# Mafia: The Thrill of the Chase \[Newbie Friendly!\]

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526>\
**Category:** The Game Room\
**Created:** [November 20, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526 "2011-11-20T06:04:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 40

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/781 "2011-12-15T09:00:03Z")

</div>

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> and seriously, your questions are some kind of joke right? Like an internet meme that I don’t understand…

not a meme, no, but a joke nonetheless

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> The “Abstain” vote was his first. At the time, I did not really see it as something that scum would do. He did, though, seem genuinely surprised by how negative a reaction it got. If he was not thinking it would be seen in such a negative light, then it is possible that he would do this as scum.

I’ll concede that this is a fair possibility. just as I’m sure you’d concede that it’s just as possible that I would do the same out of naivete as town.

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> He votes Precambrianmollusc, but doesn’t give any reason beyond what is in the list. The reasons in the list might be sufficient, but he listed others as “slight lean scum” also. Why did he vote Precambrian over the others?

asked (by **Guiri** , iirc) and answered

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> These smilies are responses to other players’ cases or comments. He follows Guiri’s lead here and votes septimus but does not tell what parts of the case he agrees with or if there is anything he doesn’t.

previously addressed

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> This is where it gets weird. He revotes septimus. Apparently the diffence in the role PM is what leads to it, but he never makes that clear. He also does not really explain in later posts, why he revoted septimus rather than one of the other lynch candidates.

yes, I did.

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> Here he defends his revote of **septimus** , but does not mention the difference in role PM.

you just stated in the last paragraph that I did not explain my revote, and then here you quote me “defending [my] revote of **septimus** ”; it can hardly be both. the role PM was not mentioned because it was not relevant to my revote

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> I obviously can’t argue against a vote for Mahaloth, but he again just piggybacks on someone else’s vote without any explanation of his own.
> 
> I am not sure what to think. For someone that has posted quite a bit, he has not given much explanation for why he has voted the way he has. I am keeping my vote on Mahaloth for now, but I can see why fubbleskag is attracting some suspicion.

I’m surprised that anyone would classify my participation lately as “quite a bit”; I personally feel like the one or two small windows each day that I’ve been able to get in a post of my own have been squandered on stuff like this. perhaps I need to begin ignoring cases against myself and focus on making cases of my own in the little time I have.

