# Random Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 18, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942 "2010-03-18T21:47:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/681 "2010-03-28T06:31:07Z")
I have answered the questions with leading \>\> the number of \> has no relevance. > [@special\_ed](#): > > I think the case is pretty clear > > \>\>\>\> **I have yet to see a case.** Keep saying that you have proof, but don’t deliver on it a few more times, we haven’t killed this horse yet. > , and, btw ‘meat’ doesn’t mean specifics, it means that there is substance to the case. \*\*I could be very specific without having much substance on a case. > \*\* > > \>\>\>\>Then there would be very little value in arguing against you, in a case with out substance. \*\*Why do I feel I am doing this anyway, right now? \*\* > > But you want specifics, let me be more specific then. > > 1. Kelly garnered a couple of votes > 2. You posted a brief statement dismissing the case against Kelly. > 2a. Your dismissal only had faulty reasoning as a back up. > 2b. It appears as a defense of Kelly > 3. Scum motivated reasons for the statement you made could be: > 3a. Yo were protecting a fellow Scum Kelly > 3b. You were trying to earn Townie cred by defending a Townie Kelly. > > \>\>\>\*\*WTF?! How do you and Freudian KNOW that Kelly is Scum? How do you know I am Scum, when your historical record shows you to be THE player that doesnt not understand me, and the one that loves to bait me? \*\* > > \>\>\>\> I don’t know If Kelly is Town or Scum. I do not understand why Ed and Freudian are essentially forcing me to Vote Kelly. Somehow You both know that Kelly is scum, and I MUST be scum, just because I don’t want to vote Kelly. > > What is my Defense here? > > \*\* > I don’t want to vote Kelly. Why does that AUTOMATICALLY make me scum? \*\* > Now, Meeko, would you care to provide specifics for the staements you made that I’ve called mischaracterizations? > > Specifically > > 1. You stated that Freudian’s case in some fashion implied that you would never vote for Kelly. What causes you to come to that conclusion? > > \>\> I believe I covered this one. In short, Freudians early day 2 vote falls short if she does not subsribe to the belief I would never vote Kelly. > > 1. Why does the number of words you used in your dismissal of the case against Kelly matter? > > \>\>\> It is the basis of Freudian’s vote against me. An entire vote comes down to just 15 words?! > > I remind everyone, that for this game, Kelly has a better chance to be Town, than to be Scum. > > 1. Why do you (in point 5E) state the vote against you was because you were playing the odds? What does that fact that to a Twonie, any unknown player is more likely to be Town have to do with the case against you? > > \>\>\>\>\>\> Ever since I stated that I believe Kelly is Town, based on Gamblers Fallacy [essentially] it would appear that everyone KNOWS Kelly is scum. Just because I was wrong with gamblers fallacy [That Kelly MUST be town] does NOT mean that you guys are correct [That Kelly MUST be scum] > P.S. A smudge is when someone makes a statement against a person, that while on the surface doesn’t directly state any case against the person, but is designed to make the reader come away with an underlying suspicion of said player. > > \>\>\>\> Freudian and Ed are doing a LOT to increase my suspicion. You’ve nearly said that Kelly is Scum, and that I HAVE to be scum for ““protecting”” her. > > \*\*If Guilty until proven innocent is not a smudge, then you are right, I have no clue what a smudge is. \*\* > > For example, if I said “Special Ed is a great player, and while he hasn’t done anything overtly scummy, that’s exactly what I’d expect of a Scummy Ed.” > > When someone directly accuses another of doing something suspicious or questions them on something, it isn’t really a smudge. It’s more of an accusation. And that’s the meat of this game. > > \*\*Silly me, I thought Facts, Slips, and Logic were the meat of this game. \*\* > > That could explain why you hate me. Because you don’t utilize any of those tactics in your play. > OH! Thats a Smudge! > > **Damn Straight.** > > I guess that makes Freudians entire “Meeko is an Emotional Nutcase” post a Smudgeatropolis. And FTR to another question I saw laying around : I don’t know Kelly is town. But, I believe I killed that question by answering it 5 times in three seconds. ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/682 "2010-03-28T07:50:16Z")
I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point? ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/683 "2010-03-28T09:31:15Z")
