# 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:** 70
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1381 "2009-10-13T18:27:02Z")
> [@Gryff](#): > > Anyone else who acted as if they knew about it must be the scumster. Pre-emptively: I was speculating, dammit. ---
**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 13, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1382 "2009-10-13T18:37:10Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > My thinking was that if **Daphne** pops up Scum, I become a lot closer to confirmed Town, which will make me a very likely target to be killed. If **Daphne** comes up Town, _everyone_ will want me dead. 😉 Except IIRC you were talking about Scum (and a few Town) trying to get you lynched as early as last Night, long before you questioned **Daphne**. ---
**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 13, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1383 "2009-10-13T18:50:43Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **Mods: Please can you PM the other inactive players. I think that’s USCDiver and Oredigger.** Taken care of already. ---
**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 13, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1384 "2009-10-13T19:13:54Z")
**Alka** , what, if anything, do you do with the berynium you collect? Does it just serve to identify the person you took it from as being one of your four, or can you use it for something after you’ve collected it? And do you find out anything about the person other than just that they had berynium? Meanwhile, another thought: I think there’s good evidence that at least one of **Daphne** , **Boozahol** , or **peeker** is lying. Both **Boozahol** and **peeker** have made claims that seem to indicate that they’d been blocked, but in different ways, and **Daphne** has claimed to be a roleblocker, but to have targeted neither. For all three to be true, it looks to me like we’d need at least three roleblockers in the game, each using a different flavor, and it doesn’t seem plausible to me that we’d have two differently-flavored blockers on the same side. ---
**Author:** ![Scuba\_Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Scuba\_Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scuba_Ben)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1385 "2009-10-13T19:14:16Z")
(Distracted by work, at least my partial post wasn’t lost) It’s possible, **Guiri**. [del]When we get to page 29 (which won’t be long now), would someone please post a summary of role claims and role-claim supports? (Ex. Boozy claimed in 1370, Alka supported the claim in 1374.) This list may help us figure out which [/del] **Tom** , were you reading my mind? Since you were, thanks very much for the list! It seems clear to me that **Boozy** and **Alka** are on the same side; **Gryff** is probably on the same side. Just as a thought, confirming Alka as Town (or not) could give us a nucleus of Confirmed Townies. I defer to any non-limited investigator’s own judgment as to (1) when & whether to do this, and (2) when and whether to say so. Meanwhile, I still haven’t caught up, and I still don’t have a better person to try and lynch. But it does occur to me as I type this that if Daphne did indeed block FS, we have no indication that this disrupted a kill. How likely is it that we have three killing roles plus Scum? (And I’m somewhat aware that role-blocking Scum doesn’t have to be a 100% definite blocking of their Night-kill.) ---
**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 13, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1386 "2009-10-13T19:30:02Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > WIFOM moment… Could Alka and Boozy have set this up? You know, the Scum can Day-strategize, so this isn’t outside of the realm of possibility. It would be one hell of a risky gambit, because it involves exposing **Alka Seltzer** as Scum as well. What’s funny is that I had been planning, prior to this development, to examine **Alka Seltzer** ’s role in my bandwagon as well and see if I could hash out what I thought of him–I was leaning toward him being another Scum but couldn’t articulate why, which is never a good thing. Either I’m a damned genius, or the worst Scum-finder in the known universe. I’m leaning toward the latter at this point. Really, what are the odds? Chances are that what was pinging me was not scummitude, but an undertone of additional knowledge, which it turned out he probably had. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Except IIRC you were talking about Scum (and a few Town) trying to get you lynched as early as last Night, long before you questioned **Daphne**. Well, clearly I think that Scum will be trying to get me lynched–I’m an easy target and I’m Town. My bandwagon, if it eventually occurs, will probably have some scum on it along with Town. Obviously the Scum can’t get me lynched by themselves, but they might be pushing it, or waiting for the opportune moment to pile-on. In the end, isn’t scum trying to get every Town member lynched that they aren’t trying to NK? **unvote** Currently not revoting at the moment. Will probably revote **Daphne** , but I’m a bit shaken at the moment and want some time to think it over. ---
**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 13, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1387 "2009-10-13T19:31:29Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Meanwhile, another thought: I think there’s good evidence that at least one of **Daphne** , **Boozahol** , or **peeker** is lying. Both **Boozahol** and **peeker** have made claims that seem to indicate that they’d been blocked, but in different ways, and **Daphne** has claimed to be a roleblocker, but to have targeted neither. For all three to be true, it looks to me like we’d need at least three roleblockers in the game, each using a different flavor, and it doesn’t seem plausible to me that we’d have two differently-flavored blockers on the same side. My power didn’t function. That doesn’t mean it was blocked. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1388 "2009-10-13T19:45:37Z")
Thanks Mahaloth. > [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > WIFOM moment… Could Alka and Boozy have set this up? If one of us flips that will rule out that possibility. I did breadcrumb my role, after jpei claimed I said it would be a bad idea to lynch him because his role might be confirmable. > [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Incidentally, I’m not sure that we can consider **Boozy** 100% confirmed: if **Alka Seltzer** was given the other players’ titles in his role PM, why couldn’t the Head Screamer? If that’s the case, Boozy can be counter-claimed or outed when the real MRM flips. It’s difficult to 100% confirm players in a closed setup, but I’d say the chance Boozy is scum is very small. If he isn’t town, the information in my role PM is very misleading, and this isn’t a gastard game. I’ll be treating him as town until I have a reason not to. I’m quite liking amrussel’s case against Thing Fish, and she looks slightly worse now we know Boozy is town. I’ll also take another look at the reactions after jpei claimed, and discussion at the beginning of the day. > [@Gryff](#): > > Anyone else who acted as if they knew about it must be the scumster. Presumably, the Head Screamer will have passed the bernyium info to the rest of the scum team, so any of them may have reacted. > [@Chronos](#): > > **Alka** , what, if anything, do you do with the berynium you collect? Does it just serve to identify the person you took it from as being one of your four, or can you use it for something after you’ve collected it? And do you find out anything about the person other than just that they had berynium? I PM’ed the mods about this before the game started. I just get told whether a player has bernyium or not, I don’t know whose cache I’ve uncovered. That’s pretty irrelevant now, as it looks like all of the town bernyium is accounted for. I can’t do anything with the bernyium. One other bit of info I have, once I collect bernyium I stash it, so players don’t get it back if I die. ---
**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 13, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1389 "2009-10-13T20:40:45Z")
If I wasn’t allowed to change my vote, I’d totally vote then unvote you for being a dirty rotten sneak-thief IRS agent, Alka. ---
**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 13, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1390 "2009-10-13T20:43:12Z")
Quoth **Boozahol** : > [@](#): > > My power didn’t function. That doesn’t mean it was blocked. I know that you want to keep your claim soft (even though I think it was an anti-Town move), but will you at least say whether your wonderful mysterious power admits of some other explanation for why it might fail? And yes, I know you said that there’s only a limited set of circumstances under which a power-role should full-claim, and that’s true, but guess what? Those are the same limited set of circumstances under which a power-role should soft-claim. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1391 "2009-10-13T20:53:29Z")
