# Scum mafia: On Cecil pond \[Game Over\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 24, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202 "2010-01-24T05:10:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/261 "2010-01-29T14:56:55Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I really hope we don’t have any Town power roles who would need/want us to keep the Spawn alive for some reason. I really don’t want to have to try and sort out a motivational variable there, but that could very well be our plight. A town power claiming this is going to have a very hard time unless they have a way of proving their pro-town alignment, methinks. It did get me thinking, though–what we don’t know is if spawn have any other purpose other than tangling up the scum voting a bit and giving them more win condition in the meanwhiles. I could, off the top of my head speculating, think that maybe we’d see roles (of either alignment) that could consume spawn to activate powers or something–something to potentially change the basic calculus of whether or not we lynch scum. I dunno, this is just me thinking out loud. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@DiggitCamara** - Do you think the vig, if we have one, should take a shot Night 1? Vig should keep their own counsel, should they exist. Frankly I think the biggest mistake **peeker** made as the vig was being so idiosyncratic about it, not in the sheer number of kills. Actually, that pretty much holds–in my experience, a vig that tends to pick targets who are getting some votes but not enough for a lynch is more likely to be helpful than one who shoots arbitrarily based on only their own suspicions, regardless of how often they shoot. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/262 "2010-01-29T15:00:31Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Not directed at me, but I’d say no. Not unless he’s really sure, and I doubt we will be. Look how well that vigging went last game–not a single scum caught. If he hadn’t killed so indiscriminately, Town might have won the game. He could have won the game as well if he had been more lucky(which really is a big part of this game). I’m against a vigilante, if we even have one, taking a shot on the first Night unless he/she has an actual reason to do so. I know even the vanilla towns that die reduce our pool to locate scum from, but it also lowers our vote totals. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/263 "2010-01-29T15:13:08Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > He could have won the game as well if he had been more lucky(which really is a big part of this game). I’m against a vigilante, if we even have one, taking a shot on the first Night unless he/she has an actual reason to do so. I know even the vanilla towns that die reduce our pool to locate scum from, but it also lowers our vote totals. True, but do we really want to rely on luck? I don’t think we should, not at this early juncture. Anyway, perhaps the less said about it the better. I’m always afraid of people thinking, “Is x the doctor/vig/etc. because he’s speculating about it?” plus **Zeriel** is probably right in that vig should keep his own counsel. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/264 "2010-01-29T15:15:26Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@DiggitCamara** - Do you think the vig, if we have one, should take a shot Night 1? There is no benefit to the vig shooting blindly since it muddles the information we gain from the Night kill and it is very unlikely to hit scum. I want to explore what I was saying earlier about the random voting being in the towns favor. From what Chronos has said they are random completely during the Summer which means they can and will vote for scum. Sure they are more likely to hit town but they can also add needed votes to a scum wagon. I think this would put them, assuming 4 scum, voting 20% in the town’s favor at the start of the game and increasing with each mislynch and Night kill. Also it seems they vote randomly for the Night kill and so can force the scum to play sub optimally. I’ve never been good at figuring out how many power roles are in the game but lets call it 4 that means even with a power role exposed they will only vote for them 23% of the time so that makes their night vote help town 77% of the time. Admittedly, they can only push someone over the top and not carry out the protown agenda by themselves so their helping needs to be discounted but I’d say initially spawn are 22% in the towns favor (50% of Night and Day and then discounted another 50%). Obviously this will increase as the number of townies decreases and the closer the spawn can come to dominating the scum’s Night vote. By being 78% scum at the start of the game I doubt there is anyone scummier but as the game goes on and their townieness increases I think there should come a point where there are two candidates that are scummier then they are. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/265 "2010-01-29T15:48:00Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Anyway, perhaps the less said about it the better. I’m always afraid of people thinking, “Is x the doctor/vig/etc. because he’s speculating about it?” plus **Zeriel** is probably right in that vig should keep his own counsel. This happened to us in Sekhmet. We discussed the (crippled) Oracle so much, he slipped up and the Cultists figured out who he was. And in Lost, the Vig killed on Night 1, and hit a friendly. Then when he had a chance to eliminate a moderately suspicious player – he turned out to have only one shot. Moral of the story: STFU, over-discussing power roles early can backfire. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/266 "2010-01-29T15:53:20Z")
Vote total: Spawn 14 peekercpa 2 Zeriel 1 1: special\_ed 2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193) 3: Drain Bead – Spawn (191) 4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194) 5: storyteller0910 6: Meeko – Spawn (182) 7: Mahaloth – Spawn (209), peeker (209) 8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (183) 9: USCDiver – Spawn (246) 10: Alka Seltzer – Spawn (249) 11: peekercpa – Spawn (186), [del]story[/del] (186-229), Zeriel (229) 12: Natlaw 13: Zeriel – Spawn (204), peeker (204) 14: DiggitCamara 15: amrussell – Spawn (247) 16: KellyCriterion 17: Scuba\_Ben – Spawn (225) 18: sachertorte – Spawn (202) 19: fluiddruid 20: TexCat – Spawn (198) 21: Rysto Also, I may have missed it, but I don’t think we’ve heard from **KellyCriterion** or **fluiddruid** yet. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/267 "2010-01-29T15:56:15Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Also not as statistically likely as someone we lynch after 3 Days. > > I’m not sure I understand the logic. > > Cookies was saying we were less likely to lynch Scum with the second lynch of a Day. I argued that if the first is a mislynch, the second is actually more likely. I wasn’t pointing out that it was the single most likely Scum lynch in the game. > > If we want the most likely Scum lynch, we just need to put ourselves at lynch or lose…but I don’t recommend that. I was comparing a second lynch on Day One versus the second lynch happening Day Two. A second lynch the same Day is just as likely as the first (because they happen at the same time), although the total chance to hit scum is bigger than a single lynch. My point was that the second lynch on the second Day is more likely to lynch scum, because there will be one less town Night killed (ignoring power roles and assuming first lynch wasn’t scum). Of course all pure statistically speaking meaning if we all would vote random like mindless Spawn. Not statistically speaking, a second lynch a Day later is more likely to be correct because we now have a vote record of the previous Day with likely two dead reveals, another Day of talk and perhaps some players have investigations results. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/268 "2010-01-29T15:56:16Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > > crap, i already said i was going to put my first non spawn vote on either **story** or **sach** depending on who posted first. > > shitty fucking decision, maybe. but no reason, absolutely not. > > either accept that you are voting for a wrong reason or redact. So why did you do it if you knew it was a bad decision? I’m not saying you’re necessarily being scummy but if you were anyone else, this would look like a really stupid play and your whole, “This is my style” attitude kind of annoys me–how easy would it be for you to genuinely be scum and hide behind the fact that everyone knows you act kind of bizarre all the time? As for how can there be “many spawn,” if we aren’t assiduous in voting them, there will be. The way I figure it is we normally get one vote in a game. If we get an extra, why use it to randomly shoot in the dark? Let’s use the one extra vote to kill the spawn and the other vote to try to do what we normally do–lynch potential scum. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/269 "2010-01-29T16:01:55Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I don’t see how this is a problem. That “future Summer” could well be the last Summer of the game, if we eliminate all of the PC Scum, in which case, so what? It’d be a purely administrative Summer in such a case. Gah. This statement completely ignores the fact that the existence of spawn moves the endgame itself closer. A double player kill is not free. There is a cost and you can’t avoid it. Having two spawn each summer moves the scum win condition closer. This ‘last Summer’ to which you refer are DIFFERENT last summers. The last summer for one case will be N and the last summer for storyteller’s case will be N-0.5 (or N-1 I’m not sure yet). Anyway, the cost is there and must be accounted. And in the magical mythical case where town is so far ahead that we eliminate all scum and merely have to lynch the two spawn left to win, then that’s not comparing apples to oranges. The argument supposes that Town finds all the scum. You would have to compare that to the case where we lynch spawn every summer and ALSO find all the scum. Guess what? we win there too! > [@special\_ed](#): > > The upside to leaving Spawn alive is that we get more information by killing more players. I disagree with this thesis. While ultimately dead players reveal information about the game to us, I feel that front loading these deaths tells us LESS. For example, if one of us were to spontaneously die right now. Do you think you’d learn anything new? I don’t. It is basically starting the game with one less player. Similarly, someone dying after chatting and engaging with other players for several days tells us more than if they only were engaging for one day. Fundamentally we all know this. We’ve all heard enough about how lurking hurts the town. The ‘information’ you seek comes from the vote records and player interactions – not just alignment. Kill two this summer and the information you gain is scant. So yes, you get more than killing just one, but what you get is not nearly as useful as some seem to be indicating. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Well, look. Leave aside the Spawn for just one tiny moment, OK? I’ll get back to the Spawn. > > Let’s say the Mod gave you a choice. > > Let’s say the Mod said, you may pick from the following two options: > > 1. Game as normal. One lynch Day One, Night kill Night One, and so on into eternity; or > 2. You lynch Day One, but you don’t get your results until the end of Day Two. The catch? No Night actions, including Scum kill, during Night One. > > We would all jump on #2, right? Lynches are our tool, our way of getting information. Even if they are sloppy, two lynches without the Scum getting to Night kill is always a plus; it’s as if a Doctor had a successful protection. Well, the present situation, _sans_ Spawn lynch, _is,_ essentially, option #2. No no no. Your accounting is off. It isn’t simply that town gets to lynch another. There are other effects that you are not taking into consideration, not least of which is that the scum win condition has advanced. You present #2 as analogous to our situation. It is not. > [@special\_ed](#): > > However, the real bad guys are the Scum. And it’s true we’re likely to make mistakes, it’s the main way of getting rid of Scum. Again I disagree. The scum win condition is _n_Scum + _n_Spawn \> _n_Town. The win condition makes no distinction between scum and spawn. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > _Also_, if the possibility of a double-PC-lyse is at least on the table, it greatly increases the difficulty Scum will have maneuvering their own votes. Since the second-highest-vote-getter is in danger of dying as well as the first, the Scum can only merrily vote for one another if they are actually willing to sacrifice someone… no voting Scum up to second place to sow confusion later and then getting a Townie to take the real fall. And if they are willing to sacrifice someone? I’ll take the gift. I disagree with your assessment. _Everyone_ has to vote twice, so I find it unlikely that scum will have a hard time blending in. At least not more so than in the standard case. One could argue that the dilution of so many votes would make it easier. But the point does bring up an important factor. Everyone should either vote to lyse spawn or everyone should NOT vote to lyse spawn. I’m not keen on a mix, though I haven’t thought through the implications. Effectively, if some vote to lyse spawn but others don’t then those that don’t will have two votes. I’m not sure what to make of that. Also also, in a don’t vote for spawn free-for-all, this effect rears its head in a more subtle way. Someone garnering a boatload (but not all) votes leaves non-voters with the option of not voting the vote leader (but still knowing the vote leader will die) and placing two votes elsewhere. Again I don’t know the full implications of this, but at the very least it complicates analysis. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I think we should ensure that there are enough votes down to guarantee a spawn lyse toDay, but I see no need for every player to place one of their votes for spawn. I do see a reason to enforce an all or nothing position on spawn. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise though. But for now, I think killing or not killing spawn should be unanimous. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I really hope we don’t have any Town power roles who would need/want us to keep the Spawn alive for some reason. I really don’t want to have to try and sort out a motivational variable there, but that could very well be our plight. I had this thought as well. But my feeling is that any such mechanism is clumsy and still probably not worth it. Also there is the possibility that scum gain some advantage from spawn which negates the argument. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@Ed** - The problem is, by postponing lysing the spawn we are reducing the chance of each lynch hitting scum slightly, without increasing the total number of lynches we have. Therefore, between now and the game end we would have a reduced chance of winning. > > If this continues to cause confusion I’ll run some example numbers. I like this one. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/270 "2010-01-29T16:17:21Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@DiggitCamara** - Do you think the vig, if we have one, should take a shot Night 1? For now? Well, it depends. 1. If (s)he has the ability to take out spawn, why of course! Indeed, it might be good not to lyse it toDay just to see whether or not (s)he can kill spawn. 2. If not, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I said so during “Colorless” and I repeat it: the Vig is more likely than not to hit Town during the first few Nights. Doing so will reduce Town’s advantage which right now lies in numbers. Later on his/her ability might be useful, since there might be a Detective and/or we might have observed, via interaction, who’s more likely to be scum. Again: I’m in favor of double PC-lysing because the votes we emit yield information. A Night kill by the vigilante renders no information, that’s why I’m against it, as of now. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/271 "2010-01-29T16:21:20Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > As for how can there be “many spawn,” if we aren’t assiduous in voting them, there will be. The way I figure it is we normally get one vote in a game. If we get an extra, why use it to randomly shoot in the dark? Let’s use the one extra vote to kill the spawn and the other vote to try to do what we normally do–lynch potential scum. Because when it’s not purely random, we can lynch TWO potential Scum. **FS** , all else being equal and assuming there is sufficient information that the probabilities are usefully better than pure chance, do you prefer lynching one potential Scum or two potential Scum? With plenty of information, acquired through any of several methods, we can lynch two certain or mostly-certain Scum at once. nom nom nom ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/272 "2010-01-29T16:23:52Z")