> [@Svejk\_1](#):
>
> [spoiler]Hello Ed,
> 
> [Earlier](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14562550&postcount=720)I asked you how you figure that a scenario in which I am scum is actually more likely than one in which I am town. Describing a possible scenario is easy enough, but a full case actually requires that you argue why it is more likely that I am scum than that someone else is scum, and probably also that it is more likely that I am scum than that I am town. You would have to stack up my explanation of what I did over against your own understanding of what a scum motivation might have been, and then argue convincingly why you feel that I am, in effect, lying. You claim:
> 
> Actually, you have not done that. I’ve gone back over your posts just now, and there’s nothing that constitutes an argument why it is more likely that I am scum, hoping to protect \*\*Scathach \*\*(even if I’m clearly going to draw a lot of criticism for it) than it is that I am town, switching to a stronger case while being apprehensive of the bandwagon that’s formed on **Scathach**.
> 
> You come closest to addressing this issue when Choie points this out to you [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14565096#post14565096):
> 
> Your response:
> 
> When choie prods you on this again (post [#746](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14565947&postcount=746)), you don’t respond. That’s pretty weak, and your insistence that you’ve presented what makes you more suspicious of me than of anyone else when you’ve done nothing of the sort seems pretty evasive.
> 
> As an aside, I’ll note that you are pretty casual in your treatment of the evidence in favor of and against me. In post [#602](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14551974&postcount=602), at about 5PM on Saturday you lay out a number of different scenarios involving my vote switch and what might have motivated it. You mess up scenario 4, in which both I am scum and **Scathach** is town, in which I’d have been knowingly switching from one town train to another. Scathach points that out, and then you come out with this post [#608](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14552159&postcount=608):
> 
> This post is really weird. For one thing, you mix up me and Scathach, the key protagonists in this entire drama. Can’t tell two people apart? Secondly, you don’t recall the vote count? :dubious: The entire crux of this drama is that my vote switch changed the vote Scathach-Stickler from 4-3 to 3-4. How can you forget that? Later on, post [#613](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14552227&postcount=613), you claim that you “hadn’t looked back to see the vote counts.” How can this be true, when the vote count is the basis of your case? This to me is evidence that you are just making an easy case against me and are doggedly refusing to consider any evidence that is in my favor. **Scathach** pursues the issue, essentially saying that her turning up town would provide as much evidence about me as my turning up scum would about her. You concede this in post [#617](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14552250&postcount=617) but ask ’ why wouldn’t he present this in his defense now?'. For one thing, I was not really presenting anything in my defense at all at that point, but for another more important point, if it’s true, it’s true, even if for some reason I overlook it and don’t include in my defense even if I did write a defense, why would you not entertain that as evidence in my favor and adjust your vote calculus accordingly? Of course, it was still N2 and you were not to vote for me for another 30 or so posts ([#646](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14555331&postcount=646)), but when you do, all you offer as reasoning is that “Astral was obviously going to do this…”. A missed opportunity. Again, it appears to me that you are making an easy and unbalanced case against me.
> 
> Then in post [#757](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14566704&postcount=757) you feel the need to smear me for leaving my options open when lots and lots of players (choie, in post [#736](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14565096&postcount=736), for instance, says “For now, I’ll… vote Scathach. But don’t be surprised if this vote switches as the Day goes on.”) including yourself (“Now is it an iron-clad case? Of course not” - [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14551334&postcount=597) are doing just that, and when in fact it is something that every good townie should be doing given that we all have very little information to go on. When I point this out to you, and ask you how what you are doing is _essentially_ different, what you say is that there are
> 
> First of all let me note that the case you are making here is based entirely on evidence that I provided when \*\*Guiri \*\* asked me about how convinced I was by his case contra **Septimus**. Secondly, so I said I supported those 4 cases - they were against you and **Stickler** , who I had been suspicious of before, against **Septimus** , who had some votes against him on the basis of cases made by \*\*Guiri \*\*which I had already called convincing, and **Scathach** , which was my own vote. Clearly there are plenty of things that I had happened up until that point in the thread that indicate that I am not just giving blanket support to anyone who votes (what kind of dumb-ass strategy would that be anyway? If I were scum I’d be much more precise in what votes I’d support than that). Thirdly, you act as if what you are doing is somehow completely different, but I have yet to understand what the _essential_ difference between 2 and 4 players is in this case. Now if you had actually pointed out back when I made those statements on D2, that would have seemed genuine, but now it just seems as though you are purposefully out to paint me in as dark a daylight as is possible even when there’s perfectly reasonable explanations that are for what I am doing that are compatible with me being town.
> 
> In sum:
> 
> vote Special Ed[/spoiler]

:)🙂

> [@Svejk\_1](#):
>
> I thought \*\*PCM \*\*was town after being in a three-way tie for the lynch on D1 that he could have voted himself out of

:mad:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/782 "2011-12-15T12:41:54Z")

</div>

@Švejk

not quote because I’m on my way to work.

Did you read all of last Night and toDay? The case against you is presented there by more than just myself.

Yes, I responded to Scathach as if I were responding to you. I was confused as to who made the post. Are you implying that my error is somehow Scummy?

I must have missed choie’s question to me in post 746. To answer, I’m not sure which options are the most likely.

yes, I added on the fact that you seemingly ‘left your options open’ and didn’t point out that others had done it. There are many many things I didn’t comment on. And ,yes, I think it quite likely that you are Scum, so I’m going to find other things you did and look at them closely. Maybe there is a little confirmation bias there. It’s only natural.

And yes, there are explanations for what you did that fit in quite well with you being Town-aligned. If there weren’t then I would be very sure that you were Scum. As it is, I’m not. I’m just voting with my best case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/783 "2011-12-15T12:42:58Z")

</div>

> [@Svejk\_1](#):
>
> Thanks for the explanation, but I think the issue here is your misunderstanding of the word ‘explicit’ :rolleyes:

I thought I was explicitly explaining my generalization. There really was no implication.