WoW on Thing Fish: 210: Elects AllWalker; speculates why OaOW isn’t eligible; argues for 5-day Days 274: OaOW should not claim, he is most likely scum target; AllWalker should make decision as to Day’s end 275: Scum might kill someone else because OaOW might be protected 330: OaOW shouldn’t be considered soft claim 341: “Would one of you scum please do something scummy? Thanks!” (no one yet looks scummy enough to vote) - also links post count page. 423: Votes are bandwagony. Votes peeker to break up bandwagon, says might vote DB later. 519: Unvotes peeker for claim; still suspicious. Considers DB wagon to be suspicious. 535: Queries Chronos over OaOW vote; considers OreDigger suspicious; defends contradiction between 423 (“will consider DB case”) and 519 (“DB wagon looks scummy”) 536: votes Boozy for 2 minute vote change 537: considers OreDigger case unlikely; why would Digger draw attention to self? 538: “OK, although I’ve expressed grave doubts about peeker’s claim, I absolutely think we should categorically rule out lynching a claimed Doc on Day One!” (responding to AllWalker) 550: pushes Boozy on 2-minute vote. “That time frame seems much less suggestive of thinking ‘who is making the most well reasoned case?’ and more consonant with ‘who can I get lynched who isn’t one of my scumbuddies?’” 551, 647: fluff 650: argues case for not lynching claimed doc on Day 1. 667: Explains Lynch all Liars to tiltawhirl 694: doesn’t think peeker giving role name/other color serves any Town purpose 696: queries jpei’s towniness (post-jpei claim) 698: says jpei should have claimed first, given time to react before using power. 801: Pushes boozy case, for 2-minute-vote reasons plus soft claim 803: fluff 849: reacts to jpei post; “Jpei seems to have some sort of connection with Boozy, which doesn’t mean, in my eyes, that either of them are any more likely to be Town.” 861: On peeker vig: “Another possibility would be that we have another Doc who is protecting peeker (this would be, IMO, poor play, but can’t be ruled out), so his surviving a Vig doesn’t even totally confirm him as a Doc, and to give us even that limited information, the Vig would have to out himself.” 862: accuses gueri of smudging Chronos 868: Downgrades “smudge” to “overly aggressive” 926, 943: fluff 950: review of voting: DB wagon still looks scummy; probably scum in Bill wagon, but hard to tell. 996: Elects Tom Scud. Still suspects Boozy; all town knows is that he had berynium, not nec. that he was town. 1052: reiterates suspicion of peeker over “A” claim 1053: “Noted that there appears to be a correlation between being willing to trust Boozy and being willing to jump relatively late onto the BillMC bandwagon” (pointing at Daphne, AllWalker, and tiltawhirl) 1093: re-reiterates suspicion of peeker, quoting Chronos. 1094: “Hey Mods, was berynium found on jpei’s body?” 1096: accuses Daphne of shifting bandwagons, wonders if she was trying to save peeker 1132: “I just noticed it as an interesting fact, not as a huge scumtell or anything.” also “Also noted on vote review: The three people who voted for both confirmed Townies jpei and BillMC at some time: Alka Seltzer, Daphne Black, and AllWalker. Alka and Daphne also had votes on Drain Bead at some point.” also “looking over Scummy Chitwood’s behavior vis-a-vis peeker, I must agree with those who have said that if this was scum strategy, it was very subtle!” 1217: Endorses Drain’s case against Daphne; votes Daphne. Accuses Alka of bandwagon-hopping, but doesn’t think he’s all that scummy. 1250: says Daphne claimed early 1251: unvotes Daphne, votes Boozy 1267: Discusses his “Daphne was trying to save peeker” idea; justifies voting on Boozy due to 2-minute switch, pursuit of peeker, Jimmy’s defense. Not much here to add to **amrussell’s** case, although the combination of 1053 and 1132 sure looks passive-aggressive and smudgy to me. Also, note that 2 of the 3 people mentioned in 1132 (Alka and Daphne) are the 2 Catinasuit pointed at as probable townies in his WoW on Jimmy. Also also, pushing on Daphne and then jumping on the wagon in the #2 slot rather than casting the first vote looks pretty suspect. In fact. **unvote cat** **vote Thingy** ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1392 "2009-10-13T21:09:35Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I can’t do anything with the bernyium. /snipped What? No Universal Health Care? No Olympic host city application? 2 things: - **Megacorp** raised my suspicions, I remembered NEB and the Alliance but re-reading the opening color we’re told we’re in a different location and work for another industry giant so I guess Megacorp checks out so that’s a plus for **Alka** ’s claim.. - Is it so hard to spell _berynium_? (Is that the way it’s spelled?) If your PM mentions the shiny stuff 2, 3 or 4 times, wouldn’t you spell it correctly at least once? That’s a negative for the claim. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > If one of us flips that will rule out that possibility. /snipped We may well have to do this test toMorrow… Now it seems we have around 12, if not more, power roles among 24 players. As this is not a gastards game, does that sound over-powered to you people? ---
