’t been online since shortly after his last comment. > > (Annoyingly, I’m only seeing a last active time for some posters and not others, not sure why.) > > So far, we’ve had nothing from **Mahaloth** and **KellyCriteron** , and no content from **MentalGuy**. Have I missed anyone? > > I’m not in favour of enforcing an investigation policy either. If I could see an optimal strategy I’d advocate it, but I’m not convinced there is one. A downside to policies is that they tell you nothing about motivation of the person following it. Ultimately, we’ll have to use our judgement when assessing claims, and their explanation of when and how they used their power is an important extra piece of information. > > One thing any investigators should consider. We have two potential backup roles, _The Squire_ and _The Parson_, so there is little risk of losing an investigative power on Night 1. > > It has the potential to make a mess of the voting record, and we can only lynch one player per Day. **Sachertorte** made some good points against it in the pond game. A couple specific things to watch out for: > > - A vote for the two leading bandwagons is effectively no-vote, and should be treated as such. > - Scum could simultaneously push a mislynch and bus a team mate by placing two votes. > > I will only be placing one vote at a time. > > Right now, not enough people are discussing the suspicions on the table, which is more important than any theory discussions. Town players need to be prepared to take positions, so that the scum must do the same or stand out. I at some point in the past set my options to invisible mode for mafia purposes so that other players would not be able to see when I was or was not online. The first chance I got to post yesterday was almost midnight and I was tired so I just decided to wait until this morning. I see no way of enforcing an investigation policy. I have made it clear what I prefer, but in the end we have to trust the investigators to do what they think is best. As far as multiple voting, I don’t like it and plan to only have one active vote at a time. While other players may disagree, I do feel that you should definitely end the Day with just one vote. ---
**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 22, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/107 "2012-06-22T15:50:49Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > I agree that scum will have an affinity for killing tools, but the Spear essentially makes them trade a scum for a townie. I think in most cases a 1 for 1 trade like that is considered good for Town. From what I can tell, this would likely only be useful at the very endgame when Scum can effectively grab a win if they can pull off two kills. Choosing this would be a high-risk/high-reward ploy for scum. They’d be taking an awfully big chance that they actually be able to use it. I have serious doubts that it’s in play. ---
**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 22, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/108 "2012-06-22T16:24:50Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > Oftentimes scum will try to blend in by posting helpful information on a regular basis to look engaged, but not really do much scum hunting. Perhaps, in the usual games, where all the players are familiar with the existing culture. But in this specific context within this game, it’s being helpful to the newbies, helping us us figure out the culture, so we don’t get ourselves mislynched simply out of ignorance of the culture. So, treating that as scummy is pretty much setting up the newbs to fail, which seems like a pretty good example of behavior that, if not itself actively scummy, is at least taking thoughtlessness to a level that’s pretty anti-town. ---
**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 22, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/109 "2012-06-22T16:48:13Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > Perhaps, in the usual games, where all the players are familiar with the existing culture. But in this specific context within this game, it’s being helpful to the newbies, helping us us figure out the culture, so we don’t get ourselves mislynched simply out of ignorance of the culture. So, treating that as scummy is pretty much setting up the newbs to fail, which seems like a pretty good example of behavior that, if not itself actively scummy, is at least taking thoughtlessness to a level that’s pretty anti-town. I know “me too” posts are frowned upon, so I promise that I’ll add something constructive too. But I just wanted to say that I agree with this. I’m also a new player, although I’ve read through a couple of Mafia games. One of them (Phere) was recent, but used a lot of D&D terms so I didn’t know what was Mafia and what was D&D; the other was old, so the language had changed. I think penalizing someone for doing something so helpful to us Newbies is bad for Town. Alright, some actual Scum hunting! There’s really not a lot to go on yet, so I definitely will not be voting for anyone at the end of this post. But, of all the people so far, **Visorslash** has been looking shady. Voting for someone right away just seems anti-Town to me. It doesn’t give any information, and though Mafia is a game of logic, emotions are involved. It strikes me as poor Town play to alienate a possible fellow Townie by voting for him for no reason whatsoever. His protests about a “bandwagon” > [@](#): > > Those jumping on my wagons could be looking for an easy kill. strike me as odd. One person ( **Stanislaus** ) voted for him; that’s not a wagon. There was suspicion pointing at him, but there was much less suspicion pointed at **TexCat** for the FoS. Not enough to go on, of course, but I’ll be keeping an eye on him. Speaking of **TexCat** , I don’t find the early FoS Scummy. It might be a bit premature, and I definitely don’t agree with it since **Inner Stickler** made his post as the 6th reply, far too early to do any real Scumhunting. I’ll be back in a few hours to see responses to my post and hopefully do some more substantial Scumhunting. Happy pilgriming! ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/110 "2012-06-22T16:54:02Z")
> [@Hal\_Briston](#): > > From what I can tell, this would likely only be useful at the very endgame when Scum can effectively grab a win if they can pull off two kills. Choosing this would be a high-risk/high-reward ploy for scum. They’d be taking an awfully big chance that they actually be able to use it. I have serious doubts that it’s in play. There’s another option for the spear’s use. Any time town’s vote is heavily favored to land on scum for anlynching, the spear can come into play as a low risk way of killing a townie. The scum was already set to die so why not? ---
**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 22, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/111 "2012-06-22T17:01:38Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > There’s another option for the spear’s use. Any time town’s vote is heavily favored to land on scum for anlynching, the spear can come into play as a low risk way of killing a townie. The scum was already set to die so why not? Oh, good point – hadn’t thought of that. Hopefully scum didn’t either when it came time for tool selection. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/112 "2012-06-22T22:38:03Z")
The spear can also be used to change the outcome of a very close lynch vote, too. I’ll be very surprised if the scum tools aren’t knives, spear, poison, cloak. ---
**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 23, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/113 "2012-06-23T01:51:22Z")
> [@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. > [@Visorslash](#): > > We have a 1/5 chance of lynching an investigator (3/15) I am willing to take those odds easily. Yay, it’s Friday. I have a little more time to study things. And these two posts are the first to catch my fresh eye. **Fubbs** , what makes you think that we would lynch an investigator?? I, for one, would certainly unvote anyone who claimed investigator Today. The chances of us mis-lynching an investigator I would put at almost nil, unless more than 3 people claim investigator, and even then I wouldn’t want to lynch any of them until they had used their power. And the response from **Visor** almost looks like it was posted on the wrong board. Ignoring the 3/15 instead of 3/19 which has already been pointed out, I think a 1 in 5 shot of killing an investigator are not very good odds for town. But they do sound like pretty good odds for scum. If Visor is town, I’m surprised he’d take a 20% chance of killing an investigator so easily. I am going to wonder again if we shouldn’t consider a no-lynch for Today. I know that many have strong opinions about no-lynch giving town no information and giving the scum the opening shot. However, I have a fear of us exposing too many roles to the scum Today. The scenario I fear is that we start a bandwagon on an investigator. He claims and we all move our votes. The next vote leader also claims and we decide that we don’t want to lynch him either. And we move on to another target who also claims, and so forth and so forth. This may be part of the challenge in playing an all power game. In the end, the scum have a lot of information. I’m just not sure that the info that the town gains will offset the info that scum gains. The one-shot powers will have been shot later in the game, and a mis-lynch will not cost town so much. I think the combination of mis-lynching before the powers are used and the info to scum before the powers are used, makes a no-lynch attractive. On the other hand, I feel that Visor may be scum and it would be great to lynch scum on D1. I am on the fence here. ---
**Author:** ![Visorslash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee59a6/32.png) [@Visorslash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Visorslash)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/114 "2012-06-23T01:59:18Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Yay, it’s Friday. I have a little more time to study things. And these two posts are the first to catch my fresh eye. > > **Fubbs** , what makes you think that we would lynch an investigator?? I, for one, would certainly unvote anyone who claimed investigator Today. The chances of us mis-lynching an investigator I would put at almost nil, unless more than 3 people claim investigator, and even then I wouldn’t want to lynch any of them until they had used their power. > > And the response from **Visor** almost looks like it was posted on the wrong board. Ignoring the 3/15 instead of 3/19 which has already been pointed out, I think a 1 in 5 shot of killing an investigator are not very good odds for town. But they do sound like pretty good odds for scum. If Visor is town, I’m surprised he’d take a 20% chance of killing an investigator so easily. > > I am going to wonder again if we shouldn’t consider a no-lynch for Today. I know that many have strong opinions about no-lynch giving town no information and giving the scum the opening shot. However, I have a fear of us exposing too many roles to the scum Today. The scenario I fear is that we start a bandwagon on an investigator. He claims and we all move our votes. The next vote leader also claims and we decide that we don’t want to lynch him either. And we move on to another target who also claims, and so forth and so forth. This may be part of the challenge in playing an all power game. In the end, the scum have a lot of information. I’m just not sure that the info that the town gains will offset the info that scum gains. > > The one-shot powers will have been shot later in the game, and a mis-lynch will not cost town so much. I think the combination of mis-lynching before the powers are used and the info to scum before the powers are used, makes a no-lynch attractive. > > On the other hand, I feel that Visor may be scum and it would be great to lynch scum on D1. I am on the fence here. Visor is scum: Says everyone, ever. Its even a running joke on another site I play (where I got my first scum role there only recently). I’ve played mafia for a while and I would like to think I am not stupid enough to do that kind of thing as mafia. So far I am correct. Though if you think I’m scum it would be stupid NOT to lynch me, so the fact that you refuse to do so, is a scummy, IMO. What’s wrong with voting early? I don’t play games the way the SDMB regulars do, and I don’t intend to change that. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/115 "2012-06-23T02:05:01Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I am going to wonder again if we shouldn’t consider a no-lynch for Today. I know that many have strong opinions about no-lynch giving town no information and giving the scum the opening shot. However, I have a fear of us exposing too many roles to the scum Today. > > On the other hand, I feel that Visor may be scum and it would be great to lynch scum on D1. I am on the fence here. Unless you can make an argument for a no-lynch today which can not be also be used as an argument for a no-lynch on any other day, I am going to consider you my strongest scum lead, for advocating a no-lynch. Town can not possibly gain from a no-lynch, by my reckoning. What exactly do you think is going to happen between now and Day 2 that will justify making a lynch then, but not now? Also, the “I suspect Visor, but I’m going to advocate a no-lynch” sounds a lot like hedging your bets so that no matter what happens, you can claim to be on the correct side. If you suspect someone has a greater than random chance to be scum, why would you argue for a no-lynch? ---
**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 23, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/116 "2012-06-23T02:32:09Z")
In reply to Visor, Absolutely nothing is wrong with voting early. I never said that there was. I prefer to voice my suspicions and give my reasons for them, and not vote until I feel a little more confident in my vote. I do find that voting without any reasons for the vote to be unhelpful for town, but on D1 it happens more than I would like. In reply to Mosier, I knew that talking about no-lynch would bring forth this kind of suspicion, but I still think it is worth talking about. Perhaps, I wasn’t clear about why no-lynch on D1 was attractive, but not on other days. I suspect a lot of powers will be used Tonight. That means that a mis-lynch later on will be more likely to be a mis-lynch of a vanilla who has already used their powers. Also if claims happen later, they will be more likely to be claims of a vanilla who has already used his power, and will not be of particular interest to the scum. And yes, I said I was on the fence. I am. I’m not sure that’s hedging my bets so that I am always right. I think Visor looks like scum. Either I’m right or I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Visorslash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee59a6/32.png) [@Visorslash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Visorslash)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/117 "2012-06-23T02:38:46Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > In reply to Visor, > Absolutely nothing is wrong with voting early. I never said that there was. > > I prefer to voice my suspicions and give my reasons for them, and not vote until I feel a little more confident in my vote. I do find that voting without any reasons for the vote to be unhelpful for town, but on D1 it happens more than I would like. > > In reply to Mosier, > I knew that talking about no-lynch would bring forth this kind of suspicion, but I still think it is worth talking about. > > Perhaps, I wasn’t clear about why no-lynch on D1 was attractive, but not on other days. I suspect a lot of powers will be used Tonight. That means that a mis-lynch later on will be more likely to be a mis-lynch of a vanilla who has already used their powers. Also if claims happen later, they will be more likely to be claims of a vanilla who has already used his power, and will not be of particular interest to the scum. > > And yes, I said I was on the fence. I am. I’m not sure that’s hedging my bets so that I am always right. I think Visor looks like scum. Either I’m right or I’m wrong. Not all my post was addressed towards you. The voting early part, and the other part are to other people. You don’t take a neutral stance towards mafia. How do you expect to win (if town) if you don’t vote for who you think is scum? If you think I am scum, then you should vote for me, if you don’t then don’t, but saying you think I am scum and then not voting me is just weird. It’s almost as if you know I am town but you don’t want to be on a lynch of a townie. If we’re going to lynch anyone D1, it should be you. ---