> [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > Because when it’s not purely random, we can lynch TWO potential Scum. > > **FS** , all else being equal and assuming there is sufficient information that the probabilities are usefully better than pure chance, do you prefer lynching one potential Scum or two potential Scum? > > With plenty of information, acquired through any of several methods, we can lynch two certain or mostly-certain Scum at once. nom nom nom But when there’s a small # of scum, the likelihood that based on little more than hunch and guess work we can get not only one but two scum is pretty arrogant to me. I mean, maybe, if we had a confirmed cop or something but we don’t even know if we have cops in this game. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/273 "2010-01-29T16:26:55Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I want to explore what I was saying earlier about the random voting being in the towns favor. From what Chronos has said they are random completely during the Summer which means they can and will vote for scum. Sure they are more likely to hit town but they can also add needed votes to a scum wagon. I think this would put them, assuming 4 scum, voting 20% in the town’s favor at the start of the game and increasing with each mislynch and Night kill. Random voting does not help town, our goal is to hit scum at a better-than-random rate. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > Also it seems they vote randomly for the Night kill and so can force the scum to play sub optimally. Realistically, the only way spawn will affect the scum’s NK is if there is a single scum left. The scum are unlikely to allow spawn to dictate their NK by splitting their vote. Even with, say, 2 scum and 2 spawn it’s unlikey that the 2 spawn would vote together (the odds depend on the number of town and 3rd party alive at that point). > [@Oredigger77](#): > > By being 78% scum at the start of the game I doubt there is anyone scummier but as the game goes on and their townieness increases I think there should come a point where there are two candidates that are scummier then they are. This is bizarre. The threat of spawn increases the closer we get to an endgame, as scum win when scum + spawn outnumber town. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/274 "2010-01-29T16:29:04Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > apparently these games have become lynch **peek** on Day/Summer 1. lazy town or oppotunistic scum i can not say. yaknow, ltl kind of has fallen out of flavor these days. one of these days lynch the **peek** just because he talks will go the same way of that mastedon. You made it pretty far in the last game Peek. [Perhaps not the best example. :)] ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/275 "2010-01-29T16:33:52Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > You made it pretty far in the last game Peek. > > [Perhaps not the best example. :)] Well, he made it because he was confirmed which I think you were alluding to. I do think you raise a good point, which is that **peeker** does make it far. What I was saying earlier, I’ll reiterate: **peeker** , you can’t pull these bullshit stunts and then act all put upon as though voting for you is the most bizarre, ludicrous thing in the world. Because you’re **peeker** and that’s how you act. You’re not confirmed as anything in this game, so either act normal or don’t be surprised when we start to suspect you. If you do get lysed and it turns out you were a Townie, you have only yourself to blame. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/276 "2010-01-29T16:46:33Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Random voting does not help town, our goal is to hit scum at a better-than-random rate. True but it doesn’t help the scum either. Both scum and town have a method to their madness a random factor is just that and has the possibility to hurt either one. It’s not necessarily pro-town but neither is it pro-scum. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Realistically, the only way spawn will affect the scum’s NK is if there is a single scum left. The scum are unlikely to allow spawn to dictate their NK by splitting their vote. Even with, say, 2 scum and 2 spawn it’s unlikey that the 2 spawn would vote together (the odds depend on the number of town and 3rd party alive at that point). At this point I’m assuming there are 4 scum so it won’t take long to reach the scenarios you’re talking about especially if we help out by lyseing some scum. I’m not saying that spawn are hurting the scum in the early game I’m saying that they have the potential to hurt them later on and at that point in might be better to act on a hunch and let the extra spawn screw with the scum. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > This is bizarre. The threat of spawn increases the closer we get to an endgame, as scum win when scum + spawn outnumber town. Yes, allowing the number of spawn increase allows the scum to be closer to their win condition but as the number of spawn increase they can force the scum to play sub optimally and help us lyse scum. In the end game I’d rather be in a situation with 4 townies and 3 spawn then 4 townies and 2 scum My point is that while spawn count as full scum for their win condition they don’t equate in their play and I think a situation could occur in a couple of Days where acting on hunch that some one is probably scum (50% chance) is better for the town then spending that second vote on the spawn. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/277 "2010-01-29T16:53:41Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Gah. > This statement completely ignores the fact that the existence of spawn moves the endgame itself closer. A double player kill is not free. There is a cost and you can’t avoid it. Having two spawn each summer moves the scum win condition closer. I don’t necessarily disagree with you for the early game. However, in the mid and end game, trading having an extra spawn vs. getting a high-percentage shot at two scum would be a good call. We can quibble about what “high-percentage” means in this case, obviously. > [@](#): > > I disagree with your assessment. _Everyone_ has to vote twice, so I find it unlikely that scum will have a hard time blending in. At least not more so than in the standard case. One could argue that the dilution of so many votes would make it easier. > > But the point does bring up an important factor. Everyone should either vote to lyse spawn or everyone should NOT vote to lyse spawn. I’m not keen on a mix, though I haven’t thought through the implications. Effectively, if some vote to lyse spawn but others don’t then those that don’t will have two votes. I’m not sure what to make of that. Personally, I think this is wrong-headed–someone choosing to vote Spawn vs. Player is a valuable data point, and encouraging unanimity is giving scum one more decision where they know exactly how to hide in the herd. Contrariwise, as has been said earlier, the fact that the top two vote-getters die means scum has to be FAR more circumspect than they have been about letting their people get up high in votes, and complicates their ability to bus effectively for the same reason. > [@](#): > > Also also, in a don’t vote for spawn free-for-all, this effect rears its head in a more subtle way. Someone garnering a boatload (but not all) votes leaves non-voters with the option of not voting the vote leader (but still knowing the vote leader will die) and placing two votes elsewhere. Again I don’t know the full implications of this, but at the very least it complicates analysis. How is this different from normal games, where someone can place one vote elsewhere? One-offs are one-offs even if there are two of them (since IIRC you can’t place both your votes on the same person.) > [@](#): > > I do see a reason to enforce an all or nothing position on spawn. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise though. But for now, I think killing or not killing spawn should be unanimous. I don’t really see this. In point of fact, it seems like a silly constraint. Especially since we have enough votes on the Spawn that it’s likely to die today, not having unanimity lets people follow up on having more than one suspicion, like so. **unvote spawn vote sachertorte**, I’m suspicious of anyone who makes an attempt at limiting town’s strategic options. Plus maybe being the first person to break from the unanimity will spark some more discussion, which is always good. Also, unanimity is no longer a word, I’ve used it to often. Unanimity. Unanimity. Unanimity. ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/278 "2010-01-29T16:54:03Z")
> [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > A good argument in favor of attempting to lyse two Scum and leave the Spawn alone is, Scum have brains and can plan. Spawn don’t and can’t. Scum will vote to best serve their purposes, Spawn will vote randomly. No no no, this is wrong except in the rare case where we are all 100% sure that both players about to be Lysed are scum (like if someone drunk posts to the wrong forum). We win this game by using information like voting records and posts to find Scum. Spawn don’t post and their voting gives us no information. Randomly going after two players and leaving Spawn alive is only going to be a viable option in rare cases. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/279 "2010-01-29T16:56:07Z")
I don’t get the all or nothing thing for spawn either. It seems silly, though I’m not sure I’m ready to vote on anyone since we haven’t been playing all that long. Sacher and peeker have pinged my radar so far. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/280 "2010-01-29T17:03:02Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But when there’s a small # of scum, the likelihood that based on little more than hunch and guess work we can get not only one but two scum is pretty arrogant to me. I mean, maybe, if we had a confirmed cop or something but we don’t even know if we have cops in this game. Keep in mind, and this isn’t being arrogant, but it happens–hell, last game, I posted a suspicion post on day one and two out of the three names I put down were scum. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=15)