# 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:** 30
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/581 "2010-02-04T00:53:53Z")
All scum-motivated manipulation eventually shows, it’s just a matter of whether of how much shows up on the radar of how many people before the game ends. A point of clarification before I decide whether or not I should resurrect the hypotheticals that I had originally drafted with my question to you. Are you proposing that double-voting for players be a unanimously accepted strategy in order to be executed, or are you still in favor of some players double-voting for players while others vote for Spawn if they so choose to? ---
**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, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/582 "2010-02-04T00:56:22Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > All scum-motivated manipulation eventually shows, it’s just a matter of whether of how much shows up on the radar of how many people before the game ends. > > A point of clarification before I decide whether or not I should resurrect the hypotheticals that I had originally drafted with my question to you. Are you proposing that double-voting for players be a unanimously accepted strategy in order to be executed, or are you still in favor of some players double-voting for players while others vote for Spawn if they so choose to? I think everyone should vote as they think best. I am opposed to all unanimous or uniform strategies, as they reduce accountability. If Player X thinks we should double-lyse, then Player X should vote for two players. If Player Y thinks we should lynch Spawn, Player Y should vote for Spawn and one player. I think the downsides of enforced unanimity far outweigh any gains from same. ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/583 "2010-02-04T01:15:34Z")
Seriously, does no one else see the point storyteller is making? Are we going to play the game like this: ```auto Case 1 Case 2 Day One No Information No Information Day Two L1+L2+N1 L1+N1 Day Three L1+L2+L3+N1+N2 L1+L2+N1+N2 ``` Let’s just get Chronos’ program and let it tell us how to vote. :smack: Instead of actually looking at who is doing what and deciding what our best course of action is? Now, yeah, I see the danger of letting the Spawn get out of hand. I’m not completely advocating a double player lynch. But, you know, the best test for us to find out if we have a Vig is to give him a free shot at a Spawn toNIght. @ **sachertorte** , if you knew we had a Vigilante, would you be more willing to vote for two players and let the Vig kill the Spawn toNight? I think a common problem Town makes in games is playing not to lose instead of playing to win. Often Town players vote timidly, not wanting to push someone towards a lynch. Even in this game, we’ve seen Town players voting for Scuba for apparently no reason other than we were headed toward a lynch of another player! Really? I mean, REALLY?!?! What is the rationale behind having 2 candidates? Maybe it’ll spur a little discussion…but obviously that’s failed. And, in fact, Scuba picked up his middle Day votes for not commenting on his early votes. I think it’s only because it makes some Town players feel better. Is it any better to have someone in a close second when we mislynch? ---
**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 4, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/584 "2010-02-04T01:21:09Z")
I don’t think the **fluiddruid** case is going anywhere toDay, but I don’t particularly like the cases against the two lynch leaders at this point. If I had to choose between the two, I’d probably choose **Scuba Ben** , because I’m perplexed at the lack of any real defense. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/585 "2010-02-04T01:28:38Z")
Ok, so if the group is split in voting methodologies on a day where we have a mislynch, the town’s analysis attention is going to need to also be split in at least two different motivational directions. There are a few different hypotheticals that come to mind that would result in that same outcome of a mislynch under mixed methodology circumstances: A) The 3rd runner up in the voting and/or someone taking a lot of heat that Summer was Scum, but enough Pond-on-Pond suspicion towards the person who is eventually mislynched that the Scum decide to vote in the split-lyse methodology pool so as to appear as townie as possible and not need to worry about an accountability trail for their 2nd votes. B) The 3rd runner up in the voting and/or someone taking a lot of heat that Summer was Scum, but the Scum decide that the safer gamble would be to stay out of the split-lyse voting pool and instead leverage both of their votes to try and protect the 3rd runner up. C) The 3rd runner up in the voting and/or someone taking a lot of heat that Summer was Pond and the Scum decide to vote in the split-lyse methodology pool so as to appear as townie as possible and not need to worry about an accountability trail for their 2nd votes. The call to at least try for unanimous methodologies for a given day makes a lot of sense when looking at the amount of braincells, analysis elbow grease, and persuasive effort it is going to require for the Pond to navigate safely through so many motivational variables. Towns usually only have one or two to deal with and have enough trouble trying to make their way through the pitfalls and land mines that lurk below their collective imperfect knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/586 "2010-02-04T01:30:19Z")