**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 23, 2012, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/118 "2012-06-23T11:28:28Z")
I’ve been weighing up **Visorslash** ’s possible slip. > [@Visorslash](#): > > We have a 1/5 chance of lynching an investigator (3/15) I am willing to take those odds easily. There are two possibilities here. He is thinking in terms of 15s because he is scum, and getting mixed up with the chances of a night kill getting an investigator. Or his justification is honest. > [@Visorslash](#): > > I’m going out on a limb here and suggesting that we probably won’t lunch scum Day 1, hence the 3/15 statement. At best, this is muddled, and inconsistent with his first post. If we _probably_ won’t lynch scum on Day 1, the _odds_ of us lynching an investigator aren’t 3/15. The pessimism is unhelpful and confusing. It could be an attempt to cover his mistake. One point in **Visorslash** ’s favour, the pessimism is consistent with his earlier post below (bolding mine). On that basis, I’m not prepared to vote for him at this time. > [@Visorslash](#): > > I had no reason to vote SP. **But neither does anyone for anything really, especially D1.** Though, the votes will matter more as we learn more information. We’re not going to learn anything if we don’t lynch. (An aside on town pessimism, it’s not helpful and is anti-town. Realism is fine, the odds are against us lynching scum toDay. But Mafia is all about changing the odds. If town play well, or scum play poorly, those odds shift slightly. Town are going to make plenty of mistakes along the way, but in order to win we need to find scum at a better than random rate. We can do that by pooling our thoughts and observations. Personally, I think we have a slightly worse chance of lynching scum toDay than the odds imply, as scum also have a vote. However, that’s potentially good news for town. If scum votes are influencing the outcome of lynch, the quality of information in the voting record goes up.) > [@Visorslash](#): > > Those jumping on my wagons could be looking for an easy kill. If you are town, the martyred attitude is not helpful. One thing **Visorslash** is right about, town is being too cagey at the moment. If town aren’t prepared to commit votes, scum can sit back and wait for something to happen. 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. **@sinjin** - Who is pinging you right now? ---
**Author:** ![Visorslash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee59a6/32.png) [@Visorslash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Visorslash)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/119 "2012-06-23T11:44:42Z")
> [@](#): > > (An aside on town pessimism, it’s not helpful and is anti-town. Realism is fine, the odds are against us lynching scum toDay. But Mafia is all about changing the odds. If town play well, or scum play poorly, those odds shift slightly. Town are going to make plenty of mistakes along the way, but in order to win we need to find scum at a better than random rate. We can do that by pooling our thoughts and observations. Your definition of anti town is obviously different to mine. And most likely almost eveyone else’s definition. (Everyone has different opinions of course). I don’t pay all that much attention to what I type. I don’t think about every word I post, or whether I make much sense. Why would I? I’m town, I don’t have anything to hide. Regardless, Texcat’s “Visor is likely scum, but I want a no lynch” is pretty scummy by most definitions of the word. Curiously you ignore those posts, what are your thoughts on them? ---
**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 23, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/120 "2012-06-23T22:36:53Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > **Fubbs** , what makes you think that we would lynch an investigator??\*\* I, for one, would certainly unvote anyone who claimed investigator Today. \*\* The chances of us mis-lynching an investigator I would put at almost nil, unless more than 3 people claim investigator, and even then I wouldn’t want to lynch any of them until they had used their power. > […] > I am going to wonder again if we shouldn’t consider a no-lynch for Today. I know that many have strong opinions about no-lynch giving town no information and giving the scum the opening shot. However, I have a fear of us exposing too many roles to the scum Today. The scenario I fear is that we start a bandwagon on an investigator. He claims and we all move our votes. The next vote leader also claims and we decide that we don’t want to lynch him either. And we move on to another target who also claims, and so forth and so forth. This may be part of the challenge in playing an all power game. In the end, the scum have a lot of information. I’m just not sure that the info that the town gains will offset the info that scum gains. Re: the bit I bolded - Why? Why do you think simply claiming any particular role means anything at all? Scum were chosen in this game by a new mechanic, and it makes all the difference to the validity of claims. Think through the process that created the team: 19 Town roles were handed out. Each is a genuine role, with powers and colour that are designed to be in-game Town. Most of us have such a role. But of the 19 people who got genuine Town roles, 4 were picked to be Scum. Their Town roles were not redistributed. The upshot of this is: 1. Everyone who claims to have been given a Town role is being truthful. 2. Everyone we lynch will have a Town role to claim. 3. No claim can be counterclaimed, even if by Scum. 4. Essentially, claims prove \*\*nothing \*\*about alignment. You may feel that some roles are too valuable to risk, so that simply claiming, say, Reeve, should earn someone a reprieve, or at least a hefty benefit of doubt. But given that everyone we lynch will claim a role, ask yourself if there’s any claim you \*\*won’t \*\*hesitate to lynch. Because if we don’t lynch an investigator, we’ll lynch a protector. If we don’t lynch a protector, we’ll lynch a backup. Just as we always need to accept that we will [barring miracles] mislynch during the game, we also need to accept in this instance that every mislynch \*\*will \*\*cost us a power role. We can’t run scared of that, because it’s inevitable. So mislynching the first role to claim isn’t any different to mislynching the fourth role to claim. The answer to your fears of a cascade of claims isnt’ to run scared of lynching, it’s to bite the bullet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=7)