# 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:** 33
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/641 "2010-02-04T18:09:54Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > 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 [three] 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. I thought this post would generate more discussion, but maybe I’m just stating the obvious again and the only one disagreeing with me is Story, and thusly I am not special. _sniff_ I parse the scenario above as playing the rough equivalent of a 4-shell game with the Scum. If we can avoid splitting between the voting methodologies, we’d be looking at more of a 3-shell game. ---
**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, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/642 "2010-02-04T18:12:22Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I don’t think storyteller is stupid. Quite the opposite actually. > It is because I don’t think storyteller is stupid that I don’t believe he really means what he is saying. I think it is all for effect. Longer post coming up. You don’t think story could approach the game differently? To me, someone who seems to be of an opinion somewhere between the 2 of you, this is what I see. 1. Sachertorte has figured out a style of play that is safe, and seems statistically to lead to the best percentage chance of Town not mislynching. 2. Storyteller is advocating a more aggressive approach, which has both a greater downside and a greater upside. The downside is that it’s potentially possible that we will reach endgame more quickly. The upside is that we might catch a Scum sooner, making all this “information” that we gather more useful earlier in the game. Neither one of them is wrong. I’m confused why sachertorte is so convinced that storyteller’s thinking is wrong. It’s not wrong, it’s just different. There are any mafia styles differences that we’ve come to accept. Some people propose relucant Vigilantes; some propose aggressive ones. Some propose early mass claims; some dislike claims at almost any time…and lots more like that, but it doesn’t mean one side is right and the other side is wrong. it just means the 2 sides are different. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/643 "2010-02-04T18:24:15Z")
So I read the post that **story** was alluding to, and while I can sort of see where he’s coming from, the more problematic portion of it had nothing to do with his reasoning for the vote on **Freudian**. It’s his approach to **fluiddruid**. > [@](#): > > fluiddruid (296) places what I can only describe as a personal vote against peeker. Unfortunately, this is problematic because it cannot be evaluated in an in-game sense. “Being pissed off at Player X” isn’t really a Scum or a Town tell, and while fluid’s vote is remarkably undermotivated for a fourth vote, the fact that she is admitting to personal reasons underlying the vote make it harder to see clearly. I suggest the following: peeker and fluid are unlikely to both be Scum. I kind of think it’s unlikely that fluid is Scum and peeker is Town; if that’s the case, then fluid’s vote here and her explanation for it is kind of a low blow. Thus I consider fluiddruid more likely to be Town or third-party than Scum. Here’s my issue. Why are both **peeker** and **fluid** unlikely to be Scum? Look at Colorless, where I threw a later vote on Day One for my Scummy partner **Freudian**. If you think someone might be going down, it’s pretty typical for a Scum to vote in the direction of a scummy partner in order to potentially buy some cred. I’ve seen it in almost every game I’ve played in…hell, you’ve \*done/i] it, with near-infamous results. So the whole basis of your analysis here goes to hell because it begins with an unfounded assumption. And then you say that you don’t think that **fluid** is Scum and **peeker** town because the vote and explanation would be a “low blow.” **fluid** was not the first to posit that **peeker** was being somewhat unpleasant to play with in this particular game. It would be easy for a scummy **fluid** to use that as justification for a vote, because it’s something that people would easily agree with and understand. I don’t see why **fluid** ’s justification makes it unlikely for him to be Scum. So basically, your entire justification for putting **fluid** in the Town/PFK pile is even more flimsy than your reasoning for voting **Freudian** , and in fact more flimsy than her vote on **peeker** was. I really don’t understand why you’re making umpteen levels of assumptions. If we were further into the game, I’d consider this to be a poorly-made breadcrumb, but on Day One there’s no way that I can see that you could legitimately get to where you went with this. ---
