# 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:** 23
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/441 "2010-02-01T18:40:04Z")
Even without the math, as a common sense thing, I personally think that a double lynch would be stupid. I’m using both my votes as a way to kind of be more provocative, though. As it stands, I’m not really seeing anything all that scummy about you as the game progresses, **sachertorte**. This last post looked pretty good to me. **unvote sachertorte** **vote spawn** ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/442 "2010-02-01T19:13:15Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > (2) I’m not “grinding suspicion” towards Zeriel at all. I’m saying his case is crap. That’s not the same as saying Zeriel is scum. Townies are perfectly capable of creating crappy cases. I’m not saying that your last sentence is not true; it is true that Townies are perfectly capable of creating crappy cases. But if we divorce “made a crappy case” from “deserves suspicion” entirely, then we have eliminated one of the relatively few Scum-finding tools we have. What distinguishes a crappy case that’s worthy of suspicion from a crappy case that’s not? Also, re: your longer post about double-lysing, etc - can we agree to disagree on this subject? I’m not trying to drive you insane, honestly, I’m not, but I don’t agree with you and I’m not going to and it doesn’t really matter right now. If a situation emerges where I feel strongly that a double-lyse is the best course of action, we can pick up the debate then. For now, going point-by-point on a subject that is completely academic for this Summer at least is not a good use of anyone’s time. * * * So: Scum hunting. **peeker** has garnered a metric crapload of votes, and **sachertorte** has managed to earn a bit of suspicion (and a few votes, I think; I haven’t re-read yet). I’ve played a fair number of games with both players, and I think both will agree with the following statement: whether they are Town or Scum, both tend to generate early votes (for completely opposite reasons, I think). Whatever their alignments, I hypothesize that they (especially peeker) may appear to be relatively soft targets in the early game. This is not to say that every vote for one of those two players is Scummy - just that at least one or two are highly likely to be. This afternoon, I plan to re-read the entire Summer so far with this hypothesis in mind. I’ll post my results, and hopefully a vote, early tomorrow (Tuesday). ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/443 "2010-02-01T19:23:09Z")
\*\*Amrusssell’s and Oredigger’s are snipped. Zeriel’s remains intact. \*\* > [@amrussell](#): > > The most suspicious posts I found were **Scuba** ’s latest, a series about **Meeko** ’s changed posting style: > > Now, I believe that \*\*Scuba \*\*was joking (i.e. not seriously proposing to lyse **Meeko** ). But the nature of the joke is quite pernicious - it brings up past history, could easily needle a player who is (with some justification) sensitive to references to his posting style, and does (twice) imply that there’s something suspicious about **Meeko** ’s play. Now, as it happens, \*\*Meeko \*\*resisted the bait and other people more or less backed him up. But it could easily have “stirred the pot” further by generating more heated argument about metagame issues - so at least anti-town and quite conceivably pro-scum. > > Scuba’s substantive posting has been on the issue of double-lysing or not. Despite voting to lyse Spawn at this point, he’s repeatedly said that double-lysing is a powerful option which can seriously hurt Scum. His emphasis on this point, especially coupled with his remark about somebody slipping badly, makes me wonder if he’s trying to pass a message on to Scum. These posts come in the middle of the debate about which option to pick and he could, by voting one way toDay but arguing for a potential double-lyse, be trying to warn fellow Scum that he thinks this is a dangerous option to encourage - hence what could be read as a warning to be doubly careful about slips, as they would encourage us to consider an early double-lyse. > None of this is as substantive as I’d prefer. I wanted to point blank ask this\* as soon as Day ended, but I can see now that it is information needed during the Day. I am not sure how I got here. I am reminded that I took three classes of typing back around the end of Junior High and ninth grade. The reason I took three classes, is because it did not “stick” with me. Then one day, I realize that I am touch typing, and I didn’t even realize it. Suffice to say I am using all 9 fingers to type this. [I dont hit space with my right thumb.] The same can be said for my playstyle. If I was forced to point to ONE thing over anyother, it would have to be the entire Spawn mechanic. That set off one part of my brain, long before the ““Meeko playing Mafia”” part got started. The conversations I had before game start in this thread simply carried over. I honestly feel like something has “clicked” for me. I may not be sure what switch it was, but I know it was toggled. Also, I have played