# 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:** 50
**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 11, 2010, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/981 "2010-02-11T02:18:27Z")
I should also point out that fluiddruid placed the first vote on storyteller. (I’m right about that right? Alka Seltzer was second, yes?) That doesn’t seem like a terrific scum plan to me. Why on earth would scum think storyteller was particularly vulnerable at this time? I know I had been riding storyteller pretty hard, but that’s par for the course. At least, I didn’t think storyteller was going down on Day two unless he gave more indications of a scum alignment. Did anyone else perceive storyteller as some sort of “slam dunk?” I didn’t. Honestly, who here thought storyteller was particularly vulnerable prior to fluiddruid’s manifesto posts? If you honestly think storyteller was vulnerable and fluiddruid was taking advantage, then I can see voting for fluiddruid. If you looked at storyteller and thought, “meh,” then the accusation that scum are so wanting to get a bandwagon going on storyteller that they started one themselves doesn’t make sense. ---
**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 11, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/982 "2010-02-11T02:22:32Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > An elaborate case demands time to read and digest and distracts from analysis elsewhere. I disagree. An elaborate case burns ones personal time more than anything else. Reading doesn’t take a whole lot of effort or time. While I agree that attention might get diverted, that attention gets focused on the target and the accuser. So, yes, attention might get diverted… onto fluiddruid! This is actually an argument against fluiddruid being scum. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/983 "2010-02-11T02:23:24Z")
The fact that he claimed seems to infer some degree of vulnerability from where I’m sitting. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/984 "2010-02-11T02:24:26Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I disagree. An elaborate case burns ones personal time more than anything else. Reading doesn’t take a whole lot of effort or time. > > While I agree that attention might get diverted, that attention gets focused on the target and the accuser. So, yes, attention might get diverted… onto fluiddruid! This is actually an argument against fluiddruid being scum. Speak for yourself. My ADD has a much more sensitive hair-trigger. ---
**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 11, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/985 "2010-02-11T02:27:07Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > The fact that he claimed seems to infer some degree of vulnerability from where I’m sitting. No. I’m not asking if storyteller felt vulnerable. I’m asking if the other players felt storyteller was particularly vulnerable at the start of Day Two to the extent that they believe scum would mount an offense against him. That storyteller claimed is irrelevant. He claimed mid-Summer, well after the events about which we are concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/986 "2010-02-11T02:39:57Z")
Stuff I forgot to respond to earlier: > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I’m saying (as I said immediately after you made the statement) that making assumptions that any given Player is Town on Day 1 is a reasonable play on the odds, and that is how I parsed Story’s statements with respect to Scuba. Maybe it was that statement that caught the eye of Scum indicating that he could have been a Mason and bringing about his death, but that is not a foregone conclusion. There seems to be an understated consensus that Scuba is absent-T Pond, and probably a Communal Organism. While I am willing to acknowledge that possibility, I see no reason not to also consider otherwise. And that isn’t a call for Drain Bead to confirm or deny, I’m just explaining my thought process. > > Ed could have just been playing the odds in his “Assuming Scuba is town…” statement. I make statements like that all the time as a townie with no PIS, just working through hypotheticals. I think that you need to go back and look through the sequence of events. Ed made the initial post where he made the assumption. I immediately pointed out that he was making that assumption. Ed replied that he was so sure that peeker was scum, he assumed that the Scuba, as the target of the opposing bandwagon, must be Town. But when I looked at that first post again, he didn’t seem sure at _all_. He was backpedalling and it really looked to me like he had something to hide, so I voted. > [@](#): > > Short of him showing up and actually playing and convincing me of his Pondiness, flipping as Pond upon death, or being claimed by Drain, Scuba’s alignment will remain a big fat question mark in my book. That’s totally fair. Scuba definitely isn’t confirmed at all . > [@fluiddruid](#): > > do you truly believe that Story is town and I am scum? If so, please explain my reasoning for targeting him in this manner. I’d be curious to know my motives. What’s your motivation? Besides winning? Scum _have_ to lie. They have to misrepresent other players. They have to argue in favour of cases that they know are untrue. There’s every scum motivation in the world to present a dishonest case. But there sure as hell is no town motivation for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/987 "2010-02-11T03:11:10Z")