I failed, apparently.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/784 "2011-12-15T15:40:36Z")

</div>

> [@choie](#):
>
> **GuiriEnEspana** , for reasons unknown, does not strike me as scum, although again his repeatedly asking questions from days ago (and not linking to them, which isn’t very helpful) shows either a terrier-like stubbornness to dig at the truth, or a pretty clever scum ploy to put everyone on the defensive and thereby avoiding the spotlight shining on himself. If he is scum, he’s damn good. Ditto Town, for that matter.

About that… My gut is telling me to look at Gnarly, Mental and Silver. I see things like Gnarly’s votes and explanations for them, Mental’s hesitance to join a bandwagon, and SilverJan’s self-restraint, pings rather than major cases.

For now, while I re-read,

**Vote GnarlyCharlie**

- His D1 one-off vote and subsequent explanation
- His D2 vote, reasoning, and subsequent explanation
- His vote on Hirka doesn’t read right given his suspicions of SpecialEd

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/785 "2011-12-15T16:12:35Z")

</div>

I’m still in a quandary as we approach End of Day. The vote-switching yesterDay to protect **Scathach** still seems quite suspicious, but it almost seems unfair to vote for him based only on that. Frankly I’m confused (and a little suspicious) that votes are on **Švejk** for the vote-switching, instead of on the alleged Scum **Švejk** was allegedly protecting.

There seems to be some personal animosities venting in the thread. Are they real or play-acting? **Mahaloth** ’s reaction seems out of proportion to the snark directed against him.

And some behavior seems too Scummy to be from Scum! fubbleskag’s vote for me really was inexplicable, but would Scum do that?

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> [Mahaloth …]  
> Votes Svejk early in the game for a random vote.  
> Changes vote to fubbleskag after fubble abstains from voting. Later says it is more for the post than for the vote.  
> Votes Ed for his style and tone seeming different. This after it has been mentioned that Ed has changed his playstyle lately.  
> Votes choie for her tone.  
> I don’t really like any of these votes, but these last two I find particularly suspicious. Votes on players unlikely to be lynched with the reason being “tone”. Besides these vote posts, I do not recall him casting suspicion on (or really even mentioning) anyone except fubbleskag…  
> I feel Mahaloth is trying not to attract notice with his votes, but does not want to not vote.

I’m not totally convinced by this, but with EOD approaching will get a vote down.

**Vote: Mahaloth**

I’d be happy to consider moving my vote to **Scathach** , **special ed** or **choie** if someone posts a good case summary.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [December 15, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/786 "2011-12-15T16:14:43Z")

</div>

> [@septimus](#):
>
> I’d be happy to consider moving my vote to **Scathach** , **special ed** or **choie** if someone posts a good case summary.

You want others to do your work for you?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/787 "2011-12-15T16:40:27Z")

</div>

> [@septimus](#):
>
> I’d be happy to consider moving my vote to **Scathach** , **special ed** or **choie** if someone posts a good case summary.

Bah! a thousand times bah!

You don’t even hint at any suspicion on our parts, but ask others to post cases that you can me too?

Bah! Fie!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/788 "2011-12-15T16:42:31Z")

</div>

less than 20 minutes by my calculation. Is that right?

has anyone run a vote count? I’m having to pretend like I’m working right now…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/789 "2011-12-15T16:45:19Z")

</div>

in a quick run through since the last trepa vote count, I get:  
Mahaloth 3  
Svejk 2  
ganrly 2  
fubbles 1  
scathach 1  
hirka 1  
choie 1  
me 1

but it was a quick scan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/790 "2011-12-15T16:46:22Z")

</div>

Oh, crap, DayEnds tomorrow, never mind.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/791 "2011-12-15T16:52:03Z")

</div>

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> @Švejk
> 
> not quote because I’m on my way to work.
> 
> Did you read all of last Night and toDay? The case against you is presented there by more than just myself.

yes I did read all of it. I am aware that there are more people out there, and I have addressed some of them, but most of them seem on the fence about lynching me, and some of them lean town on me. Of the votes that are out right now, the vast majority is not for me, so clearly the _communis opinio_ is not that I am most likely to be scum of all the players that are out there. You, though, are easily the most hell-bent on getting me lynched, swiping others’ doubts under the carpet, bah-ing and fie-ing them along the way. Only one other player has actually voted against me ( **Hirka** and he has defended his vote against detractors in post #[726](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14563500&postcount=726)). But he has not gone out of his way to make a shoddy case look better like you have. **FluidDruid** has also made a case against me but has not actually voted against me although she’s announced her readiness to do so later, like **MentalGuy**. I have responded to her (IMHO weak) case against me, which incidentally is mostly based on things I did during D1, and not on my switching votes on D2) and exchanged a number of posts with her. Clearly, you are not the only person who I am targeting.

