# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/401 "2010-01-31T18:19:12Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > btw. **ed** is lying. when i flip town please lynch him. 1. Peeker put out a vote on storyteller. **Post 187** 2. Peeker got defensive and aggressive when he took heat for the random vote. **Posts 207 212 324** 3. Peeker singled out Zeriel and voted for him, claiming Zeriel should know better, while claiming that those voting for him were either lazy or Scum. **Post 214 351 352** 4. Peeker asked Zeriel to prove that he said he was going to vote for a strong player (in an aggressive and vulgar fashion) **Post 229** 5. Zeriel provided the quote where peeker implied he was going to do that. **Post 234** 6. Peeker changed his story, claiming that his vote wasn’t random, but was, in fact, some sort of Scum trap. **Post 346** 7. During all this time, peeker is playing the “this is how it’s been going for me, when I flip Town, you’ll see” card. (Many posts contain a variation on this, and it seems overkill on an emotional appeal to me.) **Posts 207 218 328 331 332 336 348 351 355 395 397** 8. Peeker backpedals, claiming that he was ‘stirring the pot’ but maybe he has only caught Town on Town **(addition, I forgot that he also now claimed his vote was only a placeholder vote) Posts 355 356** 9. Peeker tries to divert attention to those not participating in this ‘debacle’ saying there are Scum in that group. (Since that group contains most of the players, this seems quite obvious) **Post 355** 10. Peeker reverses his backpedal and says he thinks he’s magically found 1 or 2 Scum in his ‘trap’ (all the while not really explaining how people calling him out on poor play is a Scum trap. To me, it even seems the opposite, Scum could be quite content to either jump on peeker or to let the Town do it. Calling someone out on poor play isn’t really a Scum tell in my book.) **Post 358** 11. And now, without pointing out specifically how, he’s accused me of lying **Post 397** ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/402 "2010-01-31T18:54:23Z")
> [@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. Ok, I can at least see where you’re coming from now. My response would be, even if we lynch scum with our second lynch, we’re still no closer to winning than if we lynch spawn. Now, obviously scum is more valuable to the scum than spawn, but that’s balanced by the fact that a mislynch with the second lynch is more costly than normal, because not only do we reduce our numbers the scum increase their numbers. I think that there could easily be a situation later in the game where lynching two players makes sense, but not early in the game. As somebody(can’t remember who) said, I don’t think that it’s a good idea to trade lynches early in the game, when we’re at a huge information deficit, for lynches later in the game, when we have way more information available to us. Nailing scum this early in the game is almost always due to luck. Let’s save our “bonus” lynches for later in the game when we have the information we need to make use of them. I think that there was something else I wanted to respond to, but can’t remember what it was, so I’ll move onto the peeker mess. First of all, I’m shocked that so many people are ready to condemn players as scum based on one data point. And I’m not talking about the fact that people are voting – more what people are saying. People are seeming very certain about things, and we’re 4 real-world days shy from the end of Day One! I think that we have a whole lot of people who are reading their target’s words with a certain conclusion in mind, and clinging to any statement they can spin in favour of that statement. We haven’t even been playing for 72 hours yet. If you’re sure of anything, you’re doing it wrong! Second: peeker, knock off the noise. Seriously, it’s not helping you, and if you are Town it’s not helping us, either. Third, story is hinting at this but I’m going to come right out and say it: “anti-Town is not the same as pro-Scum”. Furthermore, remember that the core of this game – the way that we find scum in this game – is _motivations_. That’s critical. Every single one of us will do anti-Town things at some point in this game. It’s an unavoidable consequence of the huge information deficit we face. They key to finding scum is to every action that every living player has taken, and considering not the effect but the motivation. Ask yourself “why would a town player do this? Why would a scum player do this? What are the possible motivations for this action?” And then look at each player, and find out which players most often have pro-scum motivations for their actions, and those players are the most likely to be scum. So, to get back to peeker, I ask those leading the charge against him to answer this question: What on earth is his pro-scum motivation? Why would a scummy peeker do this? Because to be frank, I submit that peeker’s actions can only be anti-Town if peeker is himself a town player. If he’s scum, drawing all this attention to himself is only hurting his chances at winning. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/403 "2010-01-31T18:55:47Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > They key to finding scum is to every action that every living player has taken, NETA: The key to finding scum is to **look at** every action, etc, etc. ---
