# Screamers Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 21, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938 "2009-09-21T13:16:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![AllWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AllWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AllWalker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/581 "2009-10-01T09:31:00Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Something was bugging me and I went back and looked, and sure enough: > > Anyone care to parse out the truth-value of the sentence > > “I see no harm in saying I am Town aligned whether or not there is a lie detector.” > > if it is said by a scum? I think it could turn out true, if he says it in a way that it can’t be separated out into its own sentence. > > It interests me because AllWalker is generally a careful poster, and has gone to some lengths to hide breadcrumbs in previous games. And as he mentions has previously played a lie detector & thus would have thought a lot about this role. > > **[color]unvote[/color]** > **[color]vote AllWalker[/color]** Holy crap. Sorry. You know, I kind of wish I were Scum and that was some deliberate move on my part, because that is quite brilliant wording on my part if I am. But I’m not. It was purely a miswording on my part. Let me set it in stone: **I am Town aligned** But really, that sentence would still catch me out, probably. If I say " I see no harm in saying I am Town aligned whether or not there is a lie detector", that is false if I am Scum. I _would_ see the harm in saying that. Saying it would catch me in a lie. Besides, I’m not really a careful poster. I have my good days and my bad days. I try, but my failures of wording are many. > [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > Fair enough. What I said was true, but if I weren’t me, I’d do the same thing you’re doing. > > Want even more wild and crazy Squid switcheroo? > > I’m gonna vote for **peeker**. Why? Dude was on the fence of being lynched (I don’t think he actually ever took the vote lead, he was building up a head of steam), and claimed Doc. > Claiming Doc a great move for scum worried that they’re about to get lynched: usually, the real Doc stays silent, and you get several days of unlynchability, as you’re not required to reveal any information like you would with claiming Cop. Worst case scenario, the real Doc comes out and points a finger at you, Town lynches you because it makes more sense that real scum wouldn’t do a one for one trade with a Doc, and now you’ve just isolated the Doc. He’s even more likely to self-protect, and therefore you’ve neutralize him because you don’t have to worry about stumbling into his protection. > What **peeker** did was taking option A, while attempting to forestall an eventual counterclaim. He preps us for the counterclaim, and then says “See guys, I told you this would happen! I’m still ‘confirmed’!” Great move for scum, if it works. > [color]**unvote: Oredigger[/color] > [color]vote: peeker[/color]** Exactly what I was saying. This situation makes lynching a claimed Doc less a bad idea than setups where we think or know there is only one Doc. **However** , having said that, since Day 1 lynches are almost without exception failures, I think voting for **peeker** _toDay_ is a bad call, unless we really have nothing else to go on. I just don’t want him excluded from the pool of lynchable players for the rest of the game. ---
**Author:** ![Gryff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gryff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gryff)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/582 "2009-10-01T09:46:24Z")
> [@AllWalker](#): > > …snip… > **However** , having said that, since Day 1 lynches are almost without exception failures, I think voting for **peeker** _toDay_ is a bad call, unless we really have nothing else to go on. I just don’t want him excluded from the pool of lynchable players for the rest of the game. Not to sound like a broken record, but I think the source of this truism is because scum will always claim a power role and town always moves on to a weaker target when they do. I am relatively new to this game, but I think we should start moving away from giving scum these ‘safe’ first few days and holding the course more often on the first day. ---
**Author:** ![AllWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AllWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AllWalker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/583 "2009-10-01T10:00:30Z")
> [@Gryff](#): > > Not to sound like a broken record, but I think the source of this truism is because scum will always claim a power role and town always moves on to a weaker target when they do. > > I am relatively new to this game, but I think we should start moving away from giving scum these ‘safe’ first few days and holding the course more often on the first day. No, the problems come from numbers and lack of data. Voting randomly, we would expect to hit Town. Add the fact that any case is harder to commit to on Day 1 than any other Day and Scum have a decent chance of deflecting suspicion, and it goes a long way to explaining why Day 1 is a frantic mess of bandwagons and mislynching. ---
