# 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:** 26
**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 2, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/501 "2010-02-02T19:23:01Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Peeker is an outspoken player? > > Are you think that misguided Town and/or Scum are lynching him because of his ideas? Do you think it’s better to have his ideas around longer in the game? Is he coming up with some insight that’s advancing the Scum hunt? > > And how exactly does lynching a quiet Townie generate more information? You say it’s useful to lynch a lurker, but you’re unclear on how this benefits Town. Can you be more clear? Of course Peeker is an outspoken player, I haven’t gone to check but, he is in the top half of total posts for this game. I think that early in the game it is better to lynch player who aren’t giving us anything to base a decision on because on Day 2 we will know as much about Scuba, if he doesn’t come back with answers, as we do on Day 1. Lynching a quiet townie doesn’t give us information but neither does keeping them around. Given a choice between two poor cases I’d rather lynch the player who is being quiet because at least the other one could put their foot wrong again in the future. I’m not sure if I’m being clear but the way I’m looking at it is that; I don’t believe the Peeker case to be good, I think Scuba’s actions have been questionable but not necessarily scummy, Peeker is posting so we can uncover more about his motivations, Scuba hasn’t been posting much and it will take many Days at the rate to uncover anything about his motivations. I think that with this scenario it is a better play to put a vote on Scuba to give him incentive to give us more information. If we don’t get that information I think the best play would be to lyse Scuba over Peeker because we at least know that Peeker will post enough that if he is scum we will have more posts to find it. OOG: My Company switched over to websence which has already blocked the Game room and just blocked me when I tried to post this originally. My connectivity may drop to me posting at nights from my phone. if you guys have any idea for a way around I’d appreciate 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:** [February 2, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/502 "2010-02-02T19:27:05Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > I also guess it means that **Alka** just outed himself as non-Vanilla. I think this is interesting, but not as strong a point as Freud and Meeko seem to think. Alka interpreted ‘niller’ as Claiming Vanilla Town. That’s a specific role claim. Vanilla is a specific role. Plankton though, while indicated to be Vanilla, could possibly be argued to be a substitute for Town. I don’t remember an in-game term for “Town.” Scum seems to fit for Scum, since they are pond Scum. So, while it’s possible Alka slipped on revealing non-Vanilla-ness, I’m not as sure of that as Freudian and Meeko seem to be. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/503 "2010-02-02T19:28:08Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Um, you guys know that I unvoted **sacher** , yes? The doesn’t really impact motivational analysis of the vote that you did have on him. ---
**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 2, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/504 "2010-02-02T19:33:36Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Of course Peeker is an outspoken player, I haven’t gone to check but, he is in the top half of total posts for this game. OK, so peeker has posted a lot. He speaks out a lot, so he is outspoken. It’s true that one needn’t have much content to be considered outspoken. I understand better the rest of your explanation, thanks. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/505 "2010-02-02T19:40:44Z")
I read the vanilla role PM (I’m not saying whether I received one or not). The short answer to “plankton is ambiguous” is that it’s true with the publically available information we have in this setup. I’m always very careful about not revealing if I have any extra information or not (either would help the scum to fish). ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/506 "2010-02-02T20:05:48Z")
I wanted to go back and look at Scuba\_Ben since I found out what Snuggling meant. Since Snuggling, and especially snuggling on Meeko appears to have been a trusted Scum strategy in the past, I am also looking at Scuba\_Ben being Scum. Of course, that is always the underlying premise in an extended review. \*\*I Did not capture every Scuba\_Ben post, only those that reference me, or ping me. \*\* I did leave some out, that I felt were fluff. I don’t think I got anything out of context, but I am stating this ahead of time before I begin. I began this post when the thread contained exactly 500 posts. Obviously, posts after that are not included. \*\* Long psuedo-WOW begins now. \*\* * * * > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > I’m crazy. Sign me up. > > And yes, I know those two statements are independent. > > I promise that my first Summer vote will not be random – if I don’t have any reason to pick one player over another, I’ll vote **Meeko** to keep the thread to a manageable length. 😛 This was pre-game, but I thought it interesting that Peeker’s case against him has a similar preliminary vote declaration. Either we should back off on Peeker, or pile on Ben if we continue to press Peeker on his Sach or Story vote. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > **storyteller** has a good point on the count analysis. Early in the game, there’s less harm to a carefully considered effort to let the Spawn spawn, in favor of gathering information by trying to lyse Scum and cleanse the pond. > > Snipped. A vote for Spawn is made at this time by Scuba. > > (And I note that since I have a better-than-random reason for one of my votes, **Meeko** is no longer fully at risk of a pseudorandom vote.) > > I’m very uncertain about **satchertorte** ’s post. While we do have to keep the Spawn population under control, we have the option to lyse two players. I decline to dismiss that option entirely. Assuming there’s an investigation role (a very good assumption), they may have enough information eventually that it’s in the pond’s interests to go for the two player lynch. > > Still… unless somebody slips badly, I don’t see that situation coming up during Year One. We see here that Scuba motions to keep the option for a double player lynch open. The last line could be an innocent aside for town, by town. It could also be a coded message for scum, by scum. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Snipped. > > 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. > > Now, the Spawn mechanic changes things in a very serious way. I just don’t think it’s the slam dunk that you and **sachertorte** believe it to be. More on this in the morning. > > Snipped > > And yeah, I think the auto-vote for Spawn that happened at the outset of this Day was great cover for Scum to slip in and show how Townie they were by acting the same as all the Townies. Were you under the impression I was accusing all 8-10 people who voted Spawn of being Scum? I grabbed this here so the following would have context. A point is raised that there is a boon of Townie-cred here via scum making an “auto-vote” on spawn. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > You’ve got a very good point, **storyteller**. The basic mechanic of this game is: > > Day, Town lynches two. > Dusk, Scum gain one, who sticks out like a sore thumb. > Night, Scum kill one. > > In kill terms, the pond can eliminate two players to the Scum’s one. This is (somewhat) balanced by the Scum’s growth via Spawn. > > So the pond has an ability to gain twice as much definite information as normal. I repeat my opinion from earlier, this is an option worth keeping. A Second motion to keep double player lynch open. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > And that was what I was getting at. ToDay, lysing a Spawn makes sense. ToMorrow, we’ll have some information and can reevaluate. > > 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. > > Again, I agree this is correct toDay. We have the option to lynch two players, at the cost of the bad buys growing in size. That’s a potent weapon. I want to keep this [del]technological terror[/del] stratagem available for use. > > Snipped. A Third motion. If a scummy Scuba needs to lynch two pondies, he can simply go back to this cache of previous reasons and use the one he wants at the time he needs to use it. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > Snipped. > > 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. A two for one. Scuba\_Ben mentions the Vig from Lost. B.K.A. yours truly. Snuggle? Smudge? Coded Scum message? It’s all that and more! > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > Because when it’s not purely random, we can lynch TWO potential Scum. > > Snipped. > > With plenty of information, acquired through any of several methods, we can lynch two certain or mostly-certain Scum at once. nom nom nom I am leery of Scuba’s several methods. I am more leery of a Scummy Scuba’s several methods. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > **Meeko** in #283 makes a clear and well researched post. He puts it all in a single post. And I agree with his main points. > > This is unlike the last time I played with him. Should I vote for him right now? (tongue in cell wall) No. But I bet you would do it in A summer when you make a double player lyse. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > eeeeew. > > My point is, Meeko normally posts about a fifth of the traffic in the game. I think he’s been getting better at cutting down the posts-per-word ratio. Is he getting better, or has his behavior changed so much we should lyse him? Wow. I take back what I just said. If you could get me snuffed in the first summer, it would go a long way for you, wouldn’t it? > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > People took my comment too seriously. I apologize for any offense taken, **Meeko**. > > Snipped \*\* Ack! People are on to me for Snuggling raccoon-boy? Reel it in!! Damage control!!!\*\* > [@amrussell](#): > > Snipped. Bolding Mine. > > I know that we’re all going to find ourselves in agreement with other players from time to time. And in some ways it would be ridiculous not to say so when we do. But to see two heartfelt agreements with the same player in quick succession struck me as a little excessive. **Scuba** may or may not be snuggling **storyteller** , but if he were, that’s what it would look like. So on that basis, I thought he would be worth another look. > > 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. > > Lastly, a couple of remarks just niggled at me: > > **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.** > > Expanded here to give my bolded more emphasis. > > 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. 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 used this quote before, and I use it again here, because I naturally thing that Amrussell is on to something. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > Snipped. > > 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. I’m leaning there with you Digger. > [@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. I touched this one before too. I can’t imagine that Scum have ever broken into “How do we solve a problem like Meeko”. **WIFOM** : Would Scum have a better read on how I affect Mafia, than I do on myself? Would they then use that against me? \*\* And how do they feel now, that I totally obliterated any resemblance of my previous play style ? \*\* > [@Oredigger77](#): > > Snipped and Bolded. > > 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.