on both sides now, and I get a better understanding of how Mafia works. In 7 games there is no real chance to get play all the roles, but I think I know how they “should” work by now. – And a few times, I learned how they “dont” work. I am not going to apologize for how I am playing this game. I won’t argue that my posts have gotten considerably longer, but I think the Quality trumps Quantity. If you guys still hate me, well, at least now you only have to skip 20% of my regular post volume. I am not sure that I caught whatever Tell Scuba is dropping here. I am not sure I knew to even look in the areas that Amrussell knew to check. I didn’t feel baited by Scuba’s comments, but I understand where Amrussell is comming from. I think I took it more as “light banter”, but I will need to look over this context entire. Good points brought up here by Amrussell. Definitely need to review this, and Scuba. \*\* How does Pond effect a double spawn or a double player vote, with out appearing to be Scum? \*\* > [@Oredigger77](#): > > Right now I think the Scuba case is looking the most interesting because me first thought on seeing his comment on Meeko was “Gee, that’s some obvious snuggling and a guaranteed way to insure Meeko never votes for you.” but I figured it was too obvious. Now it’s looking like there were some other ones that I missed. I’m not convinced enough to vote that direction yet but that is where I’m leaning. And Digger is here to fill in the blanks for me. I was not aware of the Snuggling tactic. I saw it in Colorless, only because someone pointed it out, using my name. I thought it was a non-loaded word. In short not too Obvious. If I could re-do my vote on Peeker, I would use the word Snuggle. How ever, I think my communion wine comment had it’s place. \*\* Do we need to guard against traditional town snuggling OR is it simply Meeko snuggling ? \*\* Then again, Scum know I am not among them. Does Scuba fear my Vote? > [@Zeriel](#): > > This is interesting if only because it’s the opposite of the “usual” **Meeko** -related scum tell–namely, making negative comments about him/his playstyle to get him wound up and spammy. And I sure as hell didn’t know that this much energy was being put forth on my play style. I was awarded the superlative “Most Talkative” of my High School class. (Big surprise, right?) Suffice to say I Was not popular. However, I told everyone that they would not forget me. Sometimes being different is better. Zeriel, are you saying that Scuba has, or has not pinged you? \*\* Amrussell, Oredigger, Zeriel \*\*:: Does my play style for this game conflict with any of your strategies for the game? Not that I could, but would you want me to switch back, if I could? \*The question being if my new style is welcomed. It would seem to be an irrelevant question, that most people welcome it, and we don’t need to call it out. I would like to think that it is here to say. But, factually speaking, it is still just Day 1. I have no plans on reverting, I hope it sticks this 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:** [February 1, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/444 "2010-02-01T19:32:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Suffice to say I am using all 9 fingers to type this. [I dont hit space with my right thumb.] Whew, for a moment I thought you were going to say that one of your fingers got bitten of by a pathetic, twisted wretch to get a ring off of it, before falling into a volcano. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/445 "2010-02-01T19:41:30Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > And I sure as hell didn’t know that this much energy was being put forth on my play style. I was awarded the superlative “Most Talkative” of my High School class. (Big surprise, right?) Suffice to say I Was not popular. However, I told everyone that they would not forget me. Sometimes being different is better. > > Zeriel, are you saying that Scuba has, or has not pinged you? It’s a data point, nothing more. I was mostly commenting on the prior perceived value of winding you up which in previous games was basically guaranteed to clutter the thread. You’re a lot better about it now, which if nothing else makes the game much more readable. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/446 "2010-02-01T19:51:40Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Why I think peekers 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. No, it’s just me saying I think his play is bad and it doesn’t directly shake out a scum in my opinion. And just because he played like this as town before does not offer any guarantee he is town or scum now. > [@Meeko](#): > > What are the real implications of pond not knowing how spawn will vote? Does anyone know that calculus ? Well, a Spawn either votes for the runner up or not, so it’s 50% chance it’ll do that. And with two Spawns it’s 50% + 50% = 100%, so then the runner up always gets lynched :p. (Bleached for the math sensitive people: (100 / players\_alive) \* spawns\_alive) or Today ~4.8% chance a single spawn will tie a vote if there is only one vote difference. The tie is resolved randomly meaning a ~2.4% chance the lynch would be of the runner up. In the end scenario of 3t-1s-2sp then it’s (100/5)\*2=5% chance the Spawn both vote with the scum I did notice **Scuba\_Ben** and his ‘good points Story’, but he also nuances the double-player-lynch tactic in the same posts so I didn’t think worth voting for. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/447 "2010-02-01T19:54:02Z")