Going back for all of this lets me know that I am late to this party. Let me offer what I can : I believe that Rysto has a good case on Fluid, all laid out in [917](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12099977&postcount=917) I dare not add a Meeko layer to that layered debate, or “The house that jack built” will never get built, and the green grass will not grow all around. So yes, Fluid is getting my vote. However, I am one for posting reasons first, and vote last. However, if you want to skip down to my last paragraph, you will get a summary and my vote. I.A few of my reasons for Fluid’s vote on Peeker are still intact. A few have been rendered moot. However, I bring it up again to start off my reasons on Fluid, that It’s not simply a brand new “me too” vote on her. II. It is going to get fun here. :: There is at least one instance where Rysto quotes Fluid, quoting Story, quoting Rysto. This is the quote where the following is MIA: \*Now, the Spawn mechanic changes things in a very serious way. I just don’t think it’s the slam dunk that you and sachertorte believe it to be. More on this in the morning. \* As told by Story. [[Interesting to note the use of words here. Spawn Mechanic. Change. Serious way. I think this ties into Story’s ““Drawback””. I cover that in a second.]] III. At this point in the game, I believe Story to be Town. I further believe his Vig with a drawback. IV. I believe, out of my pure and own speculation, that the drawback mentions Spawn. I believe that **ANY** Vig _attempt_ affords a bigger Spawn threat. V.Fluid is Scum. A. This would immediately mean she knows that Story is not Scum. B. and this is speculation after speculation here She might have information on Story’s drawback. That drawback helps Scum. Helps Scum if Town Vig Story dies with a loaded gun, Helps Scum if Town Vig Story dies with a smoking gun. \*\*I think Story has been playing at the exact opposite of a PIS for this entire game. \*\* I think he was given information directly, or indirectly on how Spawn act. This might have been limited to his drawback to Vigging, or it might have come as an added piece of information. His arguments on Double player lysing probably stem from this information that he has. \*\*I bet he assumed that we had that information as well. We of course do not, and he sticks out like a sore thumb. \*\* Scum on the other hand, probably have at least this much information. The see a Town player that dug in deeper than Peeker did. They move in for the kill… at what speed, is WIFOM. - - - Story has a drawback that is anti-town to his power. [At least, this is the implication.] I can not think of any other drawback at this point, aside from effecting Spawn. Story for whatever reason will not comment to that point. I believe Scum know everything that Story knows and then some. Story probably took the stance he did because he needs to keep Spawn at some level to keep his Vig power tolerable to Town. Scum knowing this, play this to their advantage, and spin Story out to be an easy bandwagon. Fluid pingged me earlier, and for solid reasons brought up earlier, I believe that I need to revisit my vote there. \*\* Vote Fluid\*\* which is just as good, because I don’t think I can see a gamestate currently where Story is lying. His actions and words take on a more robust meaning if his drawback references Scum. If I am wrong here, then well, the real Vig will Vig story. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/988 "2010-02-11T04:06:49Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Oh, and I find it interesting that storyteller demands a scum motivation simply for suspecting him, but offers none for fluiddruid in his case against her. I don’t “demand” a Scum motivation, **sach**. You have, in the past, convinced me that asking where they are is a valuable question. Why have you abandoned that belief in my case? Have you decided that the idea that looking for Scum motivation underlying actions is no longer worthwhile? > [@](#): > > Why would fluiddruid create an elaborate case against storyteller? Spectacularly silly question. Because it looks better. Because an elaborate case looks more committed than a brief one. > [@](#): > > Why not a weak terse vote and duck behind Alka Seltzer and me? What is the scum motivation? If storyteller is Town, then the elaborate case is going to garner suspicion for fluiddruid. Is fluiddruid trying to protect someone? Why is fluiddruid sticking her neck out at all? These are weird