# 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:** 33
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/641 "2009-10-01T19:26:06Z")
I voted for Peeker because I though his scum buddies were trying to save him with some good old fashion bandwagoning. While Peeker may or may not be the doctor I think looking at Drain’s bandwagon might reviled some interesting things. I went back and pulled all of the vote posts on Drain from the historically scummy third to the end. I’ve trimmed them so they reflect the case against Drain. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Good point. I wasn’t happy with Drain Bead’s reasoning on role-fishing, but I’d missed the contradiction. > > **Vote Drain Bead** > > **@Drain Bead** - Just to check I’m understanding you properly, Chronos’ two role-fishing attempts are pressuring OaOW for a role-claim, and bringing up the possibility of a lie-detector role? So here we have the historically scummy third vote basically Alka agrees with the case already presented by Amrussel but asks a question to try and get some more information. I think this is a pretty good vote post since it both state the reason and tries to find out more. > [@DaphneBlack](#): > > It’s funny, I was thinking this afternoon that I was going to vote **Drain Bead** , and then I come back and she’s already got three votes! > > As much as I don’t like **Chronos** (the Inscrutable)'s vote on OaOW, her reaction to it and to the lie detector is just screaming ‘not Town’ to me. And her latest comment about the cop is weird. If we have a cop and they investigate townies, that’s a Good Thing. It’s good to find scum too of course, but it has been noted recently that a Cop can be just as valuable to confirm townies. Seems to be her remarks on this point are subtly trying to lead any cops astray. At the very least it’s a strange attitude. Again we have a vote explanation, the vote was in another post about three later. This is about all you can ask for on Day 1 agreeing with someone else’s case but giving explanations so there is a trail to follow in later Days. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I am town alig–GAH!!! ::screams and falls to the ground:: > > Yeah, it sort of screams of that real life, cops have to reply that they are undercover cops if asked logic. **Vote Drain Bead** > > And I am town aligned. And Town Aligned. And Town-Aligned. Hmmm . . . I think there is a reason in there but it seems to be that Drain is saying that Scum can’t claim to be town. Which wasn’t the way any one else read it and doesn’t seem to be a good reason to vote in general. > [@ColdPhoenix](#): > > I had a look and couldn’t see where you claimed allignment. Following your recommendation: > > **Vote Drain Bead** > > Also, for the record, **I am town.** Basically this was a vote for Drain not saying she is town but putting out a list of the people who say they’re town. While it’s already been discussed that it is hard to find where everyone stated that they are town it’s believable that he missed Drain’s post but it is an extremely weak reason to crawl on a bandwagon. > [@tiltawhirl](#): > > But when we get into the lie dectector / town alignment declaration debacle, I don’t see where the difficulty lies. In previous games there has been known to be a Lie Detector and it would be very useful to Town if the players were to claim Town under that scenario. Over a third of the current players have claimed town. The meme has escaped the barn, and so let everyone declare or not declare & state their reasons why. That’s potentially useful information, not noise. > > **Vote Drain Bead**. I’m not sure what Tilt’s case is against Drain she seems to be saying that more people need to state that they are town or explain why they are unwilling to which is what Drain had been pushing for. > [@USCDiver](#): > > I definitiely see merit in the case against **Drain Bead**. Her posts definitely come across as either wishy-washy or drifting in meaning. Her explanations are unfortunately not too convincing and reek of post hoc justifications. For now, VT claim not withstanding, I’m going to: > > **vote Drain Bead** The last vote for Drain and basically Diver just restates the case against Drain but also adds that her defense hasn’t been the best. Of these I find Tilt, Cold, and FS to be the most bandwagony and most like to be scum hitching a ride to lynching town. Tilt is pinging as a bit of a confused newbie. Cold has barely been playing with a total of 7 game posts 2 of which were fluff but he did unvote Drain once his accusations were answered. FS has disappeared the last couple of days and so may have just been too busy to post a real vote but I also think that there is too much experience there to be allowed to get away with such a lame vote post. **Vote FS** ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/642 "2009-10-01T19:30:33Z")