NETA _sigh_ Damn fingers. That should read: “…the town’s analysis attention is going to need to also be split in at least three different motivational directions.” ---
**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, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/587 "2010-02-04T01:35:45Z")
Here are the posts where Suba got his votes. \*\*Amrussell \*\*actually makes a case 1. Scuba snuggled with storyteller 2. Scuba may have baited Meeko \*\*Natlaw \*\*agrees with the snuggle but doesn’t agree with the Meeko-baiting \*\*Oredigger \*\*is just poking Scuba to get him to respond **Meeko** …um…I don’t really know, I think he agreed with amrussell. But he voted for Scuba mostly for the Snuggling of Meeko himself and maybe baiting? **KellyCriterion** is just poking Scuba as well \*\*Cookies \*\*votes Scuba for skimming. She also doesn’t like his comments about the single or double lynching stuff. And now **Drain Bead** says she thinks she might vote this way. > [@amrussell](#): > > I’m going to give the whole \*\*peeker \*\*issue a swerve, because I think the case has already been well made and there’s not much more to add. \*\*Zeriel \*\*and **special ed** have certainly flagged up bad play and inconsistencies, but (FWIW) I’m just not convinced that it’s scum at work. > > Instead, I want to turn the focus elsewhere because we’re getting in danger of going round in circles. So I had a look back over the thread and this caught my eye: > > 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. 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** > [@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** > > I’m deliberately avoiding voting **peeker** here - I do think his play isn’t helpful, but frankly an express train lynch of him doesn’t either. I don’t see **Zeriel** or **special ed** questioning of him as particularly scum play, but neither do the less vocal voters on him. If there are more than one player up for lynch, the vote record starts to become much more interesting. > > **@KellyCriterion** , are you still reading along? Have you played (online) Mafia before? Bit overwhelmed I guess (not really a problem, but a sign of live is always nice)? > _As I always say ‘A post a day keeps the Scum away!’ > And in this Pond we also lyse the Spawn - although another joins us at Dawn. > Because it rhymes you’ll remember this note: don’t forget to vote!_ > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I don’t want to keep waiting for you to come back with this info since you’ve already said that you’re having a busy week at work. I also don’t like the Peeker case and think that we’re being led to lynch the outspoken townie in his case. In general I’d prefer to lynch the quite townie because at least we’re getting information. I’m going to > > **Vote Scuba** > > to give you a bit more incentive to explain what’s going on and if no explanation is forth coming I’m content to fall back on a lynch the slightly scummy looking lurker. > [@Meeko](#): > > 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 \*\* > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I don’t feel there’s much of a case to be made on anyone yet. The alleged **Alka** “slip” looks fairly tenuous to me. The case against **peeker** looks equally flat, but I have no idea what to make of (his?) emotional reaction to the heat he was drawing. If **peeker** turns up town.. then dude, relax. “It’s just a game”. > > 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** > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > 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 4, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/588 "2010-02-04T01:45:06Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > I think a common problem Town makes in games is playing not to lose instead of playing to win. Often Town players vote timidly, not wanting to push someone towards a lynch. Even in this game, we’ve seen Town players voting for Scuba for apparently no reason other than we were headed toward a lynch of another player! Really? I mean, REALLY?!?! > > What is the rationale behind having 2 candidates? Maybe it’ll spur a little discussion…but obviously that’s failed. And, in fact, Scuba picked up his middle Day votes for not commenting on his early votes. I think it’s only because it makes some Town players feel better. Is it any better to have someone in a close second when we mislynch? Your paraphrasing of the case against Scuba is lacking, perhaps downplayed since you were also implicated in the same potential straw-man argument behavior early on? Are you really advocating that the non-peeker votes would be better spent if we just piled on peeker regardless of the noise level, personal attacks, etc that plague the case against him? If a townie player ignores suspicions and votes against him/her, how exactly is that going to help convince people not to mislynch them? How is that pro-town? ---
**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, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/589 "2010-02-04T01:46:50Z")
And here is the post where Scuba provided his defense. This was also the last time he was on the boards. At that point, he had just gotten his 2nd vote. Peeker already had 6 votes. I know Meeko misinterpreted part of this. by assuming that, “In the past I looked for bad guys, and failed. So this time I’ll try it the other way.” meant he was going to look for Town and vote for them. On the other hand, I assumed he meant he would look for Town and \*\*not \*\*vote for them. > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/590 "2010-02-04T01:47:16Z")
Again, there were three components to my vote justification, not just two. ---