**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 13, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1393 "2009-10-13T21:36:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Boozahol** :I know that you want to keep your claim soft (even though I think it was an anti-Town move), but will you at least say whether your wonderful mysterious power admits of some other explanation for why it might fail? > > And yes, I know you said that there’s only a limited set of circumstances under which a power-role should full-claim, and that’s true, but guess what? Those are the same limited set of circumstances under which a power-role should soft-claim. We’re just going to have to disagree on this. Unless you think that both \*\*Alka \*\*and I have conspired this whole thing as a way of confirming me as town at the risk of exposing him as scum when I die, I should be confirmed Town. If my powers lead me to having information that is necessary to the town, I’ll share. Otherwise, I don’t see any reason to let the scum in on the information party. ---
**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 13, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1394 "2009-10-13T21:38:00Z")
NETA: Sorry, I didn’t respond to the question there. There is a particularly good reason why my power didn’t work, which doesn’t require the actions of a blocker. ---
**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 13, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1395 "2009-10-13T21:52:25Z")
**Alka** ’s claim is certainly a strong point in your favor, and if he ends up being proven Town, then I’ll trust you completely. But I still think your partial claim is poor Town play. But thank you for answering the question: That does, then, leave open the possibility that **Daphne** and **peeker** are both telling the truth. Oh, and what’s the current status of the end-of-Day? ---
**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 13, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1396 "2009-10-13T21:52:52Z")
I think I lost a post in there somewhere. Bah. Anyway: **vote Drain Bead** : Same stuff as yesterday, which I have not changed my opinion on. Plus examination of **Jimmy Chitwood** ’s post regarding her and her response. 345 – original post I had a problem with > [@](#): > > This lie-detector thing seems like it’s adding unnecessary noise. If it works by only being able to detect actual lies related to alignment, it’ll only be helpful if we all participate in stating our alignment. Ontherwise the scum can hide in the non-zero amount of townies who claim nothing. And seeing as we don’t even know if we have a lie detector, and if we do, his or her talents will eventually only be used to check actual role claims, this seems very premature. > > I’m a bit concerned with Chronos and what appears to be two attempts at role-fishing. He’s an experienced player and should know better. > > Vote Chronos > > (vote formatting on the phone is annoying!) I’ve already said as much as I can about this post. To me it reads not as “well, the mass alignment claim is great as long as everyone does it” (as DB later likes to characterize it) bur rather as “let’s not do this; it’s just noise, it’ll be a pain, isn’t likely to be effective, and oh yeah, the guy who suggested it might be Scum”. 395 – response to Alka Seltzer, who questioned post 345 but did not vote yet > [@](#): > > I stated my issues with this before. Basically, IF we have a lie detector, unless everyone participates in saying “I am town-aligned”, then the lie detector is only going to be checking people who are town-aligned, because the scum can hide in the number of townies who don’t participate. Meaning that saying “I am town-aligned” is damn near useless at this point. I think we should all do it, actually, if anyone is going to do it. So hey, lie detector we probably don’t have–I’m town-aligned too, and I will be viewing with suspicion anyone who doesn’t also say that. > > And this will create noise and really not be useful at all. > > Also, were you saying you were town-aligned there, or were you saying “This problem can be dealt with my stating I am town aligned”? There’s a difference. > > (ship question from **AS** about how was **Chronos** role-fishing) > > Fishing for the lie detector, if there is one, or more likely, fishing for the few people confident enough in their towniness to come out and say that they’re town-aligned. If he’s scum and there are people who do not participate who are not his scum teammates, he may be able to flesh out PFKs or maybe another scum team that way. Here’s one post she refers back to when claiming to have always been in support of a full mass alignment claim, and that her only objections were issues related to lack of full compliance. There are other problems with it, though. She still warns that the alignment claim could turn out to be just noise. She includes the baffling phrase “few people confident enough in their Towniness”, as if any Town player without a fatal case of the paranoids should have any difficulty with the concept of being Town. And she’s still poisoning the well by looking for reasons why a hypothetical Scum **Chronos** might be advantaged by a mass alignment claim. 