**Oredigger** , you seem to be assuming I’m town in all this. Which, of course, I am, but I’m not sure how you can know that. This vote analysis is great, but it’s one I didn’t expect to see until after I’m dead. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/643 "2009-10-01T19:33:38Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > Oh, uh, sorry. I debated whether that would be taken as funny. > > Ped, please make up a better nickname for Jimmy than I did…please? No apology necessary, it’s my fault. I wasn’t really offended, just kidding around. Shitblood it shall be! ---
**Author:** ![jpei](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a3d4f5/32.png) [@jpei](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jpei)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/644 "2009-10-01T19:50:06Z")
> [@Gryff](#): > > Taking some numbers out of my a.. hat, lets say we have 20 players, 5 of which are scum, 2 of which are doctors and 13 are cops (short game 😉 ). Taking each lynch attempt in a metaphorical vacuum, if you were to attempt to lynch each of the scum and doctors and chart their claims, it is likely you would get 7 claims of doctor. 5 to 2 odds that a doctor is in fact scum there. So not any given claim (a phrase you used when confused by my examples earlier), but any doctor claim in such a situation is more likely scum than doctor. > [@Gryff](#): > > If we move onto another target every time we get a power claim all it means is that eventually we get to a vanilla, or weak power role we are willing to hang. This is almost certainly going to be a honest town person as any scum we managed to get through luck or good detective work will just claim Doctor, Cop or Role Blocker. I know the doctor is “the” canonical role, but this calculation sounds off. You’re restricting yourself to simply a roleclaimed doctor. If you based it off the same assumptions as you did in your previous post and each scum each RNG’d to see which role would be claimed, you would have a 5:6 odds a claimed doctor is scum, 5:39 odds a claimed cop is scum, and 1:0 odds a claimed roleblocker is scum. Sure, this example was contrived, but _cranks out random numbers_ I’d set an upper bound on the scum:doc/cop/roleblocker ratio of at most 2:1 for a game this size. I haven’t posted much as I’ve been busy, but I’ll crank out something more substantial when I get back tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/645 "2009-10-01T19:51:03Z")
**Hey Mods, I voted for Boozy way back in post 536!** ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/646 "2009-10-01T19:57:39Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **Oredigger** , you seem to be assuming I’m town in all this. Which, of course, I am, but I’m not sure how you can know that. This vote analysis is great, but it’s one I didn’t expect to see until after I’m dead. No, I’m not assuming you’re town as much as I think scum were pushing a bandwagon. Originally I thought it was to save a scummy Peeker, which is might have been. While it is possible that you’re scum that was being thrown under the bus I really don’t care. There isn’t a case against you that I think is worth a vote but I think the bandwagon jumpers are scummy independent of your role. Think of it this way. I saw an activity that I thought was scummy, your bandwagon, and decided that it was because of X, in this case saving Peeker, now just because I attributed the reason wrong, possibly, doesn’t mean that the original action wasn’t scummy. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/647 "2009-10-01T19:59:40Z")
> [@jpei](#): > > I know the doctor is “the” canonical role, but this calculation sounds off. You’re restricting yourself to simply a roleclaimed doctor. If you based it off the same assumptions as you did in your previous post and each scum each RNG’d to see which role would be claimed, you would have a 5:6 odds a claimed doctor is scum, 5:39 odds a claimed cop is scum, and 1:0 odds a claimed roleblocker is scum. Sure, this example was contrived, but _cranks out random numbers_ I’d set an upper bound on the scum:doc/cop/roleblocker ratio of at most 2:1 for a game this size. > > I haven’t posted much as I’ve been busy, but I’ll crank out something more substantial when I get back tonight. I’ve read this five times and I still don’t get it. Can you explain it for the English majors among us, please? Also, did you realize you’re tied for the lead right now? ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/648 "2009-10-01T20:07:37Z")