@ **OaOW** I remember asking on Day2 of Screamers “Why would scum kill **TexCat**?” and got enormous heat for assuming **TexCat** was the scum kill. While imho it’s unlikely, **NAF** could have been killed by a Vig, other non-3rd-party killing role or by a redirection. Why are you so sure scum killed him? Anyway, I too was curious about the choice of **NAF** as a target. Here’s a brief summary of **NAF** ’s contributions to Day1: 98 Asks about vanilla PM. Mentions role includes religion. 103 In favor of name claim - more information 115 Repeats reasoning for name claim, probably no benefit but more info is good 127 Scum don’t fish. Town shouldn’t be secretive. 129 Agrees to claim 138 More re: fishing in response to **Special Ed** 145 To **Meeko** , asks if he’s read post about value of name claim 149 More re:fishing 157 Claims Joesph Smith (Mormon) 158 Corrects coding (179 OaOW votes for typo) 313 Responds to **Kelly** ’s “I can’t believe the heat…” and proceeds to vote **Kelly** 349 Comment on scum knowing each other. Comfortable with vote. 403 Lynching **Peeker** won’t give info. Comfortable with vote. Suggests we should be looking at events surrounding name claim. 408 Comments on **Peeker** ’s playstyle “living up to name”, not worth a vote 418 Explains FCS. Finds **Story** ’s case on **Chronos** interesting, will re-read 427 Responds to **Chronos** re vote on **Peeker**. Anti-town is not pro-scum. Wants others to look at **Kelly** and other events of day. 493 To **Meeko** , asks about comment on odds of **Kelly** being town 515 Re: odds of **Kelly** again, thinks he’s noob scum 516 Fluff re: probability having no memory 569 Mistake to lynch **Peeker**. Wishes **Kelly** would respond. Comments on non-voters. I’m not very good at doing WoWs and summing up the contributions of a player to the game but the main things that I get from the summary are: 1. He was in favor of Town sharing information rather than being secretive 2. I don’t think he ever commented on or responded to the votes related to the typo. 3. He felt strongly about the case on **Kelly** and encouraged others to re-read and join 4. He was pretty convinced that lynching **Peeker** was not the optimal move for Town 5. He suspected that most Day1 info would be found by looking at the events surrounding the name claim And then someone killed him. As there are no 3rd parties I assume it must be either the scum kill, receiver of a redirection or a vig kill, although I’d doubt the latter two as **NAF** was active, involved and made the case against the lynch runner-up. So, assuming he was the scum kill, why choose him? I can think of several reasons: 1. As **OaOW** points out, to remove suspicion from **Meeko** for the PM typo 2. To remove **Kelly** ’s main antagonist (and expose **Kelly** as scum?) 3. To remove a strong player (I believe **NAF** is so considered) 4. To remove a player at random (in the spirit of the name of the game) 5. To make Town think No.1 or 2 above and so add momentum to suspicions from Day1 for a Day2 **Meeko** or **Kelly** lynch A couple of plausible options, some data points, some WIFOM, I guess there’s not much point trying to make sense of the first night kill until later in the game when we have more info… ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/684 "2010-03-28T12:10:27Z")
i’m not sure, was just an assumption. Someone killed him, and had a reason for doing so. if it was SK, we can still consider it. I find a town vig kill unlikely, though obv not impossible ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/685 "2010-03-28T13:55:32Z")
**Kelly** this, **Kelly** that. Tomorrow night, I am going to make a serious attempt to do a complete thread read (I haven’t properly read from about page 6 onwards). If I can’t find the time, I may elect to be replaced, if it’s not too late. But give me 24 hours. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/686 "2010-03-28T14:57:14Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > “justification that **Kelly** due to the numbers couldn’t be scum again” > > Freudian is basically saying “Meeko, I know you will never vote Kelly, at any point in this game. Because of that, I am voting for you.” > > **Trying another way :** > > Freudian can’t see Meeko **ever** voting Kelly in this game. If Freudian can see Meeko voting for Kelly, at any point, in this game, then the justification for the vote falls flat. But, because a vote _ **is** _ made on this exact justification, a statement IS made about my votes for the rest of the game. I never said that. I just said that your giving him a pass was really suspect. I have no idea if you’ll ever vote for him. But your justification for not voting for him was so odd, it pinged me because it was such an odd non-reason. Anyway, it’s not like you’re a lock to be lynched. The day is young. I could just as easily change my vote–vote early, vote often is the philosophy, yes? I’m also curious to see Kelly’s post as we haven’t heard too much from him. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/687 "2010-03-28T15:11:34Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point? Unless I’m missing something, the only other player who had a misspelling in their claim was Meeko. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/688 "2010-03-28T15:33:50Z")
**Sunday morning vote count!** Freudian Slit (2) - voted by Rysto [655], Meeko [666] Meeko (1) - voted by Freudian Slit [651] ---
**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:** [March 28, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/689 "2010-03-28T15:39:33Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > II think the case is pretty clear > > \>\>\>\> **I have yet to see a case.** Keep saying that you have proof, but don’t deliver on it a few more times, we haven’t killed this horse yet. You’re confusing a rock solid indisuputible case (proof) with a case. This is Mafia, not a court of law. The whole premise of the game is that you try to build the best case you can against someone and lynch them. Additionally, I don’t think anyone ever said they had proof, because if they did it would be foolish not to present it. > [@Meeko](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > , and, btw ‘meat’ doesn’t mean specifics, it means that there is substance to the case. **I could be very specific without having much substance on a case.