**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 31, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/404 "2010-01-31T19:05:18Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > If you are currently voting for **peeker** , would you be willing to summarize your reasons specifically in three or four sentences? Not just, _he’s playing anti-Town_ or whatever, but “he has done X, Y, and Z, and those things are Scummy.” I guess I can. I mean, is this necessary? I voted for peeker because he chose to do a random vote. Since that is anti-town and is the most anti-town activity I’ve seen on Day One, he has my vote. I said then and I’ll say it now, if someone acts more anti-town than peeker, my vote will move to them. So far, that hasn’t happened. We do have time until the end of the Day, though. It’s a long Summer. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/405 "2010-01-31T19:15:59Z")
On re-reading not finding any strong tells since most of it is strategy talk, except the Triple Word Masonry 🆒 > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > nom nom nom > [@Zeriel](#): > > Unanimity. Unanimity. Unanimity. > [@USCDiver](#): > > No no no Besides the dual-lynch-player-or-not talk, the other strategy things is the double-vote-players tactic (but not for a double player lynch). **sachertorte** is against (and later **special ed** joined him) because it gives those players two votes and others not (forced to vote Spawn to get it lynched besides the player). **Zeriel** favored two player votes since it puts additional pressure (at least Today). I don’t think placing two player votes is bad - it gives an additional data point. Sure, if it is a one of vote that won’t be of too much use, but that goes for a Spawn vote as well. The real meat is when some one would vote for two players close to a lynch - this is effectively a bit of null vote when just regarding those two alone. This is part sachertorte doesn’t like I think: if one is scum and the other town voting both doesn’t show which one you wanted to be lynched more. It makes the vote analysis perhaps a bit more complex, but far from impossible. Since you can’t vote for the same player twice, it is not really that some player have two votes and others don’t. The only cave-at might be at lynch or lose where an additional might provide a jumping board to swing a lynch (similar to Borda style voting). ---
**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 31, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/406 "2010-01-31T19:17:47Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > No. It means that we can’t say, “Oh, he’s just acting like that, he’s **peeker** ” because that way he’s going to get away with all kinds of crap. He’s not always going to be town, you know. I understand this statement to some extent, but erratic behavior must be coupled with something more substantive than ‘we can never tell if he is scum so we might as well kill him.’ It is possible that peeker will be opaque for the remainder of the game. It is also possible that peeker could become confirmed town through various game mechanisms. What I’m saying is that I appreciate the notion that intentional obfuscation is annoying, but I feel the bar needs to be cleared higher than what you state here. The consequence of such a policy is “I can never tell whether X is scum or not, so I’ll just vote for X.” I think you are confusing ‘peeker trying to use his erratic behavior as a cover for doing something that exposes himself as scum’ with ‘peeker behaving irrationally.’ Right now I see peeker as behaving irrationally, but I see no indication of scum motivation. Heck, even if he manages to slip though this Summer, there is a high chance that he would get whacked by a possible vigilante. Peeker’s behavior makes little to no sense as scum. What’s the big game plan? “Hey Town, Look at me! Focus on Me! Look look look!” How is this a good idea for scum? I say this not as a “scum wouldn’t do that” sort of lens, but as a “what is the possible benefit?” Is anyone going to trust peeker? Maybe he gets killed and maybe he doesn’t. Does anyone think peeker will come out of this alive AND smelling clean? No. Maybe he will make it through this Summer, but his life is in a precarious situation… future lynch or vigging are top cards for peeker. (N.B. I’ve read up to date, but I’m still responding to posts in order when I have comments. I’m about a page behind at this point.) ---
**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 31, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/407 "2010-01-31T19:30:22Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > So i just did a re-read. I’m not feeling as good about the **sach** vote as I was, and I think I’m coming dangerously close to breaking one of my own rules about good Mafia play (that is, “There’s no such thing as anti-Town strategy discussion” as long as it’s strategy discussion and not pushing a strategy.) since **sach** upon reread isn’t pushing his plan nearly as hard as my initial impression. Awww. And here I was ready to point out the “stifling discussion” not-really-a-scum-tell scum tell. 