> [@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. I think it is true that respecting claims makes it much more likely that we will lynch Town on Day One, but that doesn’t mean we have accomplished nothing; if the claimee was scum, we have forced him into making a claim which can then be tested. The game isn’t won or lost on Day One. Moreover, since Day One cases are, pretty much by definition, usually very flimsy and circumstantial, “checking our reasons and facts more closely” will usually lead us to logically conclude that the difference in our level of suspicion between Target #1 and Target #2 is trivial. On subsequent Days, this equation gradually changes, until by the time we get to LyLo, all claims should be basically ignored. Someone (I think you) posited a hypothetical above, something like “If we get to LyLo with no more information than we had on Day One”…well, then we’re screwed. Basically, the whole point of the game for Town is to NOT let things get to that point. So, specifically with regard to **peeker** , I think he’s the scummiest-looking person in the game, but I strongly oppose lynching him toDay, to the point where I’m quite suspicious of those advocating same. If we lynch him today, the worst case scenario is that we have killed a Doc. If we wait a few Days, several things could potentially happen which are good for Town: he could be confirmed (one way or the other) by a Cop or otherwise, he could block a nightkill (a net gain for Town, even if we do still end up mislynching him), he could be nightkilled himself (bad for Town, but at least we didn’t waste a lynch on him). The worst case scenario is that we wait a few Days and then mislynch him. So, by waiting, we give good things a chance to happen, and don’t increase the chance of bad things happening (unless, I guess, he is a scum power role). The caveat is that we do need to remember to keep an eye on him and not forget that we were ever suspicious of him; but I don’t think we should vote today based on the assumption that we are going to be that stupid, because if that assumption is true, we’re screwed anyway. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/649 "2009-10-01T20:07:54Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Yeah, apart from some minor speculation on why OaOW was ineligible, he hasn’t commented on anything at all except his decision not to vote. I don’t like LtL and really dislike Lynch the Noob, and with 24 players this thread is moving ridiculously fast, but **jpei** definitely deserves some heat. > > I’d also like to hear a bit more from **amrussell** , **USCDiver** , **OaOW** , and **TexCat**. What would you like to hear? My vote is going to stay on jpei, barring some glaring scum mistake. I am not sure what to think about peeker’s doc claim. Claimed docs are harder for scum to kill, but not much more useful than vanilla townies, however, since they are almost forced to protect themselves every night. So the argument that we can’t afford to lose a doc doesn’t seem to hold that much weight. All of this irrelevant to me for the moment, of course, since I never voted peeker. I am also not sure what to make of your vote on me. You say above that you think jpei deserves some heat, but you don’t like my vote on him? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/650 "2009-10-01T20:13:28Z")
Quoth **Normal Phase** : > [@](#): > > Chronos, will you acknowledge that there may be situations in which a full claim by a Town power role benefits Scum more than Town? When compared with a partial claim? I can’t think of any offhand, honestly. Scum just needs to know the “who”, not the “what”. Quoth **Alka Seltzer** : > [@](#): > > @Chronos - Which player is most likely to be scum in your opinion? I don’t object to your position on OaOW’s soft claim, but I don’t like the fact you are still pursuing a policy lynch that town has rejected. I would have thought my vote made that clear: I think that, given the information I have, **Wanderers** has a higher probability of being Scum than any other player (though still not all that high, this being Day 1). I also have suspicions of **peeker** and **Drain Bead** , for reasons elaborated by others, but those are based on subjective assessments, and I don’t trust myself on subjective decisions. And could I ask **AllWalker** for the reasoning behind his vote for me? Even if he’s just using the same case against me as, say, **Drain Bead** , I’d like him to say so. I’m surprised nobody else (other than **Guiri** ) questioned