# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/541 "2010-02-03T18:52:52Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > How can it be that I’m so far down on the post number list? It’s an abomination I tell you. I need an argument with someone stat! > > Meeko 50 > sachertorte 28 Must resist urge to revert to former ways… Must resist urge to revert to former ways… Must resist urge…revert to former ways… Must…revert to former ways… Nah. Not gonna happen. Trust me on this one sach, it’s not worth it. Even when you do break free from one pattern of play, people either don’t believe it, or put you down for changing. Still waiting to know what **Special Ed** meant [when he welcomed me back.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12068662&postcount=512) ---
**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:** [February 3, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/542 "2010-02-03T19:14:46Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > So, basically, you have no reason to vote. > > You just want to cast a vote to apply pressure to someone, but have no accountability? > > And the vote moves someone closer to a potential lynching, yet you make no case against him This was my point. I’m giving Kelly a chance to explain because I believe it is her(his?) first game, but that’s a really bad vote. ---
**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, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/543 "2010-02-03T19:52:36Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > Still waiting to know what **Special Ed** meant [when he welcomed me back.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12068662&postcount=512) I was just teasing you. The post you made before my comment reminded me a little bit of a younger Meeko 🙂 There were many thoughts in it, and you jumped quickly from one to the other. It can be difficult to follow at times. And you were focused on how they applied to you, rather than to the game as a whole. But don’t read too much into it. There were no breadcrumbs or hidden meanings. However, I have to admit, you’ve changed your style without changing your approach, and I like that. I think in earlier games, you had some good ideas and some bad ideas (we all do), but you were focusing more on how the game impacted you rather than focusing on playing the game. I think now, you focus more on the game, while still approaching it in your unique way. And it’s dramatically improved my ability to understand you and follow your train of thought. Though, to be honest, I think I learned a lot about you watching you work in Colorless. I think when you moderate, you can learn a lot by watching players. I was able to watch you, Freudian, Drain, and mentalguy (who isn’t in this game, is he?) plot in the Scum thread. That was your first \*real \*expeience as Scum, since Conspiracy is a multi-sided team. Sometimes it makes me giggle to think back to being a Mason with you in Crimson Glyph 😃 :smack: :eek: ---
**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 3, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/544 "2010-02-03T20:08:09Z")
On Diggit, his initial position on double-lyse versus vig kills was odd, he wanted to trade numbers for information by lysing (ignoring the spawn problem), while he doesn’t want the vig to trade numbers for info. He did give some justification for this, that vig kills don’t leave a voting record. I’m more concerned about the fact he hasn’t responded since I poked him a bit. His account has been active, but he hasn’t posted anywhere else on the boards. As an aside, a couple times I’ve advocated that a vig should consider killing the vote runner up. Just in case it isn’t clear, I’m not suggesting this should be followed prescriptively, just that it’s better for the vig to kill players with a voting history (both votes cast and received) from an information point of view. I tend to think a Day 1 vig kill is generally a bad idea. On Story, I’m concerned because he has posted several erroneous or misleading arguments on the setup. It does strike me as a bit unlikely that a scum Story would cling to his position when a simple “spawn lyse is probably the right thing to do” would draw less attention, but I’m not going to give him a pass. This is a bad (or bad, bad, bad, in a bid to enter the masonry of triple) post: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > **Alka Seltzer** : I disagree with you. You are going to have to get it through your head that sometimes, people have strategic ideas that differ from yours. There is not one correct way to play this or any game. I disagree with you on the correct way to play this one. I don’t apologize for my position on this nor do I back down from it one bit. However, I do decline to continue to discuss it, because it’s a line of discussion leading nowhere. I get the feeling that this drives you crazy, that you _need_ everyone to agree with your strategic opinions and if they don’t, they must be Scum, but you’re not getting the first or the second, at least as far as I’m concerned. Sorry. > > Your vote for me is silly and baseless. And it’s comical - _comical_ - that you actually unvoted Spawn in order to place it. The personal attack is unwarranted, looks like he is trying to get a reaction from me. The only other time this has happened to me in mafia was when I was riding a scum player hard. It also contains a strong implicit assumption that I am town. There is a double double-standard in the post. Story says my unvote for spawn is ‘comical’ when he’s advocated players being able to freely use both their votes, and after he defended another player unvoting spawn on the basis that there were already enough votes down to ensure a spawn lyse (both points I agree with). On the other hand, his analysis in #487 strikes me as useful. I quite like the point about Fluid’s vote on peeker. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I’ve gone back and looked at **Alka** ’s posts in light of what he posted. He’s riding **story** pretty hard for the double lysing thing. I agree we shouldn’t double lyse a player, still, he does seem pretty adamant and story doesn’t look all THAT scummy to me. I’m not sure if this is a strong power role Townie player trying to get rid of what he sees as scummy or as scum making a case to off a 'nilla. This is odd. How does any of this imply that Story is vanilla? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Sorry for the post after this one–I didn’t see this. I didn’t mean to probe too far. I’ll back off. If you think there is a case for me as scum you should make it. My concern is that I don’t want players to start dropping hints about their roles. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I don’t feel it’s fair that I’ve kind of sat on the sidelines watching all this heat getting thrown around, the worst that’s come my way so far is someone asking whether I am still following the thread. > > I can understand that this game obviously relies on proper player participation, and those who go with the “play it safe and avoid confrontation” game style are either townies wanting the end-game glory, or scum hoping to passively coast through. But I think passive play probably favours the scum more.. so in the spirit of Mafia Day 1 recklessness and with openly declared provocation-based intent, I cast a vote at **Scuba\_Ben** _purely_ to close the gap on the vote leaderboard, just so I can _watch him sweat_: > > **vote Scuba\_Ben** **@Kelly** - That’s a really bad vote. Who is your top pick for scum please and why? I appreciate that this is your first game, but no-one can expect a free pass through a game Day. ---
**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 3, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/545 "2010-02-03T20:25:12Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > How can it be that I’m so far down on the post number list? It’s an abomination I tell you. I need an argument with someone stat! I suggest you disagree with me on strategy, that should help your post count. > [@sachertorte](#): > > **Alka Seltzer** , why do you feel privileged to vote for two separate players while everyone else is voting for one (or none)? How do you justify nearly everyone else voting along the strategy you advocate (spawn) yet you do not? What makes you so special? I think I’ve dealt with this, spawn is so far in the vote lead that it is certain to be lysed. I have no objections if half a dozen or so players want to move votes off spawn, provided they can back them with meaningful cases. > [@sachertorte](#): > > If you could only vote for one player, who would it be? That’s a good question to ask anyone using two votes. I’m considering a vote for peeker, and am waiting to hear more from Diggit, Ben and Kelly in particular. I’m less keen on a Story lynch now he is providing some meaningful content. ---
**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 3, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/546 "2010-02-03T20:30:28Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I think I’ve dealt with this, spawn is so far in the vote lead that it is certain to be lysed. I have no objections if half a dozen or so players want to move votes off spawn, provided they can back them with meaningful cases. The problem I have with your stance is that who gets to decide who gets two votes? If everyone voting for spawn decided, “Hey Alka Seltzer gets to split his vote on two players, why can’t I. I think X is just as scummy as my current vote and I want the record to reflect that too.” then we would wind up not lysing spawn. Again: Why are you special? ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/547 "2010-02-03T20:33:01Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > This is odd. How does any of this imply that Story is vanilla? It doesn’t necessarily–I just didn’t think that **story** came off all that suspicious, that’s all. Based on the comment you made earlier several ppl inferred that you either weren’t vanilla town–as in you were either Town Power Role or Scum, I figure this could be an example of a scum trying to find an excuse to off a townie. But as you said before you didn’t want to get into your role, s o I’m happy to dorp 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 3, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/548 "2010-02-03T20:35:40Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > On Story, I’m concerned because he has posted several erroneous or misleading arguments on the setup. It does strike me as a bit unlikely that a scum Story would cling to his position when a simple “spawn lyse is probably the right thing to do” would draw less attention, but I’m not going to give him a pass. This is a bad (or bad, bad, bad, in a bid to enter the masonry of triple) post: Maybe story sticks to his position because he’s right. You might want him to phrase it differently, but that doesn’t change the premise of his argument, which, to me, is “There may be times when we want to lynch 2 players and no Spawn.” Just because you disagree with him doesn’t mean he’s wrong. He’s absoultely correct and I fully agree with him. I do believe that he’s correct, though I maintain that lynching Spawn is the correct move for toDay. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > The personal attack is unwarranted, looks like he is trying to get a reaction from me. The only other time this has happened to me in mafia was when I was riding a scum player hard. It also contains a strong implicit assumption that I am town. There is a double double-standard in the post. Story says my unvote for spawn is ‘comical’ when he’s advocated players being able to freely use both their votes, and after he defended another player unvoting spawn on the basis that there were already enough votes down to ensure a spawn lyse (both points I agree with). That wasn’t a personal attack. That was an attack on your play. You say it is Town’s best move to lynch a Spawn every Day and then you don’t vote for a Spawn?!?! I implied you were a hypocrit for that move. I think story impied the same. You seem to be the one with a double standard: 1. Everyone else has the responsibility to lynch a Spawn 2. Alka Seltzer can vote for 2 players. You are encouraging everyone else to follow your standard, then you’re voting for 2 players, while specifically voting for story for holding the option of voting for 2 players open! Someone please tell me how this isn’t hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/549 "2010-02-03T20:36:14Z")
At this point I’m going to **Vote Scuba** Most of the other data to be gleaned from today is marred in peeker exchanges which is a lot of noise with the signal, including some personal stuff (which is ill guest in these games and pollutes the data imho) or from what may boil down to just legitimate differences in opinion on lysing strategy. Scuba seems to be skimming and not engaging those who are trying to engage him. I think he attempted a straw man exaggeration against the single spawn lysing strategy. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/550 "2010-02-03T20:43:13Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > The problem I have with your stance is that who gets to decide who gets two votes? If everyone voting for spawn decided, “Hey Alka Seltzer gets to split his vote on two players, why can’t I. I think X is just as scummy as my current vote and I want the record to reflect that too.” then we would wind up not lysing spawn. > > Again: Why are you special? This is a very very very good question. Not to Alka specifically, but to all of us. Do we trust each other at this point to devise a probabilistically even way to determine who votes for Spawn and who is free to put both votes elsewhere? “Hell no” comes to mind, as even if we did come up with a method that the Scum couldn’t manipulate, they could still get lucky in any random selection. They could do a lot of damage if enough of them were placing both votes on players. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/551 "2010-02-03T20:46:48Z")
This is why I think that sach was actually right about being unanimous in voting for spawn. The problem is that we basically face a giant Prisoner’s Dilemma. We’re better off if we collectively lyse spawn, but individually we are better off choosing not to vote for spawn. This gets even worse for us because we have a group(the scum) who benefit if we don’t collectively vote for spawn. ---
**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 3, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/552 "2010-02-03T20:52:51Z")
Note: The ‘you’ in Ed’s quote is Alka Seltzer, not me, but it could be me since I also find storyteller’s position mind-boggling. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Maybe story sticks to his position because he’s right. You might want him to phrase it differently, but that doesn’t change the premise of his argument, which, to me, is “There may be times when we want to lynch 2 players and no Spawn.” Actually, storyteller as posited the view that killing two players now makes sense because of the information gained. It is this view that boggles my mind. I’m fine with the position that ‘sometime in the future we may have evidence or a situation that warrants a double killing of players.’ I’m OK with this stance because it recognizes that the current knowledge of the game indicates that killing spawn is the correct move and double killing players depends on some as-yet-unseen bit of information. Personally, I don’t think it will ever happen, but if something comes up, THEN we can revisit. The position I have a problem with is the argument that we should kill two players today… for information. I hate that. It bothers me. It bothers me a lot. ---
**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, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/553 "2010-02-03T20:59:59Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > This is a very very very good question. Not to Alka specifically, but to all of us. Do we trust each other at this point to devise a probabilistically even way to determine who votes for Spawn and who is free to put both votes elsewhere? “Hell no” comes to mind, as even if we did come up with a method that the Scum couldn’t manipulate, they could still get lucky in any random selection. They could do a lot of damage if enough of them were placing both votes on players. which is precisely why I agree with sachertorte when he suggested that if we are to lynch Spawn, that everyone be strongly encouraged to vote for a Spawn. If the Scum are to manipulate voting, it’ll be much easier to do with 2 Votes. Basically, a double vote for Scuba and Peeker (if they remain the vote leaders) is the functional equivalent of not voting. However, if one is Scum, a player can try to earn credibility by pointing out they voted for Scum. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/554 "2010-02-03T21:06:36Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Actually, storyteller as posited the view that killing two players now makes sense because of the information gained. It is this view that boggles my mind. > > I’m fine with the position that ‘sometime in the future we may have evidence or a situation that warrants a double killing of players.’ I’m OK with this stance because it recognizes that the current knowledge of the game indicates that killing spawn is the correct move and double killing players depends on some as-yet-unseen bit of information. Personally, I don’t think it will ever happen, but if something comes up, THEN we can revisit. > > The position I have a problem with is the argument that we should kill two players today… for information. I hate that. It bothers me. It bothers me a lot. And I’m toying with the idea that a double player lynch toDay might be a good idea. We had an early push on peeker. Despite the fact that I pushed this case, I’ll admit it’s not ironclad. After that, we’ve had a strong push to lynch Scuba. If Scuba ends up hanging toDay, won’t it make sense for us to look at Peeker toMorrow as if the Scum may have manipulating? So, if Scuba is going to be lynched, would it be beneficial to lynch Peeker as well and get all that behind us? I’m certainly not sold on this, and think even in this case, it might be good to wait until toMorrow since the Spawn lynch is a sure thing, but maybe it’s something we can discuss. On a similar point. I’m very leery of the Scuba train. It’s been slowly building. It’s very quiet compared to the volume of the peeker case. It certainly doesn’t seem strong, and, obviously, I think the peeker case is stronger. Is anyone else leery of the push to lynch Scuba? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/555 "2010-02-03T21:13:09Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > If Scuba ends up hanging toDay, won’t it make sense for us to look at Peeker toMorrow as if the Scum may have manipulating? :dubious: That would be predicated on the assumption that Scuba is going to come up Town, ed? Is there anything you’d care to share with the rest of the class? ---
**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 3, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/556 "2010-02-03T21:17:48Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > :dubious: > > That would be predicated on the assumption that Scuba is going to come up Town, ed? Is there anything you’d care to share with the rest of the class? Exactly. Lynch both today and you do so without any additional information. Lynch One, and you can consider your options tomorrow with the extra info of the role of today’s lynch (as well as the Night events). It seems so crystal clear to me, and yet… :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/557 "2010-02-03T21:20:36Z")
Can someone tell me how matters if some people places vote on two players or not: Suppose this vote count: Spawn: 10 Player A: 3 Player B: 3 Player C: 3 Then I can make it 11-4-3-3 or 10-4-3-3-1 or 10-4-4-3 or 10-3-3-3-1-1 The first and second are equal with regards to the lynch. The last one is so avoiding responsibility it is scummy in my opinion. The third is the interesting option: instead supporting one persons lynch I would defend one person - basically lynch anyone but C. This would be a bold statement and therefor deserves scrutiny. And it’s definitely something to hold someone accountable for. Note a single Spawn vote moved reverts the state to before: 9-4-4-4 a triple tie then I guess it might escalate to a mass Spawn unvote. If I was the player C voting A and C might be very tempting as defense but that’s where the ‘town shouldn’t be afraid to die’ argument might be true (and thus stick only to one vote to be clear). But if it is a one off vote - which hardly worse than a Spawn vote - it’s far from ‘the OMG you’re stealing our votes!’ sentiment. You could argue it allows scum to vote for each other with consequence, but that it similar to talking strategy now and checking if someone deviates from it later. ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/558 "2010-02-03T21:20:57Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Is anyone else leery of the push to lynch Scuba? Yeah. I’m not really seeing it either. However, I am against a double lynch today. I think we need to weigh what we do next Summer with what each person comes up. At this stage of the game, let’s play it relatively safe by killing off a spawn and one scummy looking person at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/559 "2010-02-03T21:21:59Z")
If I was the player C voting A and [del]C[/del]B… ---
**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 3, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/560 "2010-02-03T21:24:44Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > The problem I have with your stance is that who gets to decide who gets two votes? Why is this important? Players cast different numbers of votes over the course of a game, and not all votes are made with equal conviction. > [@sachertorte](#): > > If everyone voting for spawn decided, “Hey Alka Seltzer gets to split his vote on two players, why can’t I. I think X is just as scummy as my current vote and I want the record to reflect that too.” then we would wind up not lysing spawn. At which point votes could be switched back to spawn to ensure a lyse. Yes, it is a bit messy, but the game is anyway. > [@sachertorte](#): > > Again: Why are you special? I’m not, as I said in my last post I don’t mind if other players cast double player votes. Why are you bringing this up now Sach? I’m not the first player to make that argument, or the first to vote for two players. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Maybe story sticks to his position because he’s right. You might want him to phrase it differently, but that doesn’t change the premise of his argument, which, to me, is “There may be times when we want to lynch 2 players and no Spawn.” Which I agree with, I said that in my first post on the subject - but only if there are dynamics to the spawn mechanism which we don’t yet know about. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Just because you disagree with him doesn’t mean he’s wrong. He’s absoultely correct and I fully agree with him. I do believe that he’s correct, though I maintain that lynching Spawn is the correct move for toDay. That isn’t Story’s position. > [@special\_ed](#): > > That wasn’t a personal attack. That was an attack on your play. You say it is Town’s best move to lynch a Spawn every Day and then you don’t vote for a Spawn?!?! That wasn’t the personal attack, this bit was: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I get the feeling that this drives you crazy, that you _need_ everyone to agree with your strategic opinions… The allegation of control-freakery riles a bit. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > You are encouraging everyone else to follow your standard, then you’re voting for 2 players, while specifically voting for story for holding the option of voting for 2 players open! > > Someone please tell me how this isn’t hypocritical. That isn’t why I’m voting for Story, I’m seeing a discrepancy in his play. I saw evidence in the previous game that he is pretty comfortable with game mechanics. I find it odd that he’s having problems with the mechanics of this one, and I’m looking for reasons. I’m not that convinced it’s an indication that Story is scum, but I certainly think it’s worth considering. **@Ed** - Did you read and understand [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12063274&postcount=438) post by Sach? I had to read it very carefully a couple times, it is correct and it explains this setup from a game information setup. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=29)