** > [@Natlaw](#): > > 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 > > Snipped > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > Snipped > > Also, as I can today, I’ll work up a list of who doesn’t ping my mistuned Scumdar. In the past I looked for bad guys, and failed. So this time I’ll try it the other way. **Scuba, could you please explain this? It appears to me you just said “I am going to go look for pondies and vote them.”** > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > No, not at all. I’m aware of the vanilla role PM. I’ll explain fully when peeker has responded to my question about why he chose to claim this early (I think I know what he is going to say, but I’m not making any assumptions). > > **@Town** - Be very careful here. Any slips will help the scum to role-fish. And finally, admitted non-sequitur here. Alka - Is your last line here meant for Town, or for Scum? ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/507 "2010-02-02T20:12:40Z")
Reviewing the game in order to make my above WOW post got me thinking about Peeker. The point has been raised that Peeker as scum would not have made the play he appears to be making. So, when I read peeker’s posts, is he feeding me Peeker brand wine, or Scum brand wine? Either way, I don’t think peeker as scum would engage the entire thing for as long as he has. My bet is he got baited by Pond. I think the reactions are Peeker’s first, and his alignment second. More noise than signal right now, and I think we hit on something else in the interim. I could be wrong here. But I think I talked myself into a second unvote. My reasons are in the WOW-ish post above. **Unvote Peeker** \*\*Vote Scuba\_Ben \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/508 "2010-02-02T20:17:17Z")
Also something else I wanted to hit on earlier, Re Storyteller ; 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. I’m not sure this is the right math, or the right way to look at it. I don’t think a Non-NK == Doctor Protection. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/509 "2010-02-02T20:25:43Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > > interesting on this quote. i’ve already mentioned it twice before. what is it about the “niller” that rings a bell. not the “ton of planks” or plankton? > > hmm. Ugh, I hate when you do this. Are you saying ‘niller’ rings a bell because it is similar to Vanilla? Because it could also be similar to ‘Miller’ in which case you’re going to have to be lysed eventually. I’m not convinced that **peeker** ’s play has been pro-scum which is always my primary goal in making my votes. But in the absence of a player making pro-scum posts, my voting falls back to those with anti-pond behavior. At this point, I’m concerned about some of the aspects of **peeker** ’s posts with regards to his reactions to getting voted and see them as Anti-Pond even if not blatantly pro-Scum. So for now I will **vote peekercpa** ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/510 "2010-02-02T20:37:34Z")
Another point about Scuba… > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > All right, I skimmed up through my “I’m back” in 474. And I found I’m drawing some heat for commentary with **story** and observations / tongue in cheek / possible repressed metagame issues with **Meeko**. And I can’t make head or tail of the case on **peeker**. And I have only the vaguest of unfounded opinions on several people. > > In other words, typical Day 1 for me. Although I do note, I don’t think I’ve been accused of snuggling before. > > I’m going to have to reread what **Cookies** said about my posts on Thursday/Friday, to see if my position then was misrepresented, or if I misunderstood eir presentation. Or both. > > Also, as I can today, I’ll work up a list of who doesn’t ping my mistuned Scumdar. In the past I looked for bad guys, and failed. So this time I’ll try it the other way. I reference/quote Scuba in [228](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12051712&postcount=228), and within a few posts he and I discuss my use of his quote further, and that’s the end of the exchange. Yet somehow, despite multiple other players having since dissecting his posts, voiced suspicions of him, and voted for him…they are all ignored so that he can go back and rehash something with me that has already been addressed. Something doesn’t jive, skimming at best. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/511 "2010-02-02T21:05:41Z")
To be honest **Cookies** , rereading now that you brought it up I think **Scuba** was just confused by your run-on-sentence: > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I don’t know that I’m parsing sache’s tone as dismissive of all things other than lysing a Spawn each round, at least not to the extent that some other people seem to be. Metagame perhaps, but he strikes me as just as likely to be a Townie confident that he’s right but willing to consider evidence to the contrary, as opposed to someone who is “dismissing anything entirely” (quoting Scuba), or “[promoting] a spawn lynch every Day without question” (quoting special ed), or of the opinion that any other option is “egregiously problematic” (quoting story). > > I think it is a null tell with respect to sache, and potentially see a cluster of exaggerations of his position. Also your ‘dismissive of all other things’ is really a sneaky summary of the reasons you quote. They don’t like **sachertorte** dismissing a dual player lynch specifically and not suggesting sachertorte is dismissing all kinds of things except his own way like you seem to imply. The actual quotes: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > The idea that having two living Spawn is so egregiously problematic that it mandates daily split voting seems to me, at first glance, to be one that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. > [@special\_ed](#): > > I’m in agreement with \*\*storyteller \*\* in thinking it odd to promote a spawn lynch every Day without question. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > While we do have to keep the Spawn population under control, we have the option to lyse two players. I decline to dismiss that option entirely. ---