**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, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/591 "2010-02-04T01:54:34Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Your paraphrasing of the case against Scuba is lacking, perhaps downplayed since you were also implicated in the same potential straw-man argument behavior early on? > > Are you really advocating that the non-peeker votes would be better spent if we just piled on peeker regardless of the noise level, personal attacks, etc that plague the case against him? > > If a townie player ignores suspicions and votes against him/her, how exactly is that going to help convince people not to mislynch them? How is that pro-town? I’m not advocating that people just pile votes onto peeker. I’m advocating that people vote carefully. Scuba has gotten 4 votes since the last time he logged on (36 hours ago). I’m not as certain that he’s ignoring the pressure as other peope seem to be. I think it’s possible that he just hadn’t noticed it. I’m not sure I understand your straw man argument. I think in the important ways, sachertorte and I actually agree on strategy. We both agree that lynching Spawn is the proper move toDay. Where we disagree is that he seems (to me) to be taking a less flexible position than I am. To me, it looks like he wants to ‘play by the numbers’ I’m more willing to take the situation as it comes. Now, I understand the noise around the case against peeker, but where are the personal attacks? ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/592 "2010-02-04T02:01:45Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > … **TexCat** , what are your feelings about the cases presented regarding peekercpa and Scuba\_Ben?..\*\* I voted for peeker and stated my feelings about the case on him. His reaction to Ed won my vote. peeker just seemed to lose all rationality when Zeriel and then Ed started questioning him. I said before that it looked like he was throwing anything and everything on the fire in the hope of causing enough smoke to cause a diversion. In particular, I was bothered by: > [@peekercpa](#): > > btw. **ed** is lying. when i flip town please lynch him. with no explanation, or at least no satisfactory explanation following. If it were any other player, I think we would have all agreed to lyse him by now. My vote is pretty firmly planted on peeker, and so I have not paid that much attention to the case on Scuba. It seems to have some merit, but I would need to reread much more carefully before I voted for Scuba. I don’t think that either of the cases comes nearly up to the threshold of surity that I would want for a double lyse. I am firmly in the camp of lysing the spawn this first summer. Clearly, scum would be more than happy for us to lyse 2 pondies this summer. I would also note that scum is also interested in role claims, and that claims are often made when someone is in danger. If we put more people in danger with a double lyse and more people claim, that is to the scum’s advantage. All in all, I think the double lyse is good for scum and bad for pondies. On the other hand, scum are certainly more dangerous than spawn and if we are pretty sure we have 2 scum located, I would not oppose a double lyse to get rid of them. Voting records are there to be examined. People voting for a double lyse need to have a good explanation. And anyone not voting, can’t have a good enough explanation. Almost everyone has voted except Rysto and Story. Scuba has only voted spawn, and Natlaw has only voted Scuba. I am beginning to wonder about Story who has been fairly active in the thread, but has not voted. Not voting is clearly anti-town, but you could also argue that waiting to vote until the last minute is also anti-town. ---
**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, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/593 "2010-02-04T02:02:38Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Again, there were three components to my vote justification, not just two. OK, can you summarize your case for me then? There has been a great deal of noise since then. I don’t want it to be lost. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/594 "2010-02-04T02:59:03Z")
My case against Scuba breaks down imho to skimming, what can be considered evasion, and the lyse debate strawman. It is Fluiddruid’s post #296 that stuck out as a personal dig to me. Prior to that, and after, there had been a fair degree of peeker-playstyle-metagaming, but it was that post that ironically set a tone and environment that at best just increases the noise level and at worst could be construed as baiting peeker. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/595 "2010-02-04T03:30:02Z")
> [@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? > > Yeah, there is that assumption. I guess I’m still looking at the game through ‘peeker is Scum’ goggles. I should stop that. So you’re alleging that you had tunnel vision while writing that post. You were so convinced that **peeker** was Town that when an opposing lynch bandwagon started up, you assumed that this was the scum response to the heat that **peeker** was getting. You’re so certain of your case against **peeker** is a good one that you’ve concluded that **Scuba** _must_ be Town. But in the very same post that you assumed that **Scuba** must be Town, you said this: > [@special\_ed](#): > > We had an early push on peeker. Despite the fact that I pushed this case, I’ll admit it’s not ironclad. Oh yes, you’re very certain here. I think that you’re lying. I think that you slipped into Perfect Information Syndrome and accidentally revealed that you know that **Scuba** is Town. I called you on it immediately and you had to offer some kind of response, but your explanation doesn’t match your own words from the very same post in which you slipped. **Vote special ed Vote spawn** ---