** > > \>\>\>\>Then there would be very little value in arguing against you, in a case with out substance. \*\*Why do I feel I am doing this anyway, right now? \*\* Meeko, you’re actually arguing my point. I was saying I could be specific and have no real case. I was saying that this case does have substance or meat, and then I got even more specific. I think perhaps you get hung up on each sentence when you need to take an entire idea in it’s context. > [@Meeko](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > But you want specifics, let me be more specific then. > > > > 1. Kelly garnered a couple of votes > > 2. You posted a brief statement dismissing the case against Kelly. > > 2a. Your dismissal only had faulty reasoning as a back up. > > 2b. It appears as a defense of Kelly > > 3. Scum motivated reasons for the statement you made could be: > > 3a. Yo were protecting a fellow Scum Kelly > > 3b. You were trying to earn Townie cred by defending a Townie Kelly. > > \>\>\>\*\*WTF?! How do you and Freudian KNOW that Kelly is Scum? How do you know I am Scum, when your historical record shows you to be THE player that doesnt not understand me, and the one that loves to bait me? \*\* I don’t know that you or Kelly are Scum. I’m pointing out how you actions could be interpreted as Scum-motivated. I’m not trying to bait you. This is how I play. I question people on their statements and gauge their reactions. Some people take it more personally than others and feel as if I’m attacking them personally. I’m not, I’m just trying to figure out who is Scum. > [@Meeko](#): > > \>\>\>\> I don’t know If Kelly is Town or Scum. I do not understand why Ed and Freudian are essentially forcing me to Vote Kelly. Somehow You both know that Kelly is scum, and I MUST be scum, just because I don’t want to vote Kelly. > > What is my Defense here? > > \*\* > I don’t want to vote Kelly. Why does that AUTOMATICALLY make me scum? \*\* This is another misrepresentation. I’ve never asked you to vote for Kelly. Again, I’m just pointing out that you actions can be interpreted to have a Scum-motivation. I have no knowledge of Kelly’s alignment or your alignment. > [@Meeko](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > Now, Meeko, would you care to provide specifics for the staements you made that I’ve called mischaracterizations? > > > > Specifically > > > > 1. You stated that Freudian’s case in some fashion implied that you would never vote for Kelly. What causes you to come to that conclusion?[ > > \>\> I believe I covered this one. In short, Freudians early day 2 vote falls short if she does not subsribe to the belief I would never vote Kelly. Why? I feel as if the accusation that you attempted to defend Kelly on Day 1 is the meat of the case. The case still stands even if Kelly is Town. > [@Meeko](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > 1. Why does the number of words you used in your dismissal of the case against Kelly matter? > > \>\>\> It is the basis of Freudian’s vote against me. An entire vote comes down to just 15 words?! yeah, sure. I mean, it was a dismissal of an entire case in only 15 words. Of course, agains, it’s the action, not the way you presented it that’s earning you heat. > [@Meeko](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > 1. Why do you (in point 5E) state the vote against you was because you were playing the odds? What does that fact that to a Twonie, any unknown player is more likely to be Town have to do with the case against you? > > \>\>\>\>\>\> Ever since I stated that I believe Kelly is Town, based on Gamblers Fallacy [essentially] it would appear that everyone KNOWS Kelly is scum. Just because I was wrong with gamblers fallacy [That Kelly MUST be town] does NOT mean that you guys are correct [That Kelly MUST be scum] Who is saying that Kelly were Scum? If I was sure that he was Scum, I would be voting for him right now. I’m not. Scum will sometimes defend a Scum buddy to protect them. But Scum will also sometimes defend a Town person so they can say, “I told you so, look, I was saying he was Town, and a Scum wouldn’t do that, would they?” So, there’s still Scum-motivation for doing that. > [@Meeko](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > P.S. A smudge is when someone makes a statement against a person, that while on the surface doesn’t directly state any case against the person, but is designed to make the reader come away with an underlying suspicion of said player. > > \>\>\>\> Freudian and Ed are doing a LOT to increase my suspicion. You’ve nearly said that Kelly is Scum, and that I HAVE to be scum for ““protecting”” her. Again, I haven’t said that Kelly is Scum. Sure, it’s a possibility. I’m getting the sense that your defense against the case has come down to: “No one can be sure I’m guilty, therefore you shouldn’t accuse me.” > [@Meeko](#): > > \*\*If Guilty until proven innocent is not a smudge, then you are right, I have no clue what a smudge is. \*\* Yes, you’re confusing a Smudge with a case. > [@Meeko](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > For example, if I said “Special Ed is a great player, and while he hasn’t done anything overtly scummy, that’s exactly what I’d expect of a Scummy Ed.” > > > > When someone directly accuses another of doing something suspicious or questions them on something, it isn’t really a smudge. It’s more of an accusation. And that’s the meat of this game. > > \*\*Silly me, I thought Facts, Slips, and Logic were the meat of this game. \*\* Well, those can make up the meat, or substance of a case against someone. So, I suppose we actually agree. > [@Meeko](#): > > That could explain why you hate me. Because you don’t utilize any of those tactics in your play. > OH! Thats a Smudge! No, that’s more of an insult than a smudge. First off, I don’t hate you. I even kinda like you. Secondly, I can use your vocabulary. 