😃 I will point out that before I read this post I was debating voting for either Zeriel or Freudian Slit. I was leaning towards voting Freudian, but I needed (and still need to) re-read the order of events. Basically, my thinking is even though I thoroughly disagree with the wisdom and reasoning of Zeriel, my perception is that scummy Zeriel probably wouldn’t have taken a shot at me at that point of the game. However, if I recall correctly, after Zeriel opened the avenue, Freudian happily (opportunistically?) joined in. I need to fact check this perception before I place my vote on Freudian. ---
**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 31, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/408 "2010-01-31T19:43:16Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > what’s fucking interesting is that a whole slew of you folks are getting all worked up about it while the person i voted for shrugged it off. now, that is interesting. I don’t find it interesting at all. Had you voted for me, I’d shrug it off too and see what everyone else says. I have a hard time objectively analyzing people who vote for me (see Zeriel/Freudian, which I still don’t know if I’m thinking the way I am because they voted for me, or there really is a scum reasoning). Beyond acknowledging that your ‘random’ vote happened and is indeed ‘random’ what could storyteller do? He can’t argue against it; it had no basis. Or are you accusing storyteller of being scum for not responding to your vote to a greater extent than he did? If so, you should state so rather than be ambiguous about it. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/409 "2010-01-31T19:55:50Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I think you are confusing ‘peeker trying to use his erratic behavior as a cover for doing something that exposes himself as scum’ with ‘peeker behaving irrationally.’ Right now I see peeker as behaving irrationally, but I see no indication of scum motivation. Heck, even if he manages to slip though this Summer, there is a high chance that he would get whacked by a possible vigilante. Peeker’s behavior makes little to no sense as scum. What’s the big game plan? “Hey Town, Look at me! Focus on Me! Look look look!” How is this a good idea for scum? I say this not as a “scum wouldn’t do that” sort of lens, but as a “what is the possible benefit?” But if we look at it through the ‘peeker is Scum (or at least not-Town)’ lens, his behavior makes sense. He was just playing, casting a random vote like he said. Then he caught heat. Being Scum, he had to do what he could to escape the heat. So, trying to confuse people while convincing them that he’s playing just like he has when he’s been Town in the recent past seems to be the strategy he chose. If he’s headed for lysis, whatever he can do to avoid dying for as long as possible would help his team. Now, granted, looking at it through the ‘peeker is Town’ lens, we can attribute his play to peeker being peeker. However, I would have expected a Town peeker to pick one story and kept to it, not changing it. I also wouldn’t expect a Town peeker to be so sure that he’s caught Scum in his trap/random vote/trap/peeker being peeker/trap. We’ve got to lynch a player toDay, peeker has displayed actions that could potentially be Scum motivated, as well as being the most anti-Town. I can’t think of a better place for my vote right now. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/410 "2010-01-31T20:09:34Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > Cookies, you frankly seem eager to agree with me. I set out a group of five people that you are not in. You hold it up for all to see, and add your comments. Later, you comment on why we are all voting on Peeker. > > Do you want town cred by looking at a bandwagon, knowing that some fellow scum are in on it ? > > Is this because you are scum with Peeker, and you want town cred by hyping the “vote of the Summer” OR is it because you are scum with him, and you are trying to redirect the votes from him, and off of him ? > > Cookies, you ping me here. I think you’re confusing my desire to let all of the Peeker-related noise lie because imho the entire thing is tainted with personal attacks and metagaming which is not my preferred method of play, especially not when we haven’t really heard from everyone yet. You think you’ve presented a higher than 80% chance of having a scum in a group of 5 but you suspect me for agreeing with you and thinking that