398 – should have just been clearer in my first post on the subject 402 – In response to Oredigger. First part snipped, has to do with role-fishing, which doesn’t interest me as much as her responses to the alignment claim question. > [@](#): > > If we don’t all do it, the scum, if they’re smart, will go ahead and say “I am town-aligned.” It’s not impossible, but unlikely, that we have a lie detector in this game. It is much more likely that we have a Cop of some sort. The Cop might be very thankful for the smaller group of investigative targets, and spend their time investigating lazy or distrustful townies, while the scum hides in the group of people who claim town alignment, distracting the Cop. All of this is more noise. We should just all come out and say we’re town-aligned, get it over with, and not distract potential Cops and Lie Detectors. The problem is that it’ll be really tough to get 24 people to agree on doing this–which is what I think Chronos was banking on. Now, forcing all the Scum to claim a false alignment is somehow a bad thing? Okay, that wasn’t fair. Clearly by this point she is pushing hard for the idea that everyone should claim. However, she’s still emphasizing how hard it will be, and she’s still pushing the idea that someone scummy wanted it to happen. 416 is all about Chronos, as is 418 – she thinks Chronos has made it easier for Scum to find third parties or a second scum team than it would be for Town to find them. 428, in response to Gryff > [@](#): > > No, I’m making a guess based on the size of the game. If there’s only one killing group, with uncontrolled day endings we’ll be here until next spring. And my whole point is that everyone will NOT say their alignment–some will remain silent on it. If everyone states their alignment it will turn our hypothetical lie detector into another Cop and make us stronger, if that role exists. And if it doesn’t, well, it’s thread noise, but at least it won’t mislead a true investigative role. Still arguing that some will stay silent, despite all evidence to the contrary (at least, claims continue to trickle in throughout this whole discussion, and in the end, everyone did claim with basically zero fuss other than the **Drain Bead** bandwagon). The accusations against **Chronos** mostly disappear here, though. 435 [spoiler] > [@](#): > > Those who have posted a statement on their alignment, in order (hopefully I didn’t miss any): > > Chronos > Thing Fish > Tom Scud > AllWalker > OAOW > Alka Seltzer > CIAS > amrussell (the first to vote for me, on my “reluctance” to make the explicit claim) > Normal Phase (again, voting for me on my “open reluctance” to claim town) > DaphneBlack > Freudian Slit > jpei > Gryff > > Big fat FOS to anyone who isn’t on this list. But there’s something else I wanted to point out. > > Here’s my first comment on the Lie Detector issue, emphasis mine: > > > [@](#): > > > > This lie-detector thing seems like it’s adding unnecessary noise. If it works by only being able to detect actual lies related to alignment, it’ll only be helpful if we all participate in stating our alignment. > > So clearly I think that EVERYONE should be claiming, and am not “reluctant” to do so. That was my last post of that day, and I didn’t post again until I came back from lunch the following day and saw a bandwagon beginning based on my “open reluctance” to claim town. Given my initial comment, I’m not sure how anyone can suggest that I was reluctant to claim town. Once it started happening, I was pretty clear on the fact that I thought the only way it would be helpful is if we ALL did it. I thought it was a big distraction and probably not very useful unless a limited role was in play AND we all gave them the power to be a Cop instead of a limited lie detector. In no way is that reluctance to claim town–in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Just because I did not claim town in that one post is not reason enough for those first two votes on me, IMO. I clearly had no problem doing so, and in fact was encouraging everyone else to do it too! This post really annoyed me. Drain Bead, if annoyance is still coming though in how I respond to you (and I’m sure it is), this post is why. After this, there was no way I could take what you said at face value. Almost everything about that original post #345 that I found objectionable has been snipped in the embedded quote, leaving only the part that could be read – in isolation – as encouraging of a particular course of action as regards the