1. The fact is you defended Kelly. 2. I think it is possible that you slipped when you id that in an attempt to look more Townie or to defend a fellow Scum. 3. Logically, is that were true, that would make you Scum. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/690 "2010-03-28T15:56:13Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I never said that. I just said that your giving him a pass was really suspect. I have no idea if you’ll ever vote for him. But your justification for not voting for him was so odd, it pinged me because it was such an odd non-reason. > > Anyway, it’s not like you’re a lock to be lynched. The day is young. I could just as easily change my vote–vote early, vote often is the philosophy, yes? > > I’m also curious to see Kelly’s post as we haven’t heard too much from him. My entire issue, remains that all of my heat stems from the fact that I pointed to probability. [Multiple facets of it, mind you, but still, the “odds” were brought up.] I said in so many ways that Kelly, in my opinion, may not be scum. Everyone apparently thought that was the worst thing to say in the world. \*\* Apparently, Logically, Kelly has a greater chance at being town. Does any one doubt that?\*\* But, speak that idea, and it becomes scum motivation. I don’t get that, at all. But, you know, I think it’s related to the ““Accountabillity”” Snafu from Smash 2. – Not that I got that concept. Would be intersting to literally do the math on choices, in a decision tree, and find out which route is “best practices” for Mafia, honestly doubt any of us are even close to perfect play. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/691 "2010-03-28T15:57:30Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > 1. Logically, is that were true, that would make you Scum. Let’s address this one. I need specifics again. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/692 "2010-03-28T16:07:44Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > Let’s address this one. I need specifics again. Dare I make an assuption : Are you saying that because I employ Logic, Facts, and [investigate, discover, and use] Slips, it logically makes me scum? 😕 😕 😕 **Peeker** , get the brain bucket, I think I just went **Pop!** **“You might want to wear a helmet, so that it don’t make a mess when I blow your mind!”** ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/693 "2010-03-28T16:11:19Z")
Kelly has a greater motivation of being town than of being scum? Well, yeah. In every game, there’s more town than scum, so the probability of anyone being town is greater than of their being scum. But Kelly does NOT have a greater probability of being town than anyone else. His role in previous games have absolutely no bearing on this game. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/694 "2010-03-28T16:20:24Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > My entire issue, remains that all of my heat stems from the fact that I pointed to probability. [Multiple facets of it, mind you, but still, the “odds” were brought up.] > > I said in so many ways that Kelly, in my opinion, may not be scum. > > Everyone apparently thought that was the worst thing to say in the world. > \*\* > Apparently, Logically, Kelly has a greater chance at being town. Does any one doubt that?\*\* > > But, speak that idea, and it becomes scum motivation. > > I don’t get that, at all. > > But, you know, I think it’s related to the ““Accountabillity”” Snafu from Smash 2. – Not that I got that concept. > > Would be intersting to literally do the math on choices, in a decision tree, and find out which route is “best practices” for Mafia, honestly doubt any of us are even close to perfect play. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Kelly has a greater motivation of being town than of being scum? Well, yeah. In every game, there’s more town than scum, so the probability of anyone being town is greater than of their being scum. > > But Kelly does NOT have a greater probability of being town than anyone else. His role in previous games have absolutely no bearing on this game. 1. " Motivation " ? \*\*I question the use of the word “Motivation”. \*\* As I see it, town doesn’t need " Motivation " they just are. Only scum would worry about having " Motivation " or not. This language here pings me, and would move me closer to voting you, if I didn’t already have a vote on you. 2. And you somehow dodge the direct question by using the word motivation. Again : Kelly has better odds of being Town in this game — Period. Full Stop. **Do not bring the other game into this. I have stopped arguing it on that basis.