**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 4, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/644 "2010-02-04T18:44:31Z")
First Zeriel: leaning Town. Reasoning: I feel Zeriel has demonstrated a Townie earnestness that is very difficult for scum to fake. I don’t agree with most of the positions that Zeriel has taken, but the volume of posts, tone of posts, and effort in analysis leads me to think “town” with Zeriel. Zeriel’s shadow: Freudian Slit: leaning Scum. I think she has demonstrated opportunism both on voting for peekercpa and in joining Zeriel in voting for me. storyteller: leaning scum My first concern for storyteller was his stance regarding all the early votes on spawn. While I disagree with storyteller regarding spawn lyse (as well as other things) it is less the position and more the way he went about presenting his position that has me thinking scum. storyteller is very good at misdirection. His point regarding “Scum can easily vote for Spawn” was by design, I think. Implicit to his statement is the underlying point that he himself is NOT voting for spawn. In other words, he sets up in our minds that “scum will vote for spawn to look town” but since storyteller is not voting for spawn he’s not scum. Obviously this is tenuous. But it is how I view the situation. Second is his defense, or lack thereof, of his stance. Recently (today) he has been more engaging, but I feel that was due to increase pressure from additional players. But my suspicion started a few days ago: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 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 have a problem with this. Why was storyteller opposed to discussing it? All I really want is to understand why he thinks the way he does. If I can understand it, then I can accept it (even if I disagree), but at the point of that posting I was left wondering why he would not discuss it. If storyteller feels that not lynching spawn is a good town move the first day, then he should be advocating it. Screaming it, trying to convince me and others. Yet all he does is say that is how he feels and give up his efforts to convince others of the goodness of leaving spawn alive. Furthermore, he did not attempt to refute counter-arguments to his point. For example, storyteller gave some example of why double lyse is a good idea a while back and I pointed out that his example is not equivalent to the current game. He did not attempt to refute this or prove his case. I found this stance problematic. Storyteller has since expounded on his views, but the fact remains, he didn’t do so until others were pressing him for more info. And his defense is not logically sound. I’m left wondering why storyteller feels the way he does, or if he really feels that way at all. If he feels that not lynching spawn is a good idea then he should be able to defend that position, attack the counter position, and should want to. I’m left wondering if he took that position simply for effect. ---
**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 4, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/645 "2010-02-04T18:47:46Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > 1. Storyteller is advocating a more aggressive approach, which has both a greater downside and a greater upside. The downside is that it’s potentially possible that we will reach endgame more quickly. The upside is that we might catch a Scum sooner, making all this “information” that we gather more useful earlier in the game. No. My point is there is no upside (at least not as expressed by storyteller). This “sooner” of which you speak is along the Day-by-Day timeline, when we are only concerned with the lynch-by-lynch timeline. Look at it like the world series. Let’s say, theoretically, each side needs to attain 4 lynches that favor their team to win. This sets up a “best 4 out of 7” game (just like the world series!). Double lysing is essentially a double-header. It doesn’t change the total number of games that need to be won. Whether you play two games in a week or two games in the same day, you are at the _same point in the series_. Double lyse gives the _illusion_ of information faster, all at the cost of lynching based on LESS information. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/646 "2010-02-04T18:52:41Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Here’s my issue. Why are both **peeker** and **fluid** unlikely to be Scum? Look at Colorless, where I threw a later vote on Day One for my Scummy partner **Freudian**. If you think someone might be going down, it’s pretty typical for a Scum to vote in the direction of a scummy partner in order to potentially buy some cred. I’ve seen it in almost every game I’ve played in…hell, you’ve \*done/i] it, with near-infamous results. So the whole basis of your analysis here goes to hell because it begins with an unfounded assumption. _Wrong._ Absolutely wrong. It is not the _fact_ of **fluid’s** vote for **peeker** that makes me suspect that **fluid** is not Scum. It is the why of it, and you clearly get that, per below: > [@](#): > > And then you say that you don’t think that **fluid** is Scum and **peeker** town because the vote and explanation would be a “low blow.” **fluid** was not the first to posit that **peeker** was being somewhat unpleasant to play with in this particular game. It would be easy for a scummy **fluid** to use that as justification for a vote, because it’s something that people would easily agree with and understand. I don’t see why **fluid** ’s justification makes it unlikely for him to be Scum. Personally, I think that would be a crummy thing to do. Telling someone that you hate playing with them as you bus them? It seems unlikely. It seems contrary to human nature. Kind of unlikely between Scum buddies, too. Not impossible, of course, but unlikely. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it’s a data point. Why not mention it? > [@](#): > > So basically, your entire justification for putting **fluid** in the Town/PFK pile is even more flimsy than your reasoning for voting **Freudian** , and in fact more flimsy than her vote on **peeker** was. You are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t put **fluid** in the Town/PFK pile, clear her for all eternity (fluid’s a she, right? Am I screwing that up?), or ask her to make pretty necklaces with me. I regard the exact nature of her vote for peeker and the reasons she stated, along with the tenor of her interaction with him, to be a Town tell. I said, at the time, that I considered her “more likely to be Town or third-party than Scum.” There is a huge step from there to “putting her in the Town/PFK pile,” and you are glossing over that step to make it sound like I’m announcing that **fluiddruid** is cleared. I observed a behavior and offered an analysis of it. I certainly didn’t draw any conclusions. > [@](#): > > I really don’t understand why you’re making umpteen levels of assumptions. EVERYTHING in Mafia involves making assumptions. If you’re not making some kind of assumption, you’re not playing. “X is a Scum tell” involves an assumption. You make assumptions, create hypotheses, find ways to test them. That’s how the game works. Now, I have a question for you. Why are you being so oblique? You clearly want to accuse me of being Scum, but unlike **sachertorte,** who has been fairly direct in his implications, you’re dancing around the line. Are you waiting for a sign from on high, or a confession? Go ahead! Just say it! ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/647 "2010-02-04T19:00:55Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > (snip) > > **DiggitCamara** , What is your opinion of peekercpa? My opinion is: I have no opinion on **peekercpa**. If I recall correctly, I have only played with him during 3 Games. One of them was a bastard-mod type game and at the very start I thought I’d spotted someone with a special role (because he doesn’t use capitalization). From then on, I’ve noticed only one thing about **peekercpa** : I can’t get a handle on him. I don’t know if he’s town, I don’t know if he’s scum at all. I even have great difficulties trying to understand what he’s saying. And that’s why I try to keep out of any kerfluffle that involves him. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > 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. My basic stance on the double lyse thing was that I agreed with **storyteller** ’s position. However, someone just before I voted convinced me that it was a bad idea to let Spawn accumulate during the early Days because it could easily tilt the game in Scum’s favor. My guess is we should start double-lysing PC’s only once we’re reasonably sure we know how many Scum we’re dealing with. ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/648 "2010-02-04T19:02:13Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > My first concern for storyteller was his stance regarding all the early votes on spawn. While I disagree with storyteller regarding spawn lyse (as well as other things) it is less the position and more the way he went about presenting his position that has me thinking scum. storyteller is very good at misdirection. His point regarding “Scum can easily vote for Spawn” was by design, I think. Implicit to his statement is the underlying point that he himself is NOT voting for spawn. In other words, he sets up in our minds that “scum will vote for spawn to look town” but since storyteller is not voting for spawn he’s not scum. > Obviously this is tenuous. But it is how I view the situation. It’s super tenuous. > [@](#): > > I have a problem with this. Why was storyteller opposed to discussing it? All I really want is to understand why he thinks the way he does. If I can understand it, then I can accept it (even if I disagree), but at the point of that posting I was left wondering why he would not discuss it. If storyteller feels that not lynching spawn is a good town move the first day, then he should