**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, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/596 "2010-02-04T03:40:45Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > My case against Scuba breaks down imho to skimming, what can be considered evasion, and the lyse debate strawman. so, correct me if I’m wrong but is the straw man related to these comments? **sachertorte** > [@sachertorte](#): > > To those pondering the utility of letting spawn live sometime in the future (I seriously doubt we’ll find a case where it is a good idea, but I’ll entertain the theoretical), I ask you to remember that for every summer that we don’t lyse spawn, we must spend one future summer lysing two spawn. Maybe a situation will come up, but I feel that the evidence will have to be very compelling: > At the very least we would have to know with 100% certainty that two players are scum. Even then, I feel one scum one spawn killing is probably better. Which sounds a bit more absolute than most people are claiming sachertorte was. **storyteller** > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Something like this, is my opinion. I think there’s a lot of knee-jerking going on with regard to the Spawn. A whole army of Townies have chipped in, so eager to show how Townie they are by getting their vote down for a Spawn, as if having a pile of votes on the Spawn seven minutes into the Day matters at all. > > Spawn cannot coordinate, they cannot vote in a directed fashion, and their deaths will reveal nothing about the game. Every lyse of a player will increase our ability to analyze what has happened so far; every lyse of Spawn will give us nothing, no information, nada. 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. > > With 21 players, I figure 3-5 PC Scum, with 4 the most likely number given the existence of the Spawn mechanic. Discounting for a moment the influence of third parties, that would mean 17 Town. So right now, the balance may be 17 Town vs. 5 Scum total. In the worst case, if we were to lynch two players this Summer and hit both Town, we’d end up at 15 T vs. 5 Scum going into Winter (assuming one Scum directed Night kill and ignoring other factors), and then 14 T / 6 S next Summer. But a quick double Spawn lyse gets us back to 14-4. > > On the other hand, if one of the two players lynched turned out to be Scum, then it’d be 16-4 starting Winter, then 15-5 at the outset of next Summer. If we then lynched one player and one Spawn, we’d trim things to (worst case) 14-4 or (best case) 15-3. > > I think the short version of this is that the knee-jerk response is wrong. In some cases, lynching multiple players may prove to be a beneficial strategy, because having an extra Spawn hanging around won’t really affect us _at all_ until the endgame. > > In fact, for these reasons, I’m not even 100% sure that it makes sense to lyse Spawn at all this Summer. I realize that this opinion may get no traction, and that I’ll most likely take heat for it, but I learned a very important lesson from **Ed’s** game about playing to not get lynched, so there’s my opinion - let’s see what folks think. Which seems to be arguing against a knee-jerk reaction. Granted, story takes it farther than me in thiking toDay is a good Day for a 2 Player lynch. **sachertorte** > [@sachertorte](#): > > Basically I think that 2 today and 0 tomorrow is much worse than 1 today and 1 tomorrow. It provides a cleaner vote record AND the second kill is made WITH MORE INFORMATION (the result of the first kill). > > I’m baffled that we even need to discuss this. that sounds pretty close minded to me. (though the reasoning is sound.) Then in post 220, Cookies labels storyteller’s knee-jerk reaction as knee-jerk himself. I think this is \*\*my \*\*strawman > [@special\_ed](#): > > I’m in agreement with \*\*storyteller \*\* in thinking it odd to promote a spawn lynch every Day without question. > > If we don’t lynch spawn, we have extra known Scum who play really badly (random voting) around. If we end up lynching 4 or 5 Scum, then we can take care of the Spawn quite easily: we kill 2 per Day, they kill one of us. > > The upside to leaving Spawn alive is that we get more information by killing more players. Additionally, if the Scum take a lead in the lynch vote, it’ll be doubly difficult for any voting manipulation to save them. > > With all that said, I think early in the game, when we have little information to go on, it might be best to lynch the spawn as well as a player. Here is Scuba’s strawman? > [@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. > > The key being, of course, carefully considered. If the Spawn get out of [del]hand[/del] pseudopod, the Scum win. Still == > > Spawn are known to be pro-Scum, that’s all the information we all have this early. It’s better than a random vote for now. So: > > **Vote Spawn** > > (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. **Cookies** This seems out of place, since to me, it seems sachertorte was more close minded than Scuba and me up to this point. Granted, sachertorte nominally kept his options open, he certainly was pretty strongly leaning toward a spawn lynch every Day. (He seriously doubts we’ll find that situation, but he’s willing to keep the option open in the theoretical…) > [@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. And