**Mental Guy** has also stated his intention to vote for me - but has not followed through, and has since voiced his doubts. When he did, you immediately pounced on him and accused him of being scum.

> [@MentalGuy](#):
>
> My intention after end of Day yesterDay was to vote for Svejk toDay, but now I am not as sure.
> 
> It all seems a bit too obvious, like scum are trying to lead us down that path.
> 
> Evidence that Svejk is scum:
> 
> His vote change late in the Day yesterDay.  
> Astral’s death last Night.  
> Svejk’s change in his posting pattern (he has disappeared).  
> Reasons he may not be scum:
> 
> His vote change was too obviously a possible scum play for scum to really consider it.  
> Astral’s death feels like scum are trying to get Svejk lynched.  
> I don’t know. I don’t really object to his lynch, since it will provide us some information and if he is not lynched he will continue to be a question mark. I am just not confident that we are actually lynching scum.
> 
> I may vote for someone else just to draw attention to them as possibly scummy, but I am not going to argue against a Svejk lynch.

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> Bah!
> 
> “Woe is me!”
> 
> pings:
> 
> 1. Svejk and mental are Scum buddies. Mental would really like Svejk to survive another day and put off his lynching, so he’s looking for other candidates. But he wants to be supportive of the lynch to earn some Townie Cred.
> 
> 2. Svejk is Town and Mental is Scum. Mental wants to push others to the forefront of our minds. He also wants to be able to point out he didn’t vote to lynch Svejk. Maybe he can even cast an off-vote on a Fellow Scum or push another bandwagon.
> 
> ```auto
> 
> Or Mental could be Town and these could be his earnest thoughts. But they stike me as an odd support for a lynching he doesn't support....
> 
> ```

**Septimus** (who has voted for \*\*Mahaloth \*\*since I started composing this post) has stated that other players are more scummy to him than I am - and again you jump on him almost immediately:

> [@septimus](#):
>
> I do read the thread. I see the logic in Lynching one of Scathach or Svejk due to yesterDay’s suspicious vote switch, and am tempted to vote Scathach. (Obviously we want to Lynch whichever is more likely to be Scum. The strongest part of the case against Svejk depends on Scathach also being Scum.) But there are two or three “helpful” Players giving me stronger ping sensations than Scathach or Svejk, so I will hold off while the Day is still young.
> 
> The fact that I’m semi-confirmed makes me less willing to vote lightly. Since Town might follow my lead, I’d want to have confidence in my vote.

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> Bah!  
> To paraphrase:  
> I haven’t posted.  
> Here is a list of 2 potential lynch candidates.  
> Other unnamed people are “helpful” That makes me suspicious.  
> I’m not going to do anything.
> 
> ```auto
> 
> If your objective was to avoid being accused of being "helpful", then well done!
> 
> ```

\*\*Guiri \*\*and \*\*choie \*\*both seem to think that at least \*\*Scathach \*\*is more likely scum than me. **Guiri** has voted for **Gnarly** since I started composing this post, I see on preview.

> [@GuiriEnEspana](#):
>
> You’re referring to Svejk and I, right? If you look at the vote record, I saw the opposite: 3 votes within an hour or so on Scathach looked like an attempt to save Inner.
> 
> The votes or the voters? I didn’t find Scathach’s or Choie’s vote scummy, just not compelling, Scathach’s could have applied to several players, Choie added some meat. Obviously I stand by my vote despite being wrong. Svejk used a similar argument to mine although he made no mention of Hirka. As for potential scum motivation, any vote on a townie has a potential scum motivation. Given Inner’s flip, if Scathach is scum, Svejk’s stands out.