**Author:** ![Gryff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gryff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gryff)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/584 "2009-10-01T10:09:16Z")
> [@AllWalker](#): > > No, the problems come from numbers and lack of data. Voting randomly, we would expect to hit Town. Add the fact that any case is harder to commit to on Day 1 than any other Day and Scum have a decent chance of deflecting suspicion, and it goes a long way to explaining why Day 1 is a frantic mess of bandwagons and mislynching. All true and good points. Discounting the ability of scum to claim and get a free pass then the odds are not good for town, but when scum can expect an automatic pass just for claiming a power role then it becomes almost certain that we will hang a townie. I dunno, it seems that it is too easy for scum to control the lynching on the first day (at the very least). Especially when the odds are (slightly) higher that we would hit a scum than the relatively few unverifiable roles. I just think we should not **automatically** move when someone claims doctor (for example). Sure, check our reasons and facts more closely but not immediately rush off to hang the next weakest target. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/585 "2009-10-01T10:14:59Z")
> [@CatInASuit](#): > > No, that’s not correct. Both Alka Seltzer and I queried that statement. > > I really don’t like blanket statements like that. I don’t have a problems with players thinking peekercpa was talking about multiple docs. I do have a problem with someone throwing out that everyone was thinking like that, when it can be shown to be false. That sounds like backtracking to me and trying to cover everyone in that statement so you don’t sound so bad. > > good enough for me at the mo. When I turn up dead, I hope everyone…wait, MOST everyone realizes that the tie between me and **peeker** was broken by something this weak. Seriously, why on earth does this make me sound bad? Great, instead of 23/24 people potentially assuming that he was saying he was one of many, it’s really 21/24. Bully for you. Now tell me why it matters all that much. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/586 "2009-10-01T10:21:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Drain Bead** :Well, of course scum will lie. That’s a part of the game. And it’s not necessarily all that bad, since Scum lying opens up the possibility of them accidentally being inconsistent in their lies. But the less a liar says, the less the risk of being caught in an inconsistency. In a closed setup, how do you determine whether someone is lying about their role PM? ---
**Author:** ![AllWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AllWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AllWalker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/587 "2009-10-01T10:22:13Z")
> [@Gryff](#): > > All true and good points. > > Discounting the ability of scum to claim and get a free pass then the odds are not good for town, but when scum can expect an automatic pass just for claiming a power role then it becomes almost certain that we will hang a townie. > > I dunno, it seems that it is too easy for scum to control the lynching on the first day (at the very least). Especially when the odds are (slightly) higher that we would hit a scum than the relatively few unverifiable roles. > > I just think we should not **automatically** move when someone claims doctor (for example). Sure, check our reasons and facts more closely but not immediately rush off to hang the next weakest target. Well, that’s true. But here is something to consider when suggestion we hang a claimed Doc (should it come to that, for example): a) If he really is a Doc, then we lose the Doc entirely. It was as if we never had the role in the first place. This, obviously, hurts Town badly. b) If it is a Scum, then Town buys itself an extra mislynch and that is all. The Scum team can still operate with its NKs and all. Also, one Day doesn’t provide much material to analyse. If it is a VT, it doesn’t cost Town much to risk them. But for a claim, waiting for a few Days either lets them use their power a bit (if truthful) or build up a record for analysis (if lying). As much as it sucks, that does help us out. Still, I wont be sorry if we bag a Scumbo toDay. ---
**Author:** ![Gryff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gryff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gryff)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/588 "2009-10-01T10:32:49Z")
> [@AllWalker](#): > > …snip… > > a) If he really is a Doc, then we lose the Doc entirely. It was as if we never had the role in the first place. This, obviously, hurts Town badly. > …snip… I agree, it is not an ideal situation, though this is what I was referring to earlier with the risky success (gambling on it being a scum claim) versus a definite failure (we let scum shunt us onto townies). By letting a claim always move our votes means that we will **never** get scum in the first day or two. Is a Schrödinger doc worth a couple of days where the scum have free reign and we kill our own? (A cop is a much harder decision in my opinion.) ---