Scuba’s response where it does appear that his confusion is genuine, as I myself am confused > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > Ahem. I am **declining** to dismiss anything entirely. Did you simply misread me, **Cookies** , or did you misquote me? \*\*Cookies \*\*responds > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I did not misquote you. I did apply your quote as a suggestion made about an implied target, sach. Did you mean that Scuba was implying that sachertorte was a lynch target? really? I may have missed some posts because I don’t see that. And, taken in total, it seems more like your post was a Strawman. From the looks of it, Story, Scuba, and myself were arguing to keep options open (OK, story less so) while sachertorte seems less willing to keep an open mind (except in the theoretical) And, from the looks of it, none of the 3 of us were accusing sachertorte of having Scummy intent. And, yet, Cookies, you seem intent on painting it that way. methinks the strawman belongs to you… > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > It is Fluiddruid’s post #296 that stuck out as a personal dig to me. Prior to that, and after, there had been a fair degree of peeker-playstyle-metagaming, but it was that post that ironically set a tone and environment that at best just increases the noise level and at worst could be construed as baiting peeker. and I find post 296 to actually be a calm response to post 229. (and also posts 218 and 221) > [@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. > [@fluiddruid](#): > > In the interest of getting a vote on the record, since the game clock seems to be flying by, I’m going to > > **vote peeker** > > I get his frustration, but not his anger. At the risk of being labeled a bandwagoner, I confess this vote is largely for selfish reasons – I don’t want to play in a game with the tone that **peeker** has been using. Scum or not, I don’t get a good feeling. ---
**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, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/597 "2010-02-04T03:42:38Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > So you’re alleging that you had tunnel vision while writing that post. You were so convinced that **peeker** was Town that when an opposing lynch bandwagon started up, you assumed that this was the scum response to the heat that **peeker** was getting. You’re so certain of your case against **peeker** is a good one that you’ve concluded that **Scuba** _must_ be Town. But in the very same post that you assumed that **Scuba** must be Town, you said this: > > Oh yes, you’re very certain here. > > I think that you’re lying. I think that you slipped into Perfect Information Syndrome and accidentally revealed that you know that **Scuba** is Town. I called you on it immediately and you had to offer some kind of response, but your explanation doesn’t match your own words from the very same post in which you slipped. > > **Vote special ed > Vote spawn** Congratulations. I’ve made many long content filled posts, and you found a mistake I made. You win the very late one-off vote award. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/598 "2010-02-04T04:00:38Z")
Sache seemed to be the implied target of the references of that cluster of posts, not necessarily the target of lynch pressure. A strawman smear if you will. Replace maybe a few cuss words in Peeker’s post and I don’t think it could be construed as personal. We can call people liars in this game and ask for specific examples while still staying well within the field of play. Saying what is basically “I don’t like playing with you and I’m going to vote accordingly”…not so much having anything to do with the mechanics/roles of this game. And despite how it may appear I do not think that Peeker smells like sunshine and puppy breath in toDay’s exchanges. I think emotions got a bit riled for a few people and posts were probably made that would not have been under calmer circumstances, which is why voting for Peeker or fluiddruid is not on my list of things I think should be done without better justification. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/599 "2010-02-04T04:02:04Z")
NETA: without better justification and more data points that may or may not come to pass as the game continues. ---
**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, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/600 "2010-02-04T04:05:26Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Sache seemed to be the implied target of the references of that cluster of posts, not necessarily the target of lynch pressure. A strawman smear if you will. OK, so we see it differently. You see it as smearing sachertorte, I see it as disagreeing with the strong strategic stance he was taking. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Replace maybe a few cuss words in Peeker’s post and I don’t think it could be construed as personal. We can call people liars in this game and ask for specific examples while still staying well within the field of play. Saying what is basically “I don’t like playing with you and I’m going to vote accordingly”…not so much having anything to do with the mechanics/roles of this game. And here too, we see it differently. I can understand fluid not liking the tone peeker was setting. Different people respond differently to cuss words and attacks like that. I certainly wouldn’t have thought of fluid’s response as a personal attack against peeker, but more an attack against the way he was deciding to play. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=31)