# 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:** 29
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/561 "2010-02-03T21:48:20Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Why are you bringing this up now Sach? Because you have explicitly stated the desire to lynch spawn. Strongly. And yet you vote for two players. What is your angle? Why are you voting for two players when you WANT SPAWN DEAD? I agree with Ed that your stance is hypocritical. Why should you get to vote for two players when you have explicitly stated that spawn should be killed? It makes no sense. And is unfair to everyone else. Gah! To be a little bit more toothy about it. Allowing scum to vote for two players allows them to hedge their bets. With one vote, scum have to make a decision, “Do I vote for scum, or do I vote for Town?” which is an uncomfortable position. With two votes you ease their decision by letting them spread their votes out… a scum here a town there… I don’t want scum to be comfortable. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/562 "2010-02-03T21:59:02Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > To be a little bit more toothy about it. Allowing scum to vote for two players allows them to hedge their bets. With one vote, scum have to make a decision, “Do I vote for scum, or do I vote for Town?” which is an uncomfortable position. With two votes you ease their decision by letting them spread their votes out… a scum here a town there… OK, I find that more understandable. I was thinking in terms of more votes = more information, and that scum would be uncomfortable making more votes than they had too. The hedging aspect hadn’t occurred to me. ---
**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 3, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/563 "2010-02-03T22:03:39Z")
> [@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? > > So, if Scuba is going to be lynched, would it be beneficial to lynch Peeker as well and get all that behind us? The only reason it would make sense to look at \*\*Peeker \*\*tomorrow is with the knowledge of **Scuba** ’s alignment. If \*\*Scuba \*\*were to come up Scum, what would be the reason to look at **Peeker**? We’ll be looking instead at the people who \*voted \ ***Peeker**. Lysing him without that crucial piece of knowledge is a pure shot in the dark. ---
**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, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/564 "2010-02-03T22:07:01Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > To be a little bit more toothy about it. Allowing scum to vote for two players allows them to hedge their bets. With one vote, scum have to make a decision, “Do I vote for scum, or do I vote for Town?” which is an uncomfortable position. With two votes you ease their decision by letting them spread their votes out… a scum here a town there… > > I don’t want scum to be comfortable. To be honest, I’m not sure that’s all that bad for Town. I would say that a major reason why scum lost T2 was because of exactly this kind of voting pushing a fellow scum over the top at a critical juncture of the game. ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/565 "2010-02-03T22:08:03Z")
As for the Scuba\_Ben train, I don’t find it significantly less substantive than the peekercpa train. Personally, I’d prefer a two horse race to a one horse race anyway. I’d prefer one of the horses to be Freudian Slit, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/566 "2010-02-03T22:10:19Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > To be honest, I’m not sure that’s all that bad for Town. I would say that a major reason why scum lost T2 was because of exactly this kind of voting pushing a fellow scum over the top at a critical juncture of the game. Possibly. But are you saying that in T2 you had two votes? I’m pretty sure we didn’t. Look at it this way. If we had 5 votes, do you think that would be better or goddamn confusing? Unity. A very special number. ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/567 "2010-02-03T22:20:15Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Possibly. But are you saying that in T2 you had two votes? I’m pretty sure we didn’t. T2 was a borda count game. Everybody had _three_ votes. One counted for 3 points, one counted for 2 and the last counted for 1. ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/568 "2010-02-03T22:23:01Z")
> [@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? Yeah, there is that assumption. I guess I’m still looking at the game through ‘peeker is Scum’ goggles. I should stop that. > [@sachertorte](#): > > 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: Yes, I understand, I only put forth the idea. Sometimes it helps to have concrete examples to work with when trying to discern which options are viable. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@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. Yes, I read and understood that post. What that post fails to take into consideration is the actual game. We’re assuming that we have no information at any point, and that the only real information we have is from the dead players. I disagree. We have information now. We get information in a variety of ways. I maintain that there may be times when it is to our benefit to use an extra player lynch to gain more information sooner. Think back to Colorless, when Freudian was on the block every Day, isn’t it likely that lynching her along with the other lynch might have provided a good deal more information? I think that’s the problem when we draw up strategy in the abstract. ```auto Case 1 Case 2 Lynch One No Information No Information Lynch Two No Information L1+N1 Lynch Three L1+L2+N1 L1+L2+N1+N2 Lynch Four L1+L2+L3+N1+N2 L1+L2+L3+N1+N2+N3 ``` L1, L2, N1. N2, who are these players? No, once we assign them to players and look at thow they are currently playing, we already have information. This isn’t a strictly by the numbers game. Sure numbers are helpful, but a lot of it is gut, thought, insight, investigation… I mean, unless someone wants to drag up Chronos’ program and use that…which, I think will be proven ineffective whenever her runs the data from Colorless through it. We don’t need any more information on any of the 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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/569 "2010-02-03T22:29:40Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Think back to Colorless, when Freudian was on the block every Day, isn’t it likely that lynching her along with the other lynch might have provided a good deal more information? I’m assuming that in the case you cite that Freudian was scum and that you wished you had lynched her. Well, the converse is true too. What if Freudian was Town? Wouldn’t you be happy that you didn’t lynch her? Whatever. Your failure to lynch scum is NOT because you couldn’t take out two at once. It’s because you convinced yourself that lynching Freudian was not the right thing to do. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/570 "2010-02-03T23:01:13Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > What that post fails to take into consideration is the actual game. We’re assuming that we have no information at any point, and that the only real information we have is from the dead players. I disagree. We have information now. We get information in a variety of ways. I maintain that there may be times when it is to our benefit to use an extra player lynch to gain more information sooner. I’m not saying that flips are the only information we have, only that town should be able to make better decisions with more information. OK, lets try a concrete example. Lets say we lynch peeker toDay, and keep an open mind on Ben. Tomorrow we should be able to make a better decision on whether Ben is scum or not: - Maybe a vig or an SK will take out a scum? That would give us a big dollop of information. - There are likely to be one or more flips during the night. Inevitably, some townies would have been suspicious of any killed townies. We now have a clearer read on the game, and more energy to devote to the case on Ben. - If he is town, there is a small chance scum might NK him. Unlikely, but not impossible. Postponing a lyse of spawn doesn’t give us any more lynches in total, which is the critical number in a game of Mafia. I may have to drop any suspicions I have based on the mechanics of this game. I was thinking Ed was playing a strong pro-town game, now I’m not sure what to think. ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/571 "2010-02-03T23:16:36Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I’m assuming that in the case you cite that Freudian was scum and that you wished you had lynched her. Well, the converse is true too. What if Freudian was Town? Wouldn’t you be happy that you didn’t lynch her? > > Whatever. Your failure to lynch scum is NOT because you couldn’t take out two at once. It’s because you convinced yourself that lynching Freudian was not the right thing to do. well, not exactly. I was 100% sure that lynching Freudian was the right move for Town in that game… ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/572 "2010-02-03T23:20:37Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > well, not exactly. I was 100% sure that lynching Freudian was the right move for Town in that game… If YOU had lynched me, you would’ve had some ‘splainin’ to do, 'cause that would have been seriously gasterdly. ---
**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, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/573 "2010-02-03T23:21:52Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I’m not saying that flips are the only information we have, only that town should be able to make better decisions with more information. > > OK, lets try a concrete example. Lets say we lynch peeker toDay, and keep an open mind on Ben. Tomorrow we should be able to make a better decision on whether Ben is scum or not: > > - Maybe a vig or an SK will take out a scum? That would give us a big dollop of information. > - There are likely to be one or more flips during the night. Inevitably, some townies would have been suspicious of any killed townies. We now have a clearer read on the game, and more energy to devote to the case on Ben. > - If he is town, there is a small chance scum might NK him. Unlikely, but not impossible. > > Postponing a lyse of spawn doesn’t give us any more lynches in total, which is the critical number in a game of Mafia. Yes, you’re right. For now anyway. It’s still best in this case to lynch Spawn. I’m just cautioning against taking such a strong stance on lynching Spawn that it’s difficult to overcome our predisposition in the game. I think our discussion has been too abstract so far. As a game gets going and things get complex, it’s never so cut and dry as when we talk about Player A, and Player B, and Player C. You say that we can make better decisions based on more information, and tehre may come a time when we should be willing to sacrifice letting a Spawn live to get _even more_ information. Ad, while I agree that now isn’t the time, I don’t want to get so firmly entrenched in lynching Spawn every Day that we never overcome that mindset. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I may have to drop any suspicions I have based on the mechanics of this game. I was thinking Ed was playing a strong pro-town game, now I’m not sure what to think. How am I suddenly not playing pro-Town? By continuing to suggest that we keep our minds open? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/574 "2010-02-03T23:29:17Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > The allegation of control-freakery riles a bit. Sorry. But you can’t seem to acknowledge that it is possible that I both see and understand the same things you do, and yet have reached a different conclusion. I am not accusing you of failing to grasp game mechanics, in spite of the fact that your opinion on this differs from my own. It’s actually insulting, a little, the implication that the only way I could have reached a different conclusion is if I’m “having problems” (or, I guess, pretending to, though why I would do that is utterly beyond me). > [@](#): > > 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 can help you with that. I’m not having any problems with the game mechanics. I understand them perfectly. I understand your argument, and **sach’s** argument. There is not one bit of it I don’t follow or don’t grasp. I don’t agree with you. I think you are wrong, incorrect. I find your argument unpersuasive, in spite of the fact that I understand it perfectly well. Seriously, I can do this all day if I have to. ---
**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 3, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/575 "2010-02-03T23:51:39Z")
**story** , I think earlier someone asked you to give a concrete example of why we should double-lynch players toDay specifically. Can you explain why a double-lynch on Day One is the right thing to do for Town to set us up for the rest of the game? ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/576 "2010-02-03T23:56:27Z")
So Story, how do you suggest we mitigate against the risks of scum executing manipulations with their two votes each while keeping our minds open to the possibility of voting to lyse two players? ---