> [@choie](#):
>
> Ooh can I play?
> 
> - **Scathach**
> - **Svejk**
> - **Guiri**
> - **choie**
> 
> For me, **Scathach** trumps **Svejk** because she’s been targeted now by two people who are dead; one via lynching after a bandwagon, and one via nefarious scum. Also because there was a last minute rush to get her off the gallows. Assuming at least one of the threesome of **Scathach** , **Svejk** and **Guiri** is scum, I think it’s likely **Scathach** ; with **Scathach** being town, the other hypothetical scum team’s behavior doesn’t make much sense to me. Either that or all four of us are Town, in which case, yipe, we have no useful info from this vote.
> 
> **Svejk** is an excellent player and I think he knows almost too much to be a vanilla newbie. His sudden vote-switching from one bandwagon to another is a bit neat. Frankly I kinda like the idea of both of them being scum. (But on the other hand, this seemed like such an obvious scummy move to leap on a bandwagon, the only way this works is if they were really epecting some of the lurkers to join in and bus **Scathach**.)
> 
> **Guiri** pinged me before but not quite as much as the others. His prosecutorial behavior grates and could be seen as trying too hard; then again, maybe he’s trying exactly as hard as he should be, since our town’s lives are at stake.
> 
> **choie** is patently an innocent townie and frankly I’m aghast that she’s even on this list.
> 
> How would you identify likely Town Powers? Do doctors have some investigatory power or something?

> [@choie](#):
>
> Absolutely, and I’m not saying they wouldn’t – just that it was risky/bold.
> 
> Yeah, I agree. I realized that right after my second NETA and thought, oh to hell with it, I’m not gonna fake-edit a_gain_! So I guess **Scathach** is slightly more likely to be scum than **Svejk** , since out of the three scenarios that make the most sense, **Scathach** is scum in two of 'em, whereas **Svejk** is scum in only one.
> 
> Assuming my math is right, which… is not a very good assumption.
> 
> Hee! There was also a risky moment earlier when someone shortened one of our not-so-dear lurkers’ names to **Precam**. One misplaced vowel and that could’ve been a tad embarrassing!

**Scathach** , while not directly defending me, has repeatedly questioned the logic of the vote against me.

> [@Scathach](#):
>
> What I’m questioning is the internal consistency of people’s logic.
> 
> I know I’m town, so from that viewpoint Svejk’s actions make no sense as scum. Why lynch one townie over another? (unless it’s some uber machievellian ploy which I’m not understanding)
> 
> So if anything lynching me should at least give a strong hint that Svejk is town. Whereas lynching Svejk will still say absolutely nothing about what alignment I am.
> 
> So given that, I fail to see how supposed townies who found his vote switch suspicious would vote him over me. It doesn’t add up, unless I’ve missed something completely obvious.

\*\*Fubbleskag \*\*and **gnarlycharlie** have both stated that they lean town on me:

> [@fubbleskag](#):
>
> been very busy lately, only able to read sporadically, not really had a chance to post; admit - very unhelpful for town, but it is what it is
> 
> only have a minute, won’t be fixing typos
> 
> voted \*\*Septimus \*\*because it was my original vote, I hadn’t had time to review any of the other cases or build one of my own, and had already caught a boatload of shit from you lot for not voting; damned either way, it seems
> 
> **fluiddruid** welcome back; understand you’re trying to catch up, but if you’re going to comment on my voting, please catch up more thoroughly before doing so. also, your case against Svejk seems to me somewhat emotional/reactionary - almost as if you’re consciously baiting a new player so that you can then make a ‘smear’ accusation. consider yourself pinged, assuming I have time to review you more thoroughly before the next vote (and live that long, ell oh ell)
> 
> I’m leaning town for **Svejk** ; the cases against him seem weak to me, and he seems genuinely disheartened at the prospect of being falsely lynched. also, as has been mentioned, he seems to be very good at this so far - I’d hate to see one of the better players mis-lynched (as opposed to mis-lynching me, who is notably terrible at this game)
> 
> for the moment, **MentalGuy** ’s case on \*\*Mahaloth \*\*is the only thing that’s really struck with me
> 
> **vote Mahaloth**

> [@gnarlycharlie](#):
>
> it does seem too obvious a play for scum to make so i’ll say **Svejk** is leaning town.
> 
> what bothers me is **Hirka** ’s vote on **Svejk**. i understand that lynching **Svejk** can give us answers but **Hirka** ’s reason is off. he’s willing to risk lynching a possible townie **Svejk** to prove he should be voting for **scathach** who he already suspects.
> 
> **Mahaloth** and **Special Ed** will have to wait for now.
> 
> **Vote Hirka**

To continue my reply to your post #782:

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> Yes, I responded to Scathach as if I were responding to you. I was confused as to who made the post. Are you implying that my error is somehow Scummy?