alignment claims, rather than as discouraging of the whole business. Further, you start here a pattern of smudging everyone left on your bandwagon at any given time, on the basis of having blatantly ignored your obvious meaning. It wasn’t obvious at all, even if it was meant the way you say it was, (and I think it wasn’t). You never acknowledge that. 436 & 438 [spoiler] > [@](#): > > And to add a bit–my initial post was directly after Tom Scud made his statement about town alignment, so pretty early in the whole shebang. > > Also, I missed Jimmy Chitwood, who should fall after CIAS in that list. So in between my first post on the issue and the first vote coming down for me for “reluctance,” only 5 other people claimed. By the time I came back to the thread to post again, Normal Phase had also claimed, making it six. I also noticed that Normal Phase said this in the very long post that ended up voting for me: > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m curious what you see as the downside to a simple “yeah I’m also Town” from everyone > > I wonder, did he even read the initial post I made before jumping on my bandwagon? > [@](#): > > And for having the nads to quote a post in which I said that I think everyone should claim town, and then asking me why I have a problem with everyone claiming town in order to jump on my bandwagon, I’m gonna… > > unvote Chronos > vote Normal Phase No comment.[/spoiler] 440 > [@](#): > > > [@FS](#): > > > > I think it’s silly to FOS anyone not on that list. I mean, we don’t even know that there is this lie detector thing. It’s like just making something up and being all huffy that no one else cares about it. > > Which is why I initially called it noise. And it has created a gigantic distraction, and is causing you to mislynch. Fantastic idea, seeing as it’s a role that I’ve consistently stated is probably not even in the game. I see this, when combined with preceding and subsequent posts, as her still trying to have it both ways: It’s just noise and distraction, as evidenced by my mislynch; and I was right about that all along – but still, don’t say I was ever against the idea, because I wasn’t. The second paragraph of this post, which I snipped, would be a “fair-enough” catch of ColdPhoenix missing her alignment claim, except that as shown in subsequent posts, she herself missed a few out of her list. (442 has an excellent catch by **AllWalker** , which underlines some of the _ad hoc_\* nature of her arguments as I see them: > [@](#): > > But then, Drain Bead did say FOS to everyone who did not claim Town, which is odd in the face of saying that the Lie Detector discussion is just a giant distraction. ) 450 contains another assertion that there are Scum to be found in her bandwagon. 456 – claims vanilla Town, once again questions her bandwagon 461 – (after **Tom** counts that all but two have claimed) great we effectively have a second cop if there is a lie detector, again questions her bandwagon You know, I have no problem with this in concept. There are Scum in almost every bandwagon; it’s fruitful to try to root them out. But it’s self-serving to point this out over and over again (especially when directed broadcast as in these instances, as opposed to when aimed at a single suspicious person, like previously) when it’s your butt on the line. Whether it’s meant as such or not, it comes off as trying to bully townies out of voting for you, lest they be mistaken for Scum. I think I’ve harped on this enough, but the pattern continues all Day long and into Today, usually with the same thing (that she was self-evidently never against a mass alignment claim) as support. I read her pointing out that Scum will be prominent in any bandwagon against her in the future as part of the same thing. 463 – **Jimmy Chitwood** chimes in. Skipping the quotes and the part about amrussell’s first point, which I agree wasn’t the strongest, the post reads as follows: > [@](#): > > The second part of the case was the Lie Detector thing. I don’t think that there’s any reason not to give the LD a statement to work with, since it essentially deputizes the LD into a full role cop and that’s something we want. I have to admit, though, that I’m a very suspicious player in these games, and my initial thinking when Chronos said that was “He could be inviting an investigation because he knows he’ll trick the investigator.” I remember in the last game with a Lie Detector, there was concern that a Godfather might be able to trick the LD the same way he would trick an investigation. If somebody came right out and said “I’m Town, I should be investigated tonight so we can clear me,” that would be really suspicious, right? So I’m willing to give DB a little room there for healthy paranoia, personally, because it occurred to me. In the end, though, it’s probably reading too