**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 4, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/577 "2010-02-04T00:09:35Z")
Vote total: Spawn 18 peekercpa 7 Scuba\_Ben 6 Freudian Slit 2 Zeriel 1 fluiddruid 1 DiggitCamara 1 storyteller0910 1 1: special\_ed – peeker (353), Spawn (353) 2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193), Scuba\_Ben (549) 3: Drain Bead – Spawn (191), fluiddruid (316) 4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194), Scuba\_Ben (482) 5: storyteller0910 6: Meeko – Spawn (182), [del]fluiddruid[/del] (334-386), [del]peeker[/del] (386-507), Scuba\_Ben (507) 7: Mahaloth – Spawn (209), peeker (209) 8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (183-314, 441), peeker (282), [del]sachertorte[/del] (314-441) 9: USCDiver – Spawn (246), peeker (509) 10: Alka Seltzer – [del]Spawn[/del] (249-470), DiggitCamara (419), storyteller (470) 11: peekercpa – Spawn (186), [del]story[/del] (186-229), Zeriel (229) 12: Natlaw – Scuba\_Ben (460) 13: Zeriel – Spawn (204-277, 345), peeker (204), [del]sachertorte[/del] (277-345) 14: DiggitCamara – Spawn (285), Freudian (326) 15: amrussell – Spawn (247), Scuba\_Ben (428) 16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (374), Scuba\_Ben (529) 17: Scuba\_Ben – Spawn (225) 18: sachertorte – Spawn (202), Freudian (489) 19: fluiddruid – Spawn (296), peeker (296) 20: TexCat – Spawn (198), peeker (488) 21: Rysto Not many votes today. Oh, and especially with two players being so close, I’d appreciate it if folks double-checked my count. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/578 "2010-02-04T00:42:25Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **story** , I think earlier someone asked you to give a concrete example of why we should double-lynch players toDay specifically. Can you explain why a double-lynch on Day One is the right thing to do for Town to set us up for the rest of the game? I have tried to do this repeatedly. Can I just refer you to my seven thousand, six hundred and twelve other posts on this subject? No? This post is going to set off another twenty responses, none of which will persuade anyone, and on and on into oblivion. OK, in a nutshell: lynching twice allows to eliminate two suspicious players instead of one, thus eliminating the tedious drag on the game that happens when the second-choice for Day One’s lynch hangs on for Days before eventually getting lynched. It generates more information more quickly, something that sach is poo-pooing but that is of value to me. Most importantly by far, it somewhat increases the chance that we will actually kill Scum. I have found that the biggest pro-Town moment in any game is the first lynch of Scum. Without a lynched Scum, the “storylines,” as it were, aren’t ever particularly clear (no matter how much information has been generated by other means). As soon as one Scum is dead, you can start to see the shape of things much more distinctly, and develop more intelligent hypothesis as to the missing pieces. If there are Scum power roles, then eliminating one of them early is a bonus, but even if there aren’t, I still view lynching at least one Scum as early in the game as possible very critical. I don’t think even my critics will deny that lynching two players instead of one increases our absolute percentage chance of accomplishing this goal toDay, right? As I don’t see the downside of a double-lyse (the persistence of a single Spawn) as a problem worthy of consideration at this point, I am thus in favor of the double-lyse. I would prefer to be extremely aggressive in pursuit of that first Scum lynch. Others would not. I’m OK with this. Let’s just keep going. > [@](#): > > So Story, how do you suggest we mitigate against the risks of scum executing manipulations with their two votes each while keeping our minds open to the possibility of voting to lyse two players? I have no interest in mitigating against that risk. If the Scum attempt to execute vote manipulations at this stage of the game, then you know what? _That’s awesome!_ Vote manipulations are (comparatively) easy to spot; the vote record is transparent and can be followed in real time. If the Scum try to use the option to double vote to play games, you don’t think it will eventually show? ---
**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 4, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/579 "2010-02-04T00:46:25Z")
storyteller0910 **NO VOTES** Rysto **NO VOTES** Alka Seltzer – **TWO 1-OFF VOTES** Natlaw – **Lynch Leader + NO VOTE** Scuba\_Ben – **Spawn + NO VOTE** Drain Bead – **Spawn + 1-Off Vote** peekercpa – **Spawn + 1-Off Vote** DiggitCamara – **Spawn + 2-Off Vote** sachertorte – **Spawn + 2-Off Vote** special\_ed – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** Oredigger77 – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** Meeko – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** Mahaloth – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** Freudian Slit – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** USCDiver – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** Zeriel – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** amrussell – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** KellyCriterion – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** fluiddruid – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** TexCat – **Spawn + Lynch Leader** ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/580 "2010-02-04T00:50:29Z")
btw, Ed, that’s actually a really helpful outline. I think I will steal it for future games, if you happen to not be playing. I obviously intend to vote. Today got hectic and I didn’t get to do as much reading as I’d hoped, so I’d expect to vote tomorrow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=30)