This seems to be an intentional misunderstanding of the problem I have with your exchange with Scathach and the misunderstandings manifested therein. Again, as said in post #[778](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14567709&postcount=778), the problem I have is not that you mixed up Scathach and me, but that you were unable to retain the basic and essential facts of your own case against me, hours after you made that case rather extensively.

> [@Švejk](#):
>
> Secondly, you don’t recall the vote count? The entire crux of this drama is that my vote switch changed the vote Scathach-Stickler from 4-3 to 3-4. How can you forget that? Later on, post #613, you claim that you “hadn’t looked back to see the vote counts.” How can this be true, when the vote count is the basis of your case? This to me is evidence that you are just making an easy case against me and are doggedly refusing to consider any evidence that is in my favor.

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> I must have missed choie’s question to me in post 746. To answer, I’m not sure which options are the most likely.

Well even if you do think that it is more likely that I am town that I am scum, it might still make sense for you to vote for me if you don’t see any better candidates - but why do you have to be so persistent in your case, bah-ing others who question, if you can’t even state for the record that you believe it is more likely that I am scum than that I am town.

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> yes, I added on the fact that you seemingly ‘left your options open’ and didn’t point out that others had done it. There are many many things I didn’t comment on. And ,yes, I think it quite likely that you are Scum, so I’m going to find other things you did and look at them closely. Maybe there is a little confirmation bias there. It’s only natural.
> 
> And yes, there are explanations for what you did that fit in quite well with you being Town-aligned. If there weren’t then I would be very sure that you were Scum. As it is, I’m not. I’m just voting with my best case.

It’s total confirmation bias all the way, and intentionally so I think. You are not voting with your best case, you have a case that you are committed to, you devote a lot of time to defending and strengthening it, you have not up until now admitted of any reasonable doubt, and have attacked others who did. The case you are making against me is facile and you’re lack of openmindedness about it to me reeks of scum.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/792 "2011-12-15T17:06:55Z")

</div>

Just a heads-up, I have a major work deadline today so my posts will be minimal, but if at all possible I’ll grab some minutes here and there to participate; it’s too close to EOD to be lackadaisical.

> [@fubbleskag](#):
>
> I’m surprised that anyone would classify my participation lately as “quite a bit”; I personally feel like the one or two small windows each day that I’ve been able to get in a post of my own have been squandered on stuff like this. perhaps I need to begin ignoring cases against myself and focus on making cases of my own in the little time I have.

Indeed. Or “:)” as you would say (or “anti-bah!” as **special ed** would say). I mean, obviously yes, respond to others’ questions if they have them (preferably with more than mere smilies) but if you’re Town, I think the better role to play is scumhunter, not self-defense. Unless you’re in some dire voting situation and can feel the scratchy noose being placed around your neck unjustly.

> [@fubbleskag](#):
>
> which of these is me? (answer honestly, please!)

I didn’t include your group, which would be “people who spend time snarking at others and/or posting uncited responses along with smilies that can hardly be considered substantive or an aid to Town.” It’s a pretty small group, admittedly.

But seriously. I’m worried about the number of posts – both questions and answers – that don’t bother to link to whatever they’re referring to. Maybe I’m used to reading through non-newbie threads, but I (and I think others, at least **Silver Jan** has already mentioned this) am finding it very frustrating when someone responds with something like “already answered” or “my case is made above” or similar without so much as a post number, much less a link to the post in question. It’s frustrating and not helpful to make others search through a 700-post thread in search of something _you_ referenced.

I’m not saying that others aren’t being lazy in not being willing to look back through the thread for answers to easy questions (such as “when does Day end” or “what’s the list of surviving players” that were answered about twenty posts earlier).

Generally there just seems to be more passive players in this Mafia than I’m used to. And probably I’d include myself in that.

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> For the record, nothing in choie’s response pinged me. The answer is something I would expect from a Tonie or a very calm Scum. The two are difficult to tell apart usually.