questions, **sach**. Really, really weird questions. When I flip Town, no one will suspect fluid for the elaborateness of her case. When has that ever happened? And one sticks one’s neck out as Scum because to play too cautiously is to court suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/989 "2010-02-11T04:21:27Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I should also point out that fluiddruid placed the first vote on storyteller. (I’m right about that right? Alka Seltzer was second, yes?) That doesn’t seem like a terrific scum plan to me. Why on earth would scum think storyteller was particularly vulnerable at this time? I know I had been riding storyteller pretty hard, but that’s par for the course. At least, I didn’t think storyteller was going down on Day two unless he gave more indications of a scum alignment. Did anyone else perceive storyteller as some sort of “slam dunk?” I didn’t. > Honestly, who here thought storyteller was particularly vulnerable prior to fluiddruid’s manifesto posts? If you honestly think storyteller was vulnerable and fluiddruid was taking advantage, then I can see voting for fluiddruid. If you looked at storyteller and thought, “meh,” then the accusation that scum are so wanting to get a bandwagon going on storyteller that they started one themselves doesn’t make sense. Did you actually read my post? The one where I said that the whole point was that Scum don’t _need_ to force a mislynch? They don’t _need_ to find a particularly vulnerable target? They just need a case they can make that has at least the appearance of solidity? > [@](#): > > Wait. Let me get this right. You, who refuse to look up information are accusing me of cherry-picking data because I only looked at one game instance? Yes. I refuse to look up seven thousand past games in order to defend myself against an unanswerable and subjective charge of “playstyle changing.” I know my alignment, so it’s not really a valuable use of my time. You, on the other hand, are using the data you obtain to support a voting decision (in this case, a non-vote). > [@](#): > > Let’s go over the order of events again… slowly. Man, you are really being a jerk in this game. I really don’t know why. > [@](#): > > (1) I questioned Drain Bead’s take on Rysto. i.e., I thought she was full of shit. > (2) She explained her reasoning. > (3) I checked to see if her reasoning had support. > (4) I found support. > (5) I conclude that my assessment that Drain Bead is full of shit is full of shit. > > Mini-Munchkin is supporting evidence. It doesn’t prove anything. Well, that’s not entirely true, to me it proved that Drain Bead had a leg to stand on. This is… this is getting _bizarre_. Drain Bead’s assertion was that those who use PIS as an accusation are more often Scum than Town. How does one support or falsify this claim? One examines multiple instances of someone using PIS as an accusation, and then determines whether they are, in fact, more often Scum than Town. Choosing one specific example in which a user of PIS does not demonstrate _anything_, literally anything, about the truth of Drain’s assertion (ie, that Scum make PIS accusations more than Town). This is such an utterly bizarre stretch. _And_ it’s coupled with all kinds of twisting and turning to try to make a little _tu quoque_. THe fact that I didn’t want to look up information - a fact that you criticized me for, by the way - has no bearing on whether or not you drew a game-relevant conclusion from minimal data. **vote sachertorte** 1. For trying to use one single data point to support a theory that by its nature (X is more often associated with Y than Z) _requires_ more than one data point; 2. For responding to my question on the subject with, essentially, “you did the same thing!”; 3. For ignoring important elements of my case against fluiddruid and instead arguing against things I never said (I never described myself as “vulnerable,” for example); and 4. For abandoning his long-held theory that one should look for Scum motivation (a thing that he has practically screamed from Forbidden Threads in many, many games as Towns pile on folks with unpopular theories. * * * **Meeko** : My drawback has nothing to do with Spawn, and I do not have a post restriction. I promise you that the Scum do not know it (unless the game is pretty Gastardy). ---