NETA: the last 5% should be 10%. Math is hard. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/448 "2010-02-01T19:54:33Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > The quote you keep trotting out: > > is out of context. Peeker is not saying that voting for a strong player was his plan all along. He is responding to your observation that storyteller is a strong player. We’ll have to agree to disagree on what he meant, then. It seemed clear to me from that post on that he meant he was voting for a strong player. He hasn’t bothered to raise any other explanation and in fact has actively not done so for most of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/449 "2010-02-01T19:58:14Z")
Seriously hard. It should be (1 / players\_alive) ^ spawns\_alive \* 100) or 4%. I hope that’s correct now. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/450 "2010-02-01T20:01:53Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I’m not saying that your last sentence is not true; it is true that Townies are perfectly capable of creating crappy cases. But if we divorce “made a crappy case” from “deserves suspicion” entirely, then we have eliminated one of the relatively few Scum-finding tools we have. What distinguishes a crappy case that’s worthy of suspicion from a crappy case that’s not? How about: I will explicitly tell you when I’m suspicious of someone. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/451 "2010-02-01T20:10:54Z")
> [@](#): > > is out of context. Peeker is not saying that voting for a strong player was his plan all along. He is responding to your observation that storyteller is a strong player. Darn school filters. The quote was from sachertorte regarding Zeriel’s use of ‘strong player’ While it’s true that peeker had only indicated that he was going to vote for story or sach, I don’t think it’s a stretch to infer that peeker meant he was going to vote for a strong player. sotryteller and sachertorte are regarded as strong players. Peeker has made it known in previous games that voting for a strong player is an option for him. I certainly inferred it that way. Did anyone interpret it diferently? That peeker had randomly chosen story or sachertorte for a vote without implying they were strong players? ---
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/452 "2010-02-01T20:25:13Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > It’s right at the top of the same page as your own post: [right here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12059678&postcount=401). > > I do agree that Zeriel spoke in error, but frankly I find it a bit odd that you can grind such suspicion towards her for that so hard while simultaneously dismissively putting down the rest of ‘the case against Peeker’ as one post from Special Ed. The suspicion of peeker is hardly limited to a vote against a strong player (and Zeriel’s apparent error, or “error” in saying so) and Special Ed’s rundown. His behavior so far has been inconsistent and spastic, as well as occasionally explosive; his [sullen resignation](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12055050&postcount=324) towards his lynching is not convincing. Not to defend **peeker** , but if someone put words in my mouth that weren’t there, I’d get pretty pissed off too. A lot of **special ed** ’s case is based on **peeker** ’s reaction to **zeriel** ’s initial misstatement. **peeker** ’s confusion is understandable, given the circumstances. I have no particular dog in this fight. **ed** ’s case is well-supported, and if **peeker** is who he says he is, we’re not risking any power roles by lynching him toDay, so that’s about as good as a bad thing can be, I suppose. I much prefer a Day One vanilla lynch to a long cascade of power role claims, if lynch a Pondie on Day One we must. But in the end, I’m just not feeling the **peeker** lynch so far toDay, so I won’t be voting for him unless he does something even nuttier. Which, I suppose, given who we’re talking about, is quite possible. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/453 "2010-02-01T20:31:24Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > \*\* > Do we need to guard against traditional town snuggling OR is it simply Meeko snuggling ? \*\* I haven’t played with you in a couple of games and you are much better ‘spoken’ in this game then in any of the others I have played with you and it seems that you are reacting with much less emotion which is a good thing. Now to get to your question, what I remember about previous games is that you had a tendency to attack those you perceived as attacking (voting for) you and you similarly had a tendency to view those defending you as a friend and therefore defending them. This is something that is easily exploitable as we have seen and on first blush it seemed to me that Scuba may have been trying to exploit the other side of this coin by earning your trust for the remainder of the game. That being said we are all vulnerable to snuggling because it is easy to create an us vs. them mentality in this game and the people that are agreeing with you then to fall under us and since ‘you’ are a townie it is easy to assume that all of ‘us’ are townies. So all snuggling needs to be watched for but some people are more likely to attack their ‘us’ due to worry about this and some are more likely to attack ‘them’ and people who fall into the later need to be watched for being snuggled closer then the former. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/454 "2010-02-01T20:47:27Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Peeker has made it known in previous games that voting for a strong player is an option for him. I was not aware of this peeker feature. I’m not sure what to make of it, but if Peeker has stated this bizarre policy before, then his voting for storyteller in this game has even less to do with his alignment. Right? ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/455 "2010-02-01T20:56:18Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > How does Pond effect a double spawn or a double player vote, with out appearing to be Scum? I can only think of a few possible cases: - There is a power role which benefits from spawn players being in play, and we are reasonably convinced that this is true and not a diversionary tactic (unlikely without some sort of town confirmation of the person in such a role) - An absolute slam-dunk in locating two sure scum players (extremely unlikely) - Some sort of endgame strategy that I haven’t worked out (such as based on the number of townies and scum remaining, if determinable) ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/456 "2010-02-01T21:08:46Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > How does Pond effect a double spawn or a double player vote, with out appearing to be Scum? How does Scum effect a double spawn or a double player vote, while appearing to be Pond? That’s basically the same question :). Double Spawn Vote I would say ‘I think everyone is equally suspicios, let’s wait for another Night to give us more information (kill/powers)’, which might seem bad because it gives scum a break of making a reasoned vote but on the other the situation might be forced (when having double Spawn at lynch or lose we could stall it a Day this way). For a Double Player Vote you would need to have really good reasons to think both are scum. An investigator with two scum results would seem best, except if it’s a fake claim then just lynching one to test the investigator would seems be prudent to me. Note that a double player lynch at lynch or lose might be worth it (say 5t-2s-1sp -\> 3-1-2 not a strict majority for scum). ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/457 "2010-02-01T21:28:52Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > Zeriel … \*\*her \*\* See attached signature. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/458 "2010-02-01T21:30:26Z")
:smack: ---
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/459 "2010-02-01T21:31:46Z")
FTR, **Zeriel** , I always assumed you were a guy. Now, if you were Zerielle, I’d assume female…(all that French!). ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/460 "2010-02-01T21:41:37Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > None of this is as substantive as I’d prefer. It could well be that **Scuba** : a) simply agrees with \*\*story \*\*and doesn’t mind saying so, b) was just aiming for light banter with his joke on \*\*Meeko \*\*and c) is a Pondie who wants to take the game to the Scum. But it’s Day One, and I think I’ve found some evidence of snuggling, stirring and surreptitious signalling (and I don’t have a better case) so in the interests of getting a response: > > **vote Scuba Ben** I think his comments regarding **Meeko** were just meant as tongue in cheek as he says. Not very likely that he was signaling either because I don’t see a reason why scum would do that. But the ‘good points story’ snuggling was something I noticed as well and it’s the best ping I had Today so far. **Vote Scuba\_Ben** I’m deliberately avoiding voting **peeker** here - I do think his play isn’t helpful, but frankly an express train lynch of him doesn’t either. I don’t see **Zeriel** or **special ed** questioning of him as particularly scum play, but neither do the less vocal voters on him. If there are more than one player up for lynch, the vote record starts to become much more interesting. **@KellyCriterion** , are you still reading along? Have you played (online) Mafia before? Bit overwhelmed I guess (not really a problem, but a sign of live is always nice)? _As I always say ‘A post a day keeps the Scum away!’ And in this Pond we also lyse the Spawn - although another joins us at Dawn. Because it rhymes you’ll remember this note: don’t forget to vote!_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=24)