much of my own style into it, since that isn’t even what DB’s point was. > > The bulk of the discussion, it seems to me, has been about DB and giving the LD something to work with. I think that’s been hashed out to everybody’s satisfaction, and DB has given her reasons, like them or not. I really feel like everything else has been without much merit. > > Anyway, I started this summary in order to get my own thoughts straight about what’s going on here. I think my conclusion is that the hesitance to go along with the Lie Detector thing when others obviously were willing counts as anti-town enough to justify a day 1 vote, so if that’s why people feel she’s the prime candidate, I can see it. I also think it should be noted that point #1 in case #1 made against DB was a specious one, and we should be aware of that going forward, and scrutinize those who jumped on board with that analysis without much rigor. “I think that’s been hashed out to everybody’s satisfaction” Ha! Not to mine. But anyway. I think this counts as a defense, if a wishy-washy one. He gives **Drain Bead** ’s voters credit as regards a hesitance on her part to claim town alignment, which is in fact the major point against her. And I note that where DB herself laid responsibility and suspicion regarding her bandwagon mostly at the feet of the people who started it, Jimmy is going after the later bandwagoners, or at least any of them who may have voted based on amrussel’s first argument as opposed to her second one/mine. 465 – Going over this now, this post is the one that most convinces me that **Jimmy Chitwood** and **Drain Bead** are on the same team: > [@](#): > > You know, Jimmy, you just summed up everything that I find wrong about this lynch attempt much better than I could. Thanks. I’m sorry I initially missed you on my list. The problem with this comment is that Jimmy in fact did NOT address everything DB found wrong with the argument against her. Look at this quote by **Jimmy** : > [@](#): > > I think my conclusion is that the hesitance to go along with the Lie Detector thing when others obviously were willing counts as anti-town enough to justify a day 1 vote, so if that’s why people feel she’s the prime candidate, I can see it. Compare that to what DB has been saying all along, that there is NO WAY anyone should be voting for her on that basis, because she’s made it perfectly clear she was not reluctant at all, and that’s been obvious since the beginning. Why is she not going after **Jimmy** for reinforcing the one thing she’s been most focused on debunking since the beginning? I can think of two options, neither of which speaks well for her, and one of which is completely damning. 1. She didn’t even bother to read the post in full, hence missed the comment I just quoted. 2. She and **Jimmy** planned this defense in advance to set the groundwork for bailing her out. Hence **Jimmy** can’t really contest what he knows is the strongest evidence against her; and she can’t acknowledge that he didn’t. 485 (comes after **peeker** ’s claim) > [@](#): > > Well, hell. My intent in taking the fall today was to avoid something like this from happening–like I said, a vanilla mislynch is not the worst thing on Earth and there’s a lot we can learn from it. The drawback with people switching from me to someone else is that the someone else might be a higher-value target than my sorry sucky vanilla ass. > > That having been said, I am WIFOMing this like crazy. If you’re really a Doc, I think your claim was slightly premature–I think I’m still in the vote lead, although it’s always been close, and I suppose the tide might be turning a bit, but it hasn’t yet. Doc is one of the best fake claims for scum, because you will unsurprisingly not die at night and you can blame that on self-protecting or the scum choosing to kill someone else. A real doc will not want to come forward, especially in a closed setup where we could presumably have more than one, so a false Doc claim is unlikely to be exposed at this point except in the instance of your death. All in all, a win-win for scum to claim Doc at this point. If you were ahead in the vote count or there was less time in the Day, I’d have more faith in your claim. As is, right now it’s a coin toss in my mind. > > That having been said, I am absolutely not switching my vote to you, because if you’re telling the truth, it’s better that I die than you if it has to come down to the two of us, and if you’re not, you’ll be found out relatively quickly, I’m sure. Her intent in taking the fall today? At this point she hasn’t yet fallen on her sword and asked to die, so I’m not sure what she’s referring to – the idea must already be in her head, in any case. Guess the interval between the two posts was only about ten minutes. 