**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 11, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/990 "2010-02-11T04:22:18Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > FWIW, you were on my short list story. > > Not taking what you are saying as Gospel though, but it did buy you some time in my book. Quite a turn around from this earlier position, Meeko. Story still seems scummy to me. I disagree with his position on double-lysing, and further think that scum would try to convince us that double-lysing is a good idea. I don’t like that he won’t tell us the “drawback” with his role, especially in light of Meeko’s thought that the scum already know this info. I don’t like his late voting (Though I seem to be late voting myself this summer!). ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/991 "2010-02-11T04:25:39Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Quite a turn around from this earlier position, Meeko. > Story still seems scummy to me. I disagree with his position on double-lysing, and further think that scum would try to convince us that double-lysing is a good idea. So do you think I believe that double-lysing is Pro-Town? Or do you think I am arguing a position I do not believe? > [@](#): > > I don’t like that he won’t tell us the “drawback” with his role, especially in light of Meeko’s thought that the scum already know this info. For the love of Mike, what? Meeko thinks the Scum already know, and therefore they do? Where would you get this? Meeko is wrong. The Scum don’t know anything about my drawback, again, unless the Moderator gave them that information for some reason. ---
**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 11, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/992 "2010-02-11T04:39:12Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > So do you think I believe that double-lysing is Pro-Town? Or do you think I am arguing a position I do not believe? No, I absolutely believe that double-lysing is pro-scum, at least as a general principle. I have said that in cases where we were sure we had located 2 scum I would support voting 2 scum. But since I can’t seem to find any scum, not to mention 2, who have not claimed power roles toDay, I am definitely going to stick with my vote on spawn. I still can’t seem to find a place for my other vote, since I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment, Story. ---
**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 11, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/993 "2010-02-11T04:43:38Z")
NETA: I don’t think I made the point about the drawback very clear. Story, you are certainly correct that Meeko could be wrong and the scum don’t know anything about it. However, it seems to be an inconsistency in Meeko’s logic. If he is correct, you should have told all. And so he seems to be incorrect about that part…does that affect his other reasoning as well? ---
**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 11, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/994 "2010-02-11T10:06:59Z")
I thought I’d done this earlier but I’ve just realised I hadn’t: **vote Spawn** Also, gods help me, I’ve just run a quick search on “Perfect Information Syndrome” mainly in the interests of cutting short yet another sach vs story dispute. I certainly don’t intend to track down every single PIS vote, but the first one I looked at was from Lost, when Zeriel was picked up on PIS and turned out to be scum (and the person who picked it up was town). So it can be a legitimate means of finding scum, as well as a scum tactic for placing a vote. On a more general note, I’m pretty sure that the reason we have an acronym for PIS is because it’s a behaviour that was observed in the wild and classified, not an esoteric theory that sprang into being with no empirical evidence. That it \*may \*now have evolved into a tool used more by scum than town is just further proof of how splendid and complex a game Mafia is. ---
**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 11, 2010, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/995 "2010-02-11T11:12:03Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > Uh, exactly as I stated _earlier_? I’ll quote myself(this is weird): Sorry about that Mahaloth, I’d missed that. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/996 "2010-02-11T11:53:35Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > My drawback has nothing to do with Spawn, and I do not have a post restriction. I promise you that the Scum do not know it (unless the game is pretty Gastardy). You seem to suggest that the drawback requires the scum to exploit it. So you don’t want to reveal it publicly so they can’t. Then why did you tell it exists in the first place? If you answer ‘yes’ and ‘because then me not killing wouldn’t match with my support for lots of deaths early to get that valuable quick scum kill’ - wouldn’t Winter One be the best Night to kill with the lowest chance for scum interference? If you answer ‘no’ - then what is the harm in not telling it? I remembered **Storyteller** was vigilante in _Dr. Horrible_ but he was compulsory there (must try to kill each Night), so no way to draw metagaming parallel with how he played there with his current play. Story, do you support a (normal) vigilante killing Night One? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/997 "2010-02-11T13:46:37Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > You seem to suggest that the drawback requires the scum to exploit it. So you don’t want to reveal it publicly so they can’t. Then why did you tell it exists in the first place? > > If you answer ‘yes’ and ‘because then me not killing wouldn’t match with my support for lots of deaths early to get that valuable quick scum kill’ - wouldn’t Winter One be the best Night to kill with the lowest chance for scum interference? > > If you answer ‘no’ - then what is the harm in not telling it? Well, in order to explain that, I’d have to tell you the drawback, which I’m not going to do. Folks are really fishing on this, aren’t they? Look, y’all. Either you think I’m lying - in which case you really should just vote for me and get it done - or you think I’m telling the truth, in which case you’re going to have to trust that I’ve given this a lot of thought and am acting in what I believe to be the best interest of the Pond. > [@](#): > > Story, do you support a (normal) vigilante killing Night One? I am consistently opposed to non-mandatory Vigs killing early in the game absent a really terrific reason. The particulars of my role make that stance even stronger. ---
**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 11, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/998 "2010-02-11T14:02:51Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I should also point out that fluiddruid placed the first vote on storyteller. (I’m right about that right? Alka Seltzer was second, yes?) That doesn’t seem like a terrific scum plan to me. Why on earth would scum think storyteller was particularly vulnerable at this time? I know I had been riding storyteller pretty hard, but that’s par for the course. At least, I didn’t think storyteller was going down on Day two unless he gave more indications of a scum alignment. Did anyone else perceive storyteller as some sort of “slam dunk?” I didn’t. > > Honestly, who here thought storyteller was particularly vulnerable prior to fluiddruid’s manifesto posts? If you honestly think storyteller was vulnerable and fluiddruid was taking advantage, then I can see voting for fluiddruid. If you looked at storyteller and thought, “meh,” then the accusation that scum are so wanting to get a bandwagon going on storyteller that they started one themselves doesn’t make sense. I actually had an eye on what happened with **story** , precisely because it seemed like so many people were riding his ass, but few (including myself, of course) were willing to back it up with a vote. I thought it might be an easy case for Scum to try to make, because it had the potential for a quick bandwagon, if all the people who were arguing with him decided to vote for him after someone else got it rolling. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/999 "2010-02-11T14:35:26Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I am consistently opposed to non-mandatory Vigs killing early in the game absent a really terrific reason. The particulars of my role make that stance even stronger. How does a double player lynch differ from a vigilante taking out a runner-up (who had a chance to defend and has claimed)? Both early game to get that valuable early scum kill. Why favor the first but oppose the latter? Now why favor the first when it has a drawback (a Spawn doesn’t get lynched) but oppose the later even stronger when it has a drawback (your claimed one)? ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1000 "2010-02-11T14:47:42Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’m going to keep my vote there since I’m still unhappy about Story’s lynch situation but I liked Fluid’s response. The day ends today. Are you willing to have me die because you don’t want to vote for Story? Or you don’t want Story to die? That’s, frankly, kind of ridiculous. If you think I’m scum, vote for me. If you were persuaded by my defense, it doesn’t make sense to vote for me. > [@](#): > > The problem for me is that Fluid has spend most of toDay arguing with Story and a fair number of yesterDay’s posts as well. This concerns me because if it is hunting for scum it is only hunting them through one person. I realize that some people like to get a bone in their teeth and gnaw on it until there is nothing left but I think it leaves a lot of blind spots for scum to hide in. It seems to me that Fluid is posting a large amount but not about anything controversial… Seems controversial enough to talk me, very likely, into being lynched. Granted that’s changed since your post. But it’s not a good case against me. As to not looking at other candidates, it’s a fair criticism – and one that I intend to review this morning as I’m able, as it seems likely it will be my last chance – but I don’t think it makes me scummy. How many people haven’t seriously evaluated ANY candidates at all? I simply don’t have the time to go through everyone’s posts in that sort of detail, and frankly I find the sweeping generalizations and skimming so far in today’s vote patterns disturbing in the extreme. > [@Storyteller](#): > > sach, well, who knows? Nothing about his approach to me has struck me as particularly Scummy except for one thing - he has still not articulated what, exactly, he thinks is the (potential) Scum motivation underlying my