Cool. Though now I’m remembering the group Tony! Toni! Toné for some reason…

(FWIW I understood your “responses to accusations can be telling” comment. It happens to be true, though not conclusive becuase, as you say, it can so easily be interpreted either way.)

> [@septimus](#):
>
> I’m still in a quandary as we approach End of Day. The vote-switching yesterDay to protect **Scathach** still seems quite suspicious, but it almost seems unfair to vote for him based only on that. Frankly I’m confused (and a little suspicious) that votes are on **Švejk** for the vote-switching, instead of on the alleged Scum **Švejk** was allegedly protecting.

Not to answer for those voters, but their stated rationale is apprently that getting a definite Town vs. Scum call after **Svejk** ’s lynching would be more revealing than one from a **Scathach** lynching. I’m vacillating on that point.

In other words, if **Svejk** is scum, **Scathach** is almost certain scum. But if **Scathach** is scum, we learn nothing about **Svejk** , since he’d hardly be the first Townie to make a wrong call.

If either flips Town, though, I don’t think it yields us any more info. (I’m willing to be corrected on that point!)

This uncertainty is why I placed my vote on **Scathach** rather than **Svejk** the other day. It goes against the aforementioned logic, but I don’t think her vote on **Inner** was particularly well explained. She, like many of us, is spending more time in self-defense than in going on the offense. From my own experience I definitely understand that instinct, especially in newer players.

for now,

**unvote Scathach**

Because I need to think things over better once I get some time free later today, particularly the cases for/against **Svejk** , **gnarlycharlie** , **fubbleskag** and **Mental Guy**. Also, I wonder if taking some pressure off **Scathach** will inspire her to participate in offensive rather than defensive posting.

> [@septimus](#):
>
> There seems to be some personal animosities venting in the thread. Are they real or play-acting? **Mahaloth** ’s reaction seems out of proportion to the snark directed against him.

Amen. I don’t get it.

> [@septimus](#):
>
> And some behavior seems too Scummy to be from Scum! fubbleskag’s vote for me really was inexplicable, but would Scum do that?

Heh. Isn’t the answer to that almost always _hells yeah_? Frankly I’m surprised you, of all people, would ask that question! Dude, you were a godfather who was bussed by members of your own _cosa nostra_! 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/793 "2011-12-15T17:15:47Z")

</div>

@Švejk Some of your points are valid. Others are not. I hope to have time this evening to respond.

As much as that conflicts with my new play style. :mad:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/794 "2011-12-15T17:15:53Z")

</div>

> [@choie](#):
>
> If either flips Town, though, I don’t think it yields us any more info. (I’m willing to be corrected on that point!)

If **Scathach** is Town and I am Scum, that would mean that I knowingly switched from one town-bandwagon to another in a very suspicious way, hours before the deadline. Scathach flipping town thus would indicate that I am also town since it would make no sense for me as scum to have switched the way I did. In conclusion, lynching Scathach has the same possibilities of producing useful information about me as lynching me has the possibility of producing information about Scathach.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/795 "2011-12-15T17:17:06Z")

</div>

> [@choie](#):
>
> Just a heads-up, I have a major work deadline today so my posts will be minimal, but if at all possible I’ll grab some minutes here and there to participate; it’s too close to EOD to be lackadaisical

good lord! Is that your idea of minimal?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/796 "2011-12-15T17:17:16Z")

</div>

> [@special\_ed](#):
>
> @Švejk Some of your points are valid. Others are not. I hope to have time this evening to respond.
> 
> As much as that conflicts with my new play style. :mad:

Tough break daddy-o. Incidentally, all of my points are valid.🆒

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/797 "2011-12-15T17:28:26Z")

</div>

Scathach’s [#559](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14547213&postcount=559) reads Townie to me. Yeah, it could have been well crafted but she seemed resigned to her lynch and gives pointers to town for after her demise. It doesn’t look like am attempt to sway votes away from her and it’s not the typical “there’s scum voting for me”. What do you think Choie? SpecialEd?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/798 "2011-12-15T17:55:23Z")

</div>

> [@GuiriEnEspana](#):
>
> Scathach’s [#559](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14547213&postcount=559) reads Townie to me. Yeah, it could have been well crafted but she seemed resigned to her lynch and gives pointers to town for after her demise. It doesn’t look like am attempt to sway votes away from her and it’s not the typical “there’s scum voting for me”. What do you think Choie? SpecialEd?