**Author:** ![DaphneBlack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/daphneblack/32/5389_2.png) [@DaphneBlack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaphneBlack)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/589 "2009-10-01T10:52:31Z")
Docs can be just as valuable as cops. And even if **Peeker** is scum and we hang him, the scum will still be around and able to sow discord (since I’m pretty sure there’s more than one scum in this game!). **Gryff** is making it sound like if we don’t move our votes when there’s a claim then we’ve lessened our chances of hitting town – I’d say that is unlikely to be true in any given specific case. I do agree we should evaluate each claim on its own merits, but I don’t see anywhere here that we aren’t doing that. Also, I have seen a number of games where scum have been bagged day one. Normally there is an attempt at a claim, to be sure. I think we shouldn’t be making policies that might prevent people from claiming truthfully. Scum won’t be intimidated by such a plan, only townies. I think this is a pretty scummy argument. **FOS Gryff** I’m no longer confident in the case against **Drain Bead** , though she is still suspicious: I’d still like to hear her explain her comment about the potential lie-detector being bad because of allowing scum and third parties to find each other. If she doesn’t explain that bit in a reasonable way (as she has some of the other points against her), I’ll probably vote her again. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2009, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/590 "2009-10-01T10:56:43Z")
> [@DaphneBlack](#): > > If she doesn’t explain that bit in a reasonable way (as she has some of the other points against her), I’ll probably vote her again. Agreed. More exposition on this please **Drain Bead** ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/591 "2009-10-01T11:06:08Z")
> [@AllWalker](#): > > Well, that’s true. But here is something to consider when suggestion we hang a claimed Doc (should it come to that, for example): > a) If he really is a Doc, then we lose the Doc entirely. It was as if we never had the role in the first place. This, obviously, hurts Town badly. > b) If it is a Scum, then Town buys itself an extra mislynch and that is all. The Scum team can still operate with its NKs and all. Also, one Day doesn’t provide much material to analyse. > > If it is a VT, it doesn’t cost Town much to risk them. But for a claim, waiting for a few Days either lets them use their power a bit (if truthful) or build up a record for analysis (if lying). As much as it sucks, that does help us out. > > Still, I wont be sorry if we bag a Scumbo toDay. I tend to side with this portion of the analysis, which is why you won’t see me making a self-preservation vote on **peeker** even though his behavior has been spotty (this recent vote is insane–a smart Doc in a tie vote with a claimed Vanilla would be making the self-preservation vote, I’d think). Honestly, I think I’m about 60-40 that he’s scum, but that 40 is too much for me to run the risk that we save a Vanilla at the expense of a Doc. I think the voting breakdown today will be really helpful, particularly in analyzing the first and second tiebreaks. ---
**Author:** ![Gryff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gryff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gryff)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/592 "2009-10-01T11:12:18Z")
**DaphneBlack** Would you care to point out the flaws in my reasoning? As \*\*AllWalker \*\* said, losing an actual Town Doc (cop, whatever) is undoubtedly bad, but my argument is the effect of always accepting such a claim at face value means the scum control our early lynchings. Do you disagree with that? > [@](#): > > Gryff is making it sound like if we don’t move our votes when there’s a claim then we’ve lessened our chances of hitting town – I’d say that is unlikely to be true in any given specific case. This is mildly distorting my argument. The argument is not about odds, it is our actions giving the enemy a free pass. If the scum know (as they do) that a claim of Doc will get them a free day or more then it guarantees we will only get town people (or terminally stupid scum). To give a simplistic example; Through the actions of gastardness we are at lylo with no more information than we would have at day 1. Through pure luck we vote the one remaining scum, but he has a cunning plan. “Aha! But I am a doctor” he declares, while twirling his moustache. The town then swiftly moves to the next person in their list and starts stringing him up. He, being a bright and honest town person, feels honesty is the only policy that can save the town states “No, you have the wrong person, I am a hard working but humble Town Villager!” On Preview I see **BrainBead** comment; I agree that this plan of mine is not the be all and end all of Mafia strategy, but if we **always** let claims move us then we give additional weapons to the scum. ---
**Author:** ![DaphneBlack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/daphneblack/32/5389_2.png) [@DaphneBlack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaphneBlack)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/593 "2009-10-01T11:26:34Z")
I agree, **Gryff** , that we should not _always_ let a claim move our votes. If we all agreed that any claim was a get out of lynch free card, then scum would have free reign, but I don’t see that being the case. I’d say **peeker** is getting plenty of challenges and is hardly getting off scot-free. I think his claim is odd, but it’s not odd in such a way that it seems scummy to me. Others clearly feel differently. I don’t mean to distort your argument with bringing up odds. That is more my extension; if we don’t consider claims strongly, then it seems to me that the result you worry about may be just as likely to happen. I guess what puzzles me is that I haven’t seen any reason to be worried that what you say is going to happen will happen. The scenario right now is between two claims: VT and Doc. They have been getting about equal attention and votes. Many people have pointed out (including the VT-claimant on the block) that as a matter of risk-assessment they’d prefer to take the risk _in this case_ with the VT-claimed lynch. Others don’t believe the claim and have happily voted for the doc-claimaint. In short, I don’t see that we are unquestionably accepting claims or are in danger of giving scum an out to always claim. This may be clear as mud, but I hope I’ve gotten across what my issue is with your remarks. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/594 "2009-10-01T11:51:16Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > At any rate, **Guiri** , why the ratification of the **peeker** vote? **Nanook** ’s vote took place a long time ago in terms of game events. Here it was: > > I’m just curious, since we can’t just substitute you into that post and have it remain true, presumably, what your actual reasons are. > > Are we going with fishing and game metaphors, **peeker**? How’s “that dog won’t hunt.”? Jimmy, I’m guilty of a number of newbie mistakes, sorry. I will not use that excuse again however. Thank you for questioning my vote - I trust you do this in the best interests of town. 1. I gave no reasoning for my vote. In all honesty it’s been quite hard to catch up and I thought it was safe to neither unvote nor vote without more information. 2. Peeker seemed a good candidate for lynching given the early and ambiguous claim. I understood there was a possibility of Peeker being a scum doc or equivalent but have since seen that the PM sent to Doc usually start with “[You are a Doc](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11530674&postcount=1)” and not “You are THE Doc” and so the claim loses some of its ambiguity but remains dubious so early on Day 1. 3. But not dubious enough to risk lynching a doc so: **Unvote Peeker** ---
**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:** [October 1, 2009, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/595 "2009-10-01T12:04:51Z")
jpeg (2): OAoW, TxtKitty The One and Only(1): Da’Chronic Pecear(3): Gruff, Oredigger, Boozy, The Dread Bean (5): amrussett, Abnormal Phase, Freudian Skit, UPSDriver, KittySoot Borerigger(1): Brainbleed AllWalker(1): Scudmissile M.C. Billy(1): Pecear ---
**Author:** ![AllWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AllWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AllWalker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/596 "2009-10-01T12:27:31Z")
About an hour and a half til I place my vote. The lynch contenders seem to be **Drain Bead** , **peeker** and **jpei**. **Oredigger** picked up a few votes a while back, but I see he is down to 1 voter. Will review cases and cast vote soon. ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/597 "2009-10-01T13:04:52Z")
**Chronos** , will you acknowledge that there may be situations in which a full claim by a Town power role benefits Scum more than Town? ---
**Author:** ![AllWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AllWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AllWalker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/598 "2009-10-01T13:25:52Z")
I can’t really bring myself to vote for any of the three vote leaders. While I suspect **peeker** based on the hounding of **Tom Scud** and the mysterious claim which, apparently, was supposed to baffle Scum more than Town, I can’t bring myself to vote that way Day 1. **jpei** ’s case is largely been dealt with, and I don’t really know about **Drain Bead**. One person who keeps popping up for different reasons is **BSPI**. First vote went to **Alka** for an antiTown idea. Then there is voting for **Tom** [minutes before changing his vote](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11612861#post11612861) to agee with **Tom** , which smacks of carelessness. Whether Scum-carelessness or Town-carelessness I don’t know. Then there is the vote on **peeker** [for claiming](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11615353#post11615353) Doc. Looking back over it, it is just Boozy being Boozy. If I had suspicions, and I don’t think I do, it would not come from any individual post. More to come. ---
**Author:** ![AllWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AllWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AllWalker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/599 "2009-10-01T13:42:14Z")
On **Chronos** , Firstly there is pressuring **Wanderers** into full claiming. I don’t think Town needed the details of his powers yet, but Scum would no doubt be curious. I took great issue with post #328: > [@](#): > > Obviously this case is a little different, in that Wanderers didn’t have any choice in us finding out that there’s something special about him. But he did have a choice whether to tell us what that something was. That’s what I’m holding him accountable for. As I have already said above, he could either lie, ignore the question, full claim or soft claim. These were his only options given the circumstances. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11615059#post11615059) he is, much later, still saying that Wanderer should fully claim. This is definitely fishing. I have a few suspicions here. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/600 "2009-10-01T13:43:34Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > Agreed. More exposition on this please **Drain Bead** My main concern was that if (hypothetically, of course) one Scum group figures out who is in another Scum group, it gives our power roles a smaller pool to hide in. I’m glad that people agreed with me that it’s best just in case that everyone claim Town alignment and the point is now moot, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938.md?page=31)