him on that-- The vote of a Leader should be subjected to a little extra scrutiny, and it’s not like **AllWalker** to cast a vote without explaining why (especially not a set-in-stone vote). On other matters: I do think that **peeker** ’s claim, when he made it, is a bit fishy, and I certainly don’t think that a Doctor claim should _always_ be a get-out-of-jail-free card. But on Day 1, we probably should accept it provisionally: If he is Scum, there’ll be plenty of time to catch him later, but if he’s really a Doctor, we’re losing a lot by killing him. Further, even if this policy does increase the chance of a Day 1 mislynch, is that necessarily a big deal? Assuming about 1/4 of the players are Scum, and that there’s only a small amount of active Scummy vote-skewing, the base odds of a Day 1 mislynch are probably around 80-85%. If we accept Day 1 Doctor claims, then that might go up to around 90-95%. It’s not like we’d be guaranteed of nabbing Scum if we ignored all Doctor claims; the odds are already pretty high for a mislynch, and only get slightly higher. (here’s hoping I have all my paragraphs in the right order-- I somehow got them scrambled when composing this post) ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/651 "2009-10-01T20:13:41Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Claimed docs are harder for scum to kill, but not much more useful than vanilla townies, however, since they are almost forced to protect themselves every night. Very quick and dirty post here before I head home to disagree with this. This early, a claimed doc is what you say it is. Where it becomes vitally important is when another major power role claims. The scum then have to play the WIFOM game to determine if they’ll kill the doc, the other role (usually a confirmed Mason or Cop), or someone else, based on who they think the doc will be protecting. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/652 "2009-10-01T20:20:40Z")
(Crap, that was a lot of posts at once, making a lot of the following a little behind the conversation). I believe that **jpei** is making a different point than the one **Gryff** was. > [@](#): > > I know the doctor is “the” canonical role, but this calculation sounds off. You’re restricting yourself to simply a roleclaimed doctor. If you based it off the same assumptions as you did in your previous post and each scum each RNG’d to see which role would be claimed, you would have a 5:6 odds a claimed doctor is scum, 5:39 odds a claimed cop is scum, and 1:0 odds a claimed roleblocker is scum. Sure, this example was contrived, but _cranks out random numbers_ I’d set an upper bound on the scum:doc/cop/roleblocker ratio of at most 2:1 for a game this size. The point, though, is that the scum wouldn’t be RNGing at all. Assume the first person up on the chopping block claims Doc. If we assume that 1. the actual Doc would claim Doc, 2. no other town player would claim Doc and 3. the scum are all going to claim Doc, which is what **Gryff** ’s assumptions were, the chances that you’ve got an actual doc on the hook is (number of Docs)/(number of Docs)+(number of Scum). Discounting third parties, that is. That’s the situation we’re in now. We have exactly one claim of Doc to analyze, and we might expect that every scum would claim Doc in this situation. If we’re taking it purely on probability, **Gryff’s** calculation was right for the situation. All that said, I’m with **Thing Fish** and **Chronos**. **peeker** has already tipped his hand. All we have to do is not forget about him. For Day 1, where it seems the question tends to be how much of its own face does Town shoot off, I dislike the idea of lynching him. To be very clear, though, I think that his claim is a lie. Since we can’t be sure, it is sufficient from my point of view that we’ve forced him into the corner he’s presently in. Failure to lynch him doesn’t mean we haven’t gotten anywhere. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/653 "2009-10-01T20:23:20Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Very quick and dirty post here before I head home to disagree with this. This early, a claimed doc is what you say it is. Where it becomes vitally important is when another major power role claims. The scum then have to play the WIFOM game to determine if they’ll kill the doc, the other role (usually a confirmed Mason or Cop), or someone else, based on who they think the doc will be protecting. Or I suppose they could assume the doc will protect himself and he doesn’t and manages to protect whom they’re targeting. I guess it depends on luck. ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/654 "2009-10-01T20:29:05Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > **Hey Mods, I voted for Boozy way back in post 536!** I was willing to forget it. But if you’re going to be this way about it… ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/655 "2009-10-01T20:52:01Z")