seems reasonable …ok, but that doesn’t make less inclined to agree with your theory. I’m more of a mind that there could quite well be two scum in that group but my only instrument o deduction there is my gut. I keep repeating myself in that regard because there are other ways to deal with such a situation other than joining in the fray, such as talking about something else. You also make a bunch of devil’s advocate points about me that can just as easily be made about what your motivations may have been to advance your theory in the first place. In short, you have a very interesting style of persuasion. ---
**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 31, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/411 "2010-01-31T20:12:00Z")
Vote total: Spawn 17 peekercpa 6 sachertorte 1 Zeriel 1 fluiddruid 1 Freudian Slit 1 1: special\_ed – peeker (353), Spawn (353) 2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193) 3: Drain Bead – Spawn (191), fluiddruid (316) 4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194) 5: storyteller0910 6: Meeko – Spawn (182), [del]fluiddruid[/del] (334-386), peeker (386) 7: Mahaloth – Spawn (209), peeker (209) 8: Freudian Slit – [del]Spawn[/del] (183-314), peeker (282), sachertorte (314) 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 (204-277, 345), peeker (204), [del]sachertorte[/del] (277-345) 14: DiggitCamara – Spawn (285), Freudian (326) 15: amrussell – Spawn (247) 16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (374) 17: Scuba\_Ben – Spawn (225) 18: sachertorte – Spawn (202) 19: fluiddruid – Spawn (296), peeker (296) 20: TexCat – Spawn (198) 21: Rysto I believe everybody has now posted at least once during Summer 1, so there will be no replacements this Year unless somebody specifically requests themself subbed out. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/412 "2010-01-31T20:20:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I believe everybody has now posted at least once during Summer 1, so there will be no replacements this Year unless somebody specifically requests themself subbed out. I’m not sure how formal he meant to make it, or if indeed he still sticks by it, but IIRC **Peeker** did mention at least in passing, that [he wanted to be subbed out.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12055447&postcount=336) ---
**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 31, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/413 "2010-01-31T21:13:50Z")
**Peeker, should I take that literally?** I’m not sure it would be a good thing for the game for me to sub out a player who looks likely to be Lysed, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/414 "2010-01-31T21:20:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Peeker, should I take that literally?** > > I’m not sure it would be a good thing for the game for me to sub out a player who looks likely to be Lysed, anyway. whatever. part of it was frustration and part of it was end of week rl. i’ll sub as long as the vote stays the same and you give my role to **dot**. otherwise fuck it, i’ll take it in the neck for town. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/415 "2010-01-31T21:39:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Peeker, should I take that literally?** > > I’m not sure it would be a good thing for the game for me to sub out a player who looks likely to be Lysed, anyway. I wondered this as I posted. But, I wanted to make sure you were aware of it. ---
**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 31, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/416 "2010-01-31T21:44:54Z")
I don’t think peeker should be subbed out. I don’t really know why he’s upset, but I don’t think his frustration should qualify for a subibng out. I mean, can’t everyone who starts to accrue votes just ask to be subbed out, then? Frustration is part of the game. It’s a long way until the end of Summer. Who knows what can happen in that time? ---
**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 31, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/417 "2010-01-31T22:00:31Z")
> [@](#): > > i’ll sub as long as the vote stays the same and you give my role to dot. otherwise fuck it, i’ll take it in the neck for town. Given that I don’t think **dot** (AKA DeathByIrony, right?) has even expressed an interest, I’ll take that as a no. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/418 "2010-01-31T22:02:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Given that I don’t think **dot** (AKA DeathByIrony, right?) has even expressed an interest, I’ll take that as a no. Yeah. She has a history of subbing in a lot and then getting lynched. Sometimes I think that people vote for her out of a sense of tradition. ---