be advocating it. Screaming it, trying to convince me and others. Yet all he does is say that is how he feels and give up his efforts to convince others of the goodness of leaving spawn alive. Because, for the love of Mike, I DON’T THINK IT’S THAT IMPORTANT. I WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS. I HAVE TRIED TO POST SUBSTANTIVE, SCUM-HUNTING POSTS, AND ALL I GET BACK IS “WHY DO YOU FAVOR DOUBLE-LYSE?” BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, I DON’T THINK I HAVE A PRAYER OF CONVINCING THE TOWN THAT I AM RIGHT ABOUT THIS AND AS A METS FAN, I’VE HAD MY FILL OF HOPELESS CAUSES. God almighty! > [@](#): > > Storyteller has since expounded on his views, but the fact remains, he didn’t do so until others were pressing him for more info. This is unfair. I didn’t expound on my views until people continued asking because again, I didn’t think the issue was important enough to warrant the amount of attention it was getting (and the amount of attention I was giving it). > [@](#): > > And his defense is not logically sound. Whatever. > [@](#): > > I’m left wondering why storyteller feels the way he does, or if he really feels that way at all. If he feels that not lynching spawn is a good idea then he should be able to defend that position, attack the counter position, and should want to. I’m left wondering if he took that position simply for effect. I have defended my position at length, enough so that at least some folks have, at least, managed to grasp my intention. As a reward I have been called stupid, accused of being Scum, and had my attempts to contribute in what I regard as a more meaningful way mostly ignored. Why would I want to keep talking about this? * * * But you, **sach** , you… I don’t know. I think maybe I was wrong about you in my last post, because… I have watched you observe and/or play in dozens of games. You have resolutely adhered to a principle of “what’s the Scum motivation?” Whenever someone proposes an idea that gets them into trouble, you have always asked this question: _what’s the Scum motivation?_ Never mind whether they are right, wrong, smart, or dumb - they’re not Scummy unless there’s Scummy motivation. But I don’t see you asking that question here. I see you attacking an unpopular opinion, without addressing that issue. You say I took the position I took “for effect.” What effect? ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/649 "2010-02-04T19:04:11Z")
I suddenly understand **Pleonast** a lot better. ---
**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 4, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/650 "2010-02-04T19:08:21Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > But I don’t see you asking that question here. I see you attacking an unpopular opinion, without addressing that issue. You say I took the position I took “for effect.” What effect? Historically, I’ve come to think of those that disagree with me as being probable Town. I think this is fairly well known. I think by taking a counter stance on the point of double lysing you are attempting to look townie. In other words, for effect. The problem is, the opposite stance is difficult to defend. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/651 "2010-02-04T19:09:42Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Historically, I’ve come to think of those that disagree with me as being probable Town. I think this is fairly well known. I think by taking a counter stance on the point of double lysing you are attempting to look townie. Yeah, that’s really working out for me so far. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/652 "2010-02-04T19:10:33Z")
What I’m not really sure of, and I’d appreciate it if someone can remind me, is where Story advocated double-lynch specifically on day one, as opposed to “leaving it open as an option in general”? ---
**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 4, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/653 "2010-02-04T19:11:28Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > Yeah, that’s really working out for me so far. eh. You’re not dead yet. ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/654 "2010-02-04T19:14:48Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > eh. You’re not dead yet. You’re missing the point. Bucking the majority as a way to get Town cred would be a stupid way to get Town cred - especially when it requires someone to argue a position they don’t believe, which would be incredibly difficult. That’s not to say Scum would never buck the majority. But I sincerely doubt they would do so in order to get _more_ trusted, rather than less. A blind dead person could have guessed that I would get static for my position. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/655 "2010-02-04T19:17:11Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > No. My point is there is no upside (at least not as expressed by storyteller). This “sooner” of which you speak is along the Day-by-Day timeline, when we are only concerned with the lynch-by-lynch timeline. > > Look at it like the world series. Let’s say, theoretically, each side needs to attain 4 lynches that favor their team to win. This sets up a “best 4 out of 7” game (just like the world series!). Double lysing is essentially a double-header. It doesn’t change the total number of games that need to be won. Whether you play two games in a week or two games in the same day, you are at the _same point in the series_. Double lyse gives the _illusion_ of information faster, all at the cost of lynching based on LESS information. You’re still stuck in your box. Every lynch is not identical. Every piece of information is not identical. Every Day is not identical. And your analgoy fails because if we double lynch, the Scum only get 1 NK per 2 lynches. And we get our information while more players (and players are the key to winning) are still alive. If we lynch a Scum sooner, the information we’ve already gathered becomes MORE useful. It’s the same information…but it’s better! Do you really not see that? I’m starting to wonder about your thinking here. I know you’re smart enough to understand all this, but you are dogmatically taking a stance which while wonderful in theory isn’t necessarily as useful in the chaos of an actual game. I think a better anaolgy is in the middle of a baseball game, with a runner on 1st and no outs, the safe play, your play, would be to bunt the player over to 2nd base. It probably leads to the most likely chance of scoring a run. A more aggressive play would be a hit and run, sure, you might end up in a double play, but you might also get a big inning. It’s different, yes, but not ‘wrong’ ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/656 "2010-02-04T19:18:30Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > Personally, I think that would be a crummy thing to do. Telling someone that you hate playing with them as you bus them? It seems unlikely. It seems contrary to human nature. Kind of unlikely between Scum buddies, too. Not impossible, of course, but unlikely. Exactly what I tried to do as a wolf to fellow wolf Meeko in Conspiracy 3. Failed miserable as everyone hated both of us for our attacks and we were both promptly killed Night 1 ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/657 "2010-02-04T19:20:42Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Exactly what I tried to do as a wolf to fellow wolf Meeko in Conspiracy 3. Failed miserable as everyone hated both of us for our attacks and we were both promptly killed Night 1 Huh. I stand corrected. ---
**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 4, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/658 "2010-02-04T19:21:03Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > And your analgoy fails because if we double lynch, the Scum only get 1 NK per 2 lynches. No the analogy is correct because scum get another spawn. The extra lynch is NOT FREE. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/659 "2010-02-04T19:45:14Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > No the analogy is correct because scum get another spawn. The extra lynch is NOT FREE. OK, but your anaolgy still fails because you aren’t looking into the specifics of each situation individually, and you’re treating each piece of information as equivalent. storyteller is correct when he says that our information becomes more useful when we’ve lynched Scum. Even to go entirely theoretical. Assume 16 players with 4 Scum and no Vig. Safe way: Day 1: 20% chance of lynching Scum of lynching first Scum (4/20) Day 2: 23% chance of lynching first Scum (.8_4/18) Cumulative 43% chance of having lynched 1 Scum Day 3: 14% chance of lynching first Scum (.57_4/16) Cumulative 58% chance of having lynched 1 Scum Aggressive way: Day 1: 41% chance of lynching first Scum (4/20+4/19) Day 2: 29% chance of lynching first Scum (.59\*(4/17+4/16)) Cumulative 70% chance Day 3: 18% chance of lynching first Scum (.3\*(4/14+4/13)) Cumulative 88% chance Now, I know…I know…there will be more spawn…but it’s not such a far out there theory that it shouldn’t be difficult to imagine someone supporting it. I’m not even advocating it, but I’m not so close-minded that I can’t see it and I can just dismiss it out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/660 "2010-02-04T19:46:07Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > No the analogy is correct because scum get another spawn. The extra lynch is NOT FREE. Spawn, however, are dumb. Scum are (ostensibly) smart. Also, they get the spawn no matter who we lynch. While it does affect LyLo calculations, and it does change the number of spawn alive at any one point, it doesn’t affect at all the total number of spawn per day we’ll have to kill on average. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=34)