Gosh, I love a nice long Day One. Unfortunately I’ve been out the office concurrently with my home PC dying, so I’ve had a lot of catching up to do. To review the bidding: **Drain Bead** : This was my case originally. Reading back over all that’s been said on it, I’m still torn. On the one hand, it’s been explained, and others have agreed, that what I thought was a reversal re. Chronos can in fact be read as completely self-consistent. Also, Drain Bead did claim town and did say that everyone should. On the other hand, I still don’t like the vehemence of her opposition to the idea, or her claim that it would help scum by outing a second scum group. I particularly don’t like her claim that she was actively encouraging people to participate, when the whole tone of her posts reads much more as “it’s a stupid idea, but I suppose you might as well if you insist on wasting your time.” **Peeker** : I thought his original case against Tom was beyond weak; while I don’t necessarily believe the claim (and the careful use of the indefinite article smacks as much of pre-emptive defense as it does of a due regard for the careful use of language) I’m not prepared to risk offing the Doc. If he’s not lynched, he’ll be under a lot of scrutiny. **jpei** : It’s never good to not vote. However, the explanation sounded to me more like someone who’d honestly struggled to pick a leader and didn’t realise the importance of voting than of scum trying to… what exactly? So much for the vote leaders. Who else? ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/656 "2009-10-01T21:21:03Z")
**amrussell** , I think the tone I was going for was “I think this was all a really silly idea to discuss in the first place, but since that train’s left the station, here’s how we make the best of it.” I can see how you can get that my overall tone was negative about it, since it sort of was, but it was never negative about the fact that we should all claim. And since most of the early votes on me were due to my “reluctance to claim,” you can see how I might have gotten a bit upset about it. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/657 "2009-10-01T21:24:13Z")
Well, I actually find myself agreeing with DB about CIAS’s vote on her: > [@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. > > **vote Drain Bead** What rings false about this is the concern CIAS is showing for his reputation. His problem is that DB’s casual “everyone” overlooks his own stance. We’re all keen that we’re not misrepresented, but as this is one of only 12 posts since the beginning of the thread, it seems to have been a \*\*really \*\*important point to make. It gives me the feeling that he’s reading the game with the primary concern of monitoring how he’s coming across, and making sure that no-one’s saying anything untoward about him, or attributing anything to him without cause. Rather than, for example, catching scum. Above and beyond that, it’s a pretty weak reason to vote. Yes, using the word “everyone” smacked a little of lése-majesté, but as no-one was attacking DB or anyone else for the assumptions they made about Peeker’s claim, it seems very odd to leap in saying that this was clearly an attempt to “backtrack”. Backtrack from what? No-one was blaming anyone for not understanding Peeker’s wording, so why would anyone be on the defensive? What else do we have? Working backwards: Discussion on peeker, as advertised: > [@CatInASuit](#): > > Ok, I took this to mean he was claiming Doc, but because it is closed setup he can’t comment on any other roles that may or may not exist. > > If he had said THE doc, that would imply extra knowledge of roles. > > Then again, it could just be peekercpa’s wording. Some comment on strategy: > [@CatInASuit](#): > > Wow, this game is moving on quickly. > > Ok, so we have a pair of claims from Drain Bead and peekercpa and a suggestion of how to play out the rest of today. I don’t agree with Drain Bead’s suggestions for Night time actions. Leave it to the power roles themselves should they exist. > > I’ve looked back over peeker’s posts but can’t find him referencing multiple docs, can you show where it is, my peeker decoder is on the fritz. Some strategy thoughts on the leader: > [@CatInASuit](#): > > Before I go back over the latest posts, I few thoughts on the Leader role as it is definitely anti-town. > > If a town