**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 2, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/512 "2010-02-02T21:06:23Z")
Welcome back, Meeko :smack: ---
**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 2, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/513 "2010-02-02T21:13:34Z")
\*\*Attention, everybody! I just realized I accidentally left in a minor handshake. To fix this, I need to make one small piece of information public. All of the legitimate Pond-aligned power roles end with the following sentence: > [@](#): > > You are aligned with the Pond, and win or lose when the Pond does. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/514 "2010-02-02T21:23:08Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Another point about Scuba… > > I reference/quote Scuba in [228](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12051712&postcount=228), and within a few posts he and I discuss my use of his quote further, and that’s the end of the exchange. Yet somehow, despite multiple other players having since dissecting his posts, voiced suspicions of him, and voted for him…they are all ignored so that he can go back and rehash something with me that has already been addressed. > > Something doesn’t jive, skimming at best. Yeah, I’ve noticed before that an effective way of deflecting suspicion is just to ignore it - it’s amazing how often town will drop the case and move on to the next shiny thing if the suspect just keeps schtum. I admit I was hoping for a bit more of a response from \*\*Scuba \*\*and I’m wondering if he’s consciously trying to avoid being the centre of conversation. ---
**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 2, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/515 "2010-02-02T21:28:28Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > Yeah, I’ve noticed before that an effective way of deflecting suspicion is just to ignore it - it’s amazing how often town will drop the case and move on to the next shiny thing if the suspect just keeps schtum. I admit I was hoping for a bit more of a response from \*\*Scuba \*\*and I’m wondering if he’s consciously trying to avoid being the centre of conversation. They often do go away, you’re right about that. Do you think that that’s a “scum tell” as it were or just a townie trying to get by? I feel like in the past when I’ve been scum, I’ve been pretty defensive about it on quite a few occasions which snowballed. Are scum more likely to be defensive because they know a vote on them could be a bad thing? I can’t help thinking that a townie, esp a vanilla townie, would be a bit more, “Whatever” if they only get a vote or two because they figure it’s bad but it’s not the end of the world. Whereas if a scum dies there’s all the info we can see from voting patterns and whatnot. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/516 "2010-02-03T00:24:22Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > 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** well let’s take it point by point. 1. truth 2. it’s how i play. so let’s just call this a mischaracterization 3. i’ll go ahead and give this one kind of true but certainly a general mischaracterization. 4. yes i asked 5. well this is certainly what **z** posted but it doesn’t support his accusation. i assume you meant to caveat this with that **z** obviously was full of it. if not, then that’s certainly a lie. otherwise, i guess you were just incomplete on your analysis. 6. ok, this an absolute horsehocky lie. never said what you say i said. 7. eh, the truth is what the truth is. 8. i’d once again flop this in the mischaracterization pot 9. glad to see that you agree 10. agreed as well. i believe that scum are salivating at this point. 11. well maybe lying in all instances is strong but certainly in one. and mischaracterization in others. see tha’s the way scum like to play this game. mix in a little fact with a whole bunch of spin and voila you’ve got a case. hey, do i play optimally all the time. nah. and to be honest getting rid of me doesn’t really hurt town too much. and to some extent the fact that you are at least reading gives you a little bit of credence for spinning the way you do. but remember, i have also played scum with you in the past and you can be just as much as a conniving little shit as others who will remain nameless. but i think if you are town that spinning stuff to reach an already reached conclusion is mas dangerous. you come off looking kind of reasoned, almost pro town, all the while stabbing us in the back. ---
**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 3, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/517 "2010-02-03T01:58:27Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > well let’s take it point by point. > 6. ok, this an absolute horsehocky lie. never said what you say i said. Here’s my point: > [@](#): > > 1. Peeker changed his story, claiming that his vote wasn’t random, but was, in fact, some sort of Scum trap. Post 346 Here is the relevant part of post 346 with part bolded > [@](#): > > \*\*so it was a pseudo random vote based on policy. just to see what would happen. \*\*well, i can see what happened. either lazy town or opportunistic scum took the approach of “well shoot he has to be scum sometime” or “shoot this is way easy”. what’s gonna be fucked if the pseudo random crapped out green 00’s. So, it looks like there was intent to your vote. You were Scum hunting. Yet, here is post 229 with parts bolded > [@peekercpa](#): > > **WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT?** > > quit making shit up. \*\* i mean call me out for a bullshit pseudo random vote\*\* but don’t transfer a whole buch of freudian crap on me. > > fuck it. > > **unvote story** > > **vote z** > > i mean \*\*my vote was INTENDED to be lame but at least it was clear. \*\* yours is a whole bunch of funk. Now, maybe you intended it to be a lame scum trap. And maybe you did have some elaborate plan in catching Scum. Maybe the lame vote was your Scum trap. But, I still contend that it looks more like you’re changing your story as the Day wore on. Additionally, how were you proposing to catch Scum? By casting a bad vote and then pointing fingers at the people who called you on a bad vote? Really? Because that’s what it appears you’ve done. You made a bad play. People called you on it. You re-framed your bad play as a Scum trap and pointed fingers at the people who called you on your bad play. And then, when I point out your changing reasons for voting, you deny there’s a change (maybe you’re implying that your hidden Scum trap was there all along…only..you didn’t mention it until over 100 posts after you aggressively defended your weak vote…and I’m the one who lied? Really? Does post 346 not imply that your ‘pseudo random vote’ was a Scum trap? Did you fail to claim it as that previously when defending yourself earlier? OK, enough of that. As to this > [@peekercpa](#): > > have also played scum with you in the past and you can be just as much as a conniving little shit as others who will remain nameless. If I recall correctly, we’ve played 1 game as Scum together. I was lynched in Day 2. And my play was more dictated by my role as a Scum Mason Traitor. Now, unless you consider spamming the thread with random Wikipedia articles as being a conniving little shit (and I may have to concede that, despite it not being brilliant play)… Now as to the mischaracterization… > [@peekercpa](#): > > 1. it’s how i play. so let’s just call this a mischaracterization So…um…are you saying that when I describe accurately how you play that it’s a mischaracterization? Do you understand the meaning of the word mischaracterization? > [@peekercpa](#): > > 1. i’ll go ahead and give this one kind of true but certainly a general mischaracterization. Now, I said > [@](#): > > 1. 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 Go ahead and read those posts And now, the last 'mischaracterization claim from peeker > [@peekercpa](#): > > 1. i’d once again flop this in the mischaracterization pot Here’s point 8: > [@](#): > > 1. 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 and from post 355 > [@peekercpa](#): > > the only thing i would continue to caution is that this could truly be town on town stupidity ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/518 "2010-02-03T02:23:12Z")
and **ed** maybe this is where we get caught on semantics. to me lying and mischaracterization are for all intents and purposes the same thing. except… maybe mischaracterization could be worse. you don’t get caught in an outright lie but you come across as insightful and helpful. well, i know you lied once and mischaracterized a couple of times. that is not very town motivated. so if lynching non town motivations is a reason for a vote you should be voting for yourself by definition. and just another couple of quick observations. so you admit that it could be a “lame scum trap”. well, fuck dude lame or not at least i am hunting scum. uh, fuck dude i know that we have played scum together once. you are the one that made the initial observation about moi. the rest of your post seems to be, hell i don’t know how to say but yeh, you are kind of quoting what i said but certainly not with the intent. so i singled out **z** for a crap ass vote. you make it sound like an indictment when it can also be taken from a town responding to a total bullshit connection. sersiously, a banana is a fruit. an orange is a fruit and is citrus oriented. that does not mean a banana is citrus. so to call someone, including you out, on faulty reasoning is bad? seriously, that is about as anti town a stance that i have seen. so, once again, by your logic, we should all vote for you? ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/519 "2010-02-03T02:32:22Z")
also, total metagame. **ed** loves to get in my grill. s’okay. but he also only does it when he’s kind of sure of picking off low hanging fruit. he smells like scum real bad since he would then know that i am town. i think he wants me to claim something that i am not. in the absence of that he will be more than happy to take a town niller down on Day 1. and **chronos** no disrespect but i am just accustommed to the Day/Town/Scum convention that i don’t even think about the whole Summer/Pond/Scum thing until after i have posted. because i really like the set up. and **ed** you and everyone else can argue and point out whatever you want. it won’t change the fact that i am just a common plankton. all i can do is try to help the folks left in seeing how wrong you are. ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/520 "2010-02-03T02:53:14Z")
**special ed** isn’t coming off as particularly scummy–he has cited his opinions and he hasn’t done anything suspect like saying he just has a general feeling. He’s posted evidence. He’s coming off as fairly pro town to me. And no disrespect, but you don’t have the best record for deciding who is town and who isn’t…you didn’t hit a single scum in your time as vig last game. Maybe you should take a step back and relax before you start spouting off wild theories. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=27)