I agree with what you’re saying.

But think about how you handle a potential pending lynch when Scum. You still want to come across as reasonable and calm, especially when the result is strongly in doubt.

I’m going to have to adjust my new play style and do some research.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/799 "2011-12-15T18:02:27Z")

</div>

> [@Svejk\_1](#):
>
> Tough break daddy-o. Incidentally, all of my points are valid.🆒

No, and I can point out the one that just jumped at me.

Mental Guy and septimus both voted for people other than you. Yes, I questioned them on it. I can see how you might think that it was because they failed to vote for you, but if you read my responses, they really aren’t.

Mental Guy posted a wishy-washy post of support but not support. A Scum tell in my book.

Septimus made a post that listed 2 candidates for a lynching, and other unnamed suspicious people and then did nothing. And he made a point of showing his “semi-confirmedness” I haven’t pushed him beyond suspicion yet. Especially with a dead bodyguard.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gnarlycharlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@gnarlycharlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnarlycharlie)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526/800 "2011-12-15T18:24:12Z")

</div>

> [@Scathach](#):
>
> Gnarlycharlies D2
> 
> Self defence
> 
> Fluff.  
> Helpful fluff. (also, if it’s hard to get a read on special ed, why is he so sure he’s scum?)
> 
> Self defence. And fluff.
> 
> Helpful fluff
> 
> Self defence
> 
> Votes Hirka using a case that’s been made already. Maintains suspicion of special ed and Mahaloth without giving any more reasons or justification.
> 
> A lot of it smacks to me as flying under the radar, not sticking his neck out type stuff. I’m aware that it’s quite like what made me wrongly think Inner was scum, but the fact remains that shying the limelight is often a scum tactic.
> 
> I’m going to reread fubbleskag (who’s weird vote for septimus is still striking me as suspicious) and decide whether or not to move my vote.

so you’re aware that you were wrong with **Inner** and still use the same logic with me? you say i’m defensive? i was simply explaining myself when addressed. was my tone defensive? that’s funny coming from you. it’s not a case of the the pot calling the kettle black. you’re more like a cauldron. you’re probably the most defensive person here. if we all thought being defensive was suspicious you would have been lynched by now.

you’ve played with me a number of games now. i usually start slow and cautious the first few Days. this isn’t anything new.

> [@GuiriEnEspana](#):
>
> How does Hirka’s vote strike you as scummier than Special Ed’s?

> [@GuiriEnEspana](#):
>
> Oh, I think I may have misread that vote.

😕

> [@GuiriEnEspana](#):
>
> About that… My gut is telling me to look at Gnarly, Mental and Silver. I see things like Gnarly’s votes and explanations for them, Mental’s hesitance to join a bandwagon, and SilverJan’s self-restraint, pings rather than major cases.
> 
> For now, while I re-read,
> 
> Vote GnarlyCharlie
> 
> - His D1 one-off vote and subsequent explanation
> - His D2 vote, reasoning, and subsequent explanation
> - His vote on Hirka doesn’t read right given his suspicions of SpecialEd

you don’t like the explanations of my votes for D1 and D2. i can’t do much about that. there isn’t more than what i’ve said. typically i get back from work and find 15 to 20 posts, some of which are long. i try to catch up as best i can and i lay down a vote because not doing so will be even more problematic given the reaction to **fubbleskag** ’s abstention vote on D1. others have expressed their suspicions of **Mahaloth** and **Ed** as well. why are you singling me out? are you saying then that you think **Mahaloth** and **Ed** are town?

you don’t like my vote on **Hirka** because i was initially suspicious of **Ed**. toDay, i found **Hirka** more suspicious than **Ed** so i voted him. i voted early to avoid rushed votes like in D1 and D2. i didn’t say i’m forgetting about **Ed**. in fact, i actually said i would get back to him and **Mahaloth**. this is tough. my late votes are suspicious and my early vote is suspicious as well.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526.md?page=39)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-thrill-of-the-chase-newbie-friendly/603526.md?page=41)