person is leader, it actually fixes one of the votes that can be placed 24 hours before the end. Consider that if pressure is applied to someone and they roleclaim just before the end, that is one vote that will not be shifted and one less we can move to find a different lynch victim. This means the scum has one less person to deal with if they need to swing the vote. > > If a scum or PFK is leader, it will hide their vote pattern and seeing as we unlikely to allow a vote tie at the end of Day, they are unlikely to be forced to make a decision. And, going further back, just some comments about timing of the Day, and a one-liner advising OAOW not to claim. This is all very innoccuous. The one post that has any claim to be scum-hunting, which is our job, is the weak vote on DB. I’m prepared to believe that CIAS felt he needed to vote, and picked the first thing that jumped out at him. As he said, “that’s good enough for me at the mo”. But it looks like getting A vote in was the priority, rather than digging around to find scum. In the interests of getting a response on this, and because I’m losing confidence in my DB vote, I will: **unvote Drain Bead** **Vote CatInASuit** ---
**Author:** ![jpei](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a3d4f5/32.png) [@jpei](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jpei)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/658 "2009-10-01T21:52:01Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > If we assume that 1. the actual Doc would claim Doc, 2. no other town player would claim Doc and 3. the scum are all going to claim Doc, which is what **Gryff** ’s assumptions were, the chances that you’ve got an actual doc on the hook is (number of Docs)/(number of Docs)+(number of Scum). Discounting third parties, that is. > [@Gryff](#): > > I just think we should not **automatically** move when someone claims doctor (for example). > [@Gryff](#): > > 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? Yes, under that assumption, the analysis is correct on all counts. I would not have brought it up except: 1. I think this assumption is strong, although I wouldn’t have experience in this field. 2. It contradicts the assumption Gryff made in the post I quoted earlier and the two above. It’s inconsistent to suppose all mafia would roleclaim doctor but still advocate lynching claimed cops and roleblockers. Let’s assume peeker is scum. Just because he claims doc doesn’t mean he could not have potentially claimed something else, and every chance he may have claimed something else decreases the likelihood that a doc roleclaim is scum. Now, I don’t find a 1/3:1/3:1/3 split realistic either, but I should hope it’s more realistic than a 1:0:0 split. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > I’ve read this five times and I still don’t get it. Can you explain it for the English majors among us, please? Now it’s my turn to make up random numbers. Suppose that in this game peeker is one of six scum, and there are two of each of the roles: doctor, cop, and roleblocker. Further assume that only these twelve would claim one of these roles and that town is honest. If scum would always claim doctor, then Gryff’s analysis would be accurate. However let’s suppose a scum were equally likely to claim either doctor, cop, or roleblocker. This leads to three parallel universes, one in which peeker claims doctor, one in which peeker claims cop, and one in which peeker claims roleblocker. Using Gryff’s assessment after the fact, we would conclude for each role that there is a 6/8 chance the claimed role was scum. On average, however, only two mafia would claim for each role, so there is only a 2/4 chance the claimed role was scum. “Equally likely” is a tough assumption, but if it were skewed so much, Gryff would have little reason to advocate lynching other claimed roles as well. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/659 "2009-10-01T21:56:11Z")
Vote Count: jpeg (5): OAoW, TxtKitty, Alkaseltzer, DaffyBlk, GuyinSpain The One and Only(1): Da’Chronic Pecear(2): Gruff, Boozy, The Dread Bean (5): amrussett, Abnormal Phase, Freudian Skit, UPSDriver, KittySoot M.C. Billy(3): Pecear, JiminiyShitblood, Brainbleed Da’Chronic(1): AllWalker(leader) TxtKitty(1): Scudmissile Boozy(2): MCBilly, FishThingy Freudulan Slit (1): Arr!Digger77 > [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Hey Mods, I voted for Boozy way back in post 536!\*\*[/COLOR] Fixed ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/660 "2009-10-01T21:59:30Z")
**amrussell** unvoted me and voted **CIAS**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938.md?page=34)