** \*\* I think you are trying to hold on to an honest and innocent mistake I made, just to get me lynched over you. \*\* Motivation? Yeah, there would be scum motivation there. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/695 "2010-03-28T16:21:23Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > Dare I make an assuption : > > Are you saying that because I employ Logic, Facts, and [investigate, discover, and use] Slips, it logically makes me scum? um…what? How did you get to that statement? this is what I said: > [@special ed](#): > > 1. The fact is you defended Kelly. > 2. I think it is possible that you slipped when you id that in an attempt to look more Townie or to defend a fellow Scum. > 3. Logically, is that were true, that would make you Scum. I realize it might be more difficult for you to follow my ideas as we have different ways of communicating. But I really have no idea how you can take a 3 point case, remove one point and then go off on a completely different tangent. If I had meant to say that your use of logic, facts and slips made you Scum, I would have been direct and stated that. What I did was try to state the case against you using your vocabulary. (with a couple of typos id=did and in pont 3, is=if) ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/696 "2010-03-28T16:23:02Z")
NETA: \*\*Don’t bring “Kelly has better chances to be town, over anyone else” into it either. \*\* Everyone has the same HIGH odds to be town in this game. And that’s my point. Kelly has a great chance at being Town in this game. Everyone does. Based on that, I don’t want to vote Kelly. And it makes me scum?! ---
**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:** [March 28, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/697 "2010-03-28T16:25:32Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > 1. " Motivation " ? \*\*I question the use of the word “Motivation”. \*\* As I see it, town doesn’t need " Motivation " they just are. Only scum would worry about having " Motivation " or not. This language here pings me, and would move me closer to voting you, if I didn’t already have a vote on you. Everyone is motivated to act. Many players look for the motivation behind a player and try to discern if their actions can be interpreted as trying to help Town win (Town motivation) or helping Scum win (Scum motivation) Unfortunately, it’s not terribly easy. > [@Meeko](#): > > 1. And you somehow dodge the direct question by using the word motivation. Again : Kelly has better odds of being Town in this game — Period. Full Stop. Meeko, Freudian has better odds of being Town in this game too. Why are you voting for her then? > [@Meeko](#): > > Motivation? Yeah, there would be scum motivation there. Odd, here you interpret the word correctly. It’s possible that freudian is motivated to get you lynched to use up a mislynch and move the Scum closer to victory. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/698 "2010-03-28T16:30:18Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > But I really have no idea how you can take a 3 point case, remove one point and then go off on a completely different tangent. > > If I had meant to say that your use of logic, facts and slips made you Scum, I would have been direct and stated that. > > What I did was try to state the case against you using your vocabulary. (with a couple of typos id=did and in pont 3, is=if) If you can’t force a Third point, go for the obligatory “Hi! Opal!”. I didn’t get that 2 and 3 refered back to your 1. I have a main point, and then points under that use letters to refer back to the main point. There is an indention of sorts. I didn’t see an indention strtucture, so I Was lost. \*\* Your 1 and 2 only hold water, so to speak, if Kelly is scum. \*\* Which again, why are you so sure that Kelly is scum ? If so, Vote Kelly. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/699 "2010-03-28T16:32:02Z")
I retract the use of the word “motivation.” I meant odds, and you’re right. I don’t know why I used it. But as has been brought up, if **Kelly** has a greater chance of being town so does EVERYONE. Why don’t you just give everyone a pass on day one? Are you saying no one should vote for anyone because the chances of us all being town are so great? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942/700 "2010-03-28T16:32:20Z")
Oh, **ed.** Don’t you ever get tired? **Meeko** , it’s really very simple. You said you were willing to give **Kelly** a pass. When asked why, you provided a reason that didn’t make any sense. You’re now, pardon me for saying so, kind of flipping out about it. But your stated reasons for not considering **Kelly** were decidedly _not_: [QUOTE=Meeko] Logic, Facts, and [investigate, discover, and use] Slips [/QUOTE] because your reason relied on an assumption about probability that was, as you acknowledge, overtly fallacious. You made it a point to tell everyone you wouldn’t vote for **Kelly** that Day, and your reason was unreasonable. There’s your full stop. **ed** , going forward, can I make a request that you not turn this into several pages and several small d-days’ worth of argument? It seems our rate of attrition for this game is unprecedented from a willing participant standpoint. **Meeko** isn’t going to drop it any more than **peeker** did. You saw how that turned out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-mafia/532942.md?page=36)