**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 31, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/419 "2010-01-31T22:22:22Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > OK, last word on the double-PC vs. one-PC-one-NPC thing from me. I think I favor a double-lyse this Summer iff we have two compelling targets, because the main portion of the downside - that one Spawn will linger thereafter, until we deal with it somewhere down the road - just doesn’t seem particularly compelling to me. **@Storyteller** - I’m a little concerned that you are still pushing this anti-town idea after all the discussion we’ve had. Even if we have “two compelling targets”, lysing spawn is still the smart move. Spawn have to be dealt with, and we will always have more information to work with on the following day. Do you agree that the odds of making a successful lynch go up with each Day? Clearly, we are going to lyse a spawn toDay, but we shouldn’t carry out a double-player lyse later without a compelling reason. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > How many times have you seen the following play out on Day One: > > (1) Day One ends with vote leader and secondary target; (2) vote leader dies and is Town; (3) because whatever caused the initial suspicion of secondary target hasn’t gone away, Day Two winds up being a discussion about secondary target anyway; (4) Secondary target is eventually lynched, possibly Day Two but certainly by Day Three-ish. > > Let me phrase this differently: how often have you see a Day One where there _was_ a significant secondary target where the secondary target didn’t eventually get lynched? That secondary target almost _always_ gets lynched eventually (unless he/she has a confirmable role), because that initial suspicion sticks with them like a stinky cloud. I can see where you are coming from here, and it’s part of the reason I’m advocating kill-the-runner-up as a possible vig strategy. Killing them has a decent chance of hitting scum, and if they are town it at least removes a distraction and provides more voting records to analyse. However, I’ve often seen town players who were close to being lynched turn things around. For example, in Screamers Drain was nearly lynched, but most of that suspicion evaporated when the scum blocker flipped. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Keeping our options open is important. Hell, toward mid-game, after we get one or two Scum down, it might be strategically sound to try to keep a couple of Spawn alive just to potentially screw with the scum’s NK targets. That would only work if we can get down to 1 scum, and we don’t know how many scum there are. > [@Natlaw](#): > > FYI, I’m from the Netherlands (GMT+1) and male. And I made a page with [some bookmarks for the game](http://www.xs4all.nl/~walterln/Mafia/scum_mafia_bookmark.html). Thanks for that. > [@peekercpa](#): > > yep. > > i a conniving little shit when i am niller. **@peeker** - Why did you feel the need to make a claim this early on Day 1? If you are town, you are just helping the scum to role-fish. > [@peekercpa](#): > > and to be honest with rl stuff coming up i kind of have to die quickly. If you don’t have time to play please ask for a sub. > [@Meeko](#): > > Suffice to say I am not fully on board with fearless town deaths, suicidal or otherwise. The point is, Mafia is a team game. Townies very rarely have good reasons to advocate their own lynch, but they shouldn’t be concerned about > [@Natlaw](#): > > Why I think **peeker** s play is bad: by having a weak vote, he invites both town and scum to make a valid case against him with no real way to tell the difference between them. It ‘stirs the pot’ literally - we just end up with muddy pond. **@Natlaw** - This seems to imply you have a town read on peeker, if so why? If he is town I agree with the above. > [@special\_ed](#): > > queue the Jester Debate followed by the Bomb Debate. I’m never going to worry about a possible Jester. If they are non-PFK, lynching them is probably worth it to remove the distraction. If they are PFK, someone once said the right response is to lynch the game designer. Anyway, if Chronos doesn’t like recruiting mechanisms, I can’t see him putting a Jester into a game. > [@Meeko](#): > > I can not begin to fully understand what Peeker does. Yes, I am often lumped in with him when it comes to the WTF style of Mafia. That doesn’t mean I understand him all of the time. > > I make Big Macs, Peeker serves up Whoppers. I like the Big Macs/Whoppers line, but I don’t think comparing playstyles is very productive, as it says nothing about your or peeker’s alignment in this game. Right now I’m going to: **Vote DiggitCamara** He hasn’t responded to my last post to him (#286), and his position on double-lyse versus vig kills is inconsistant. ---
**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 31, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/420 "2010-01-31T22:30:44Z")
Is saying you’re vanilla much of a claim, though? It just seems like an admission of, “Yeah, I’m town, no, I don’t have any role to trot out.” Saying you’re doc or cop this early on is a stupid thing to do. Saying you’re vanilla seems more meh to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=22)