actions. He has explained why he disagrees with me, and why I have frustrated him, but he hasn’t really made the connection that would explain active suspicion. > > But this is even more true of fluiddruid. > > Here’s the thing. The Scum player needs one thing during the Day: an argument that seems reasonable, that can support a vote, that won’t draw too much fire for being a bad argument. It doesn’t even have to be an argument that actually gets its target lynched; it just has to give the Scum player a chance to vote without looking bad. > > Now, there’s obviously a problem in most cases. In the majority of cases, Scum have to manufacture an argument. They have to argue something they don’t believe (that Player X, who they know to be Town, is actually Scum). It is far easier to argue something you actually do believe (which is why voting for your fellows is an easier way to blend in than voting for Townies). > > But this double-lyse issue has given a great opportunity to the Scum. Most of them probably feel (as most of the players in this game appear to) that double-lysing would be anti-Town. So if they argue against me about this, they can argue their actual beliefs, rather than having to make something up to argue that they don’t really believe. So here we have fluiddruid. I feel like she still doesn’t really know what she’s accusing me of. I think I have been _exceptionally_ clear about what I am accusing you of. And I’m not convinced by your role claim, either. The idea that I would manufacture a case against you in the manner that I have because it is the safest scum route is, frankly, laughable. It makes absolutely no sense that I would decide to pick the player who is not only one of, if not **the** , strongest player in the game, whom I presumably know to be Town, to target and manufacture trumped up charges at great length – especially not someone whom, all through yesterday, was probably my greatest advocate in the game. > [@](#): > > She’s floundering, trying to turn a strategy disagreement into a legitimate case. Again, I have repeatedly made it exceptionally clear that this is not the case. And you continue to ignore what I’ve said and just repeat the same thing, over and over. If you disagree with me then substantiate it, don’t just repeat it enough times to make it sound plausible. And saying I’m “floundering” is another way of being dismissive about my argument without actually saying anything which can be challenged. It’s a smear. > [@](#): > > And it has the appearance of a good case, because she can nitpick every point I make and post two encyclopedic posts doing so. And it won’t be a controversial case, because most players disagree with me and it’s not hard to wave your hands around a little and create a connection in their minds between “I disagree” and “he’s scummy.” The fact that they are uncontroversial is demonstrably untrue. Look at my vote count. > [@](#): > > Well, in order to explain that, I’d have to tell you the drawback, which I’m not going to do. Folks are really fishing on this, aren’t they? Look, y’all. Either you think I’m lying - in which case you really should just vote for me and get it done - or you think I’m telling the truth, in which case you’re going to have to trust that I’ve given this a lot of thought and am acting in what I believe to be the best interest of the Pond. It’s not about fishing. Calling it fishing is just another way to stifle discussion and discourage debate, so as to make people believe just asking you questions is to appear scummy. It’s about the meat of the matter which is that I do suspect that you’re scum, and you simply refuse to answer any substantive questions – even questions which seem to have no actual role in revealing your “drawback”, such as: - Why do you insist on voting late? - Why did you say that you feel like you should have claimed on Day One? - How are we supposed to verify your claims? If you won’t answer me now, I hope to Og that someone will hold your feet to the fire on these questions when I flip Town. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe you. Your vote for me now, especially given its timing - waiting for others to cast the first votes, then piling on - it just eggs me on to disbelieve what you’ve said. I’m leaving my vote where it is, claim or no. It is simply not pro-Town to allow such role claims to proceed unquestioned indefinitely and just to trust you. Sorry, this isn’t a game of trust and you’ve given me enough reasons to do the opposite. Further, I think it’s incredibly scummy that you’ve voted for both sach and myself, and helped yourself to two votes against players. _This is exactly what I feared would happen when you espoused this argument._ Town players who want and need Spawn to be lynched will be punished with half the vote. I’m willing to stake my life on this one – I will not move my spawn vote even to save myself. It’s simply bad for Town to enable and allow this to proceed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=51)