488 – she falls on her sword > [@](#): > > Tell me if this idea is crazy. Lynch me, with NO ADDITIONAL VOTES on me from here on out except for the Leader (I don’t want scum hiding in a unanimous bandwagon, and I have enough votes on me to die currently). Then, we hope we have a town-aligned Vig. Clearly if peeker is a real doc, he’s going to be self-protecting toNight. A Vig is more likely to hit town than scum if they choose a target randomly, so aiming a Vigging at peeker toNight wouldn’t really hurt if he’s a self-protecting Doc, and would bag a scum or PFK-type if he isn’t. > > The only problem I see is if we don’t have a Vig, but I’m banking on the fact that we do in a game this large. Those who are defending **Drain Bead** on the basis that no Scum turned up to add to her bandwagon after this – why on earth would they, given she is still the clear leader, and she’s just asked for that not to happen? What would it accomplish Scum to add their votes at this point? IIRC this point has come up from more than one person, so odds are there is some logic behind it that isn’t unique to Scum, but I’m not seeing it. Any help? Anyway, besides falling on her sword, she’s the first person to suggest vigging **peeker** as a doctor-test. Which makes no sense in multiple ways, even if **Jimmy Chitwood** did say so himself. On the other hand, I’m having difficulty finding an unambiguous Scum motive, either. At this point she must still have believed she was quite likely to be lynched, in which case if she turned up Scum, people would be looking at this post assuming it was dishonest. I can’t disentangle the WIFOM here, so it’s probably just as well I think **peeker** is unlikely to be Scum for other reasons. I continued for a while after this, but there’s not really much new. I’ll address it if necessary, but I’m tired. ---
**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 13, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1397 "2009-10-13T23:34:59Z")
**Normal** , FWIW I don’t get those who defended me on the basis that I didn’t get bussed either. Shit, it’s what I asked for–why would Scum jump on me at that point? There was no benefit for anyone, Town or Scum, to vote for me after that point. I had the votes to be lynched. I’ve already addressed the rest of what you’ve said as best I could. Vote me or not, I don’t really care at this point. I don’t think you’re particularly scummy for doing so, and you’re not pinging my scumdar in other ways (not that there are any other ways, as you’ve pretty much been preoccupied with going after me so far in this game). But really, beyond that, I don’t really care one way or another if I get lynched toDay or any other Day. Not the worst mistake on Earth, and maybe y’all might learn something. There was a long delay between me typing most of this in quick reply and posting it (had to put the baby down to bed) so I apologize if any of what I said has been addressed since about 6:30 when I finished typing all but the last sentence of it. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1398 "2009-10-14T00:21:56Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > …huh? > > If I interpreted that correctly, then: no comment. \ intepreted correctly apparently based on your response. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1399 "2009-10-14T00:31:06Z")
> [@Gryff](#): > > I think it is almost certain that **Texcat** died as a result of attempting to recruit scum. Every recruiting mechanism of this nature I have seen kills the recruiter if they accidentally try to recruit scum. Hopefully there is an existing mason who knows who she (he?) attempted to recruit. > > That allows for a failed recruiting kill, a scum kill and a self defence or vig kill on our part. Plus the alleged theft gives us a healthy set of night actions going on. i don’t. that’s only two night kills. this game will last forever if that is the set up. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938/1400 "2009-10-14T00:53:48Z")
> [@AllWalker](#): > > On Night 1, a confirmed Town is one of the most likely targets for Doc protection. Or Scum kill. So if a 3rd party targets them, they are likely to be wasting a kill. If only I had said that earlier… > > … oh good, I did. > > Alternatively, the could wait and hope that the Scum does the killing for the SK, or that the Doc gets enough candidates for protection that they are more likely to leave the confirmed player alone. > > Pretty durn simple is right - the “safest kill” is the most obvious kill, and when is that a good idea? this is not right. a claimed doc is no way in heck going to protect a, for all intents and purposes, niller townie. i mean i play blink but i also know when to back off and play the overall odds. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938.md?page=69) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screamers-mafia/510938.md?page=71)