# 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:** 60
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1181 "2010-02-15T16:52:54Z")
> [@](#): > > I defy anyone to demonstrate that I’m playing any differently than I have before. I’ve done my best to be even-handed regarding storyteller. When I felt my argument is tenuous I have stated so (see initial suspicion on storyteller post on First Summer). When I see something that I can’t resolve as being consistent with scum play, I have stated so (storyteller’s roleclaim with drawback). And that’s just off the top of my head. > Storyteller seems to have it in his head that I need to have some sort of watertight case to be suspicious of him. He also seems to think that my “scum hunting” technique is good at finding scum. _storyteller is wrong_. My “technique” is proficient at finding Town. > > Which brings me back to avoidance as a major point against storyteller. I’ve stated this before. storyteller has been frothy about this “scum hunting” technique Yesterday. I addressed this already. Instead of responding to my words, storyteller merely repeats the charge. Uh… scummy! I am not avoiding anything. I do not find your explanations convincing. Your summary of the risk-benefit attached to my actions in this game is meandering and dishonest. You claim that the potential benefit of my actions was to “look Townie,” which would require me to be so phenomenally stupid that I wouldn’t be able to tie my shoes, because in what universe, in what prior game ever played, would any of what I’ve done be construed by the bulk of any Town as “looking Townie.” I reject this proposed Benefit as empty and inapplicable. In your summary of cost, you ignore the most significant cost: that in order to do what you are suggesting, I’d have to be arguing _against my own real opinion._ I’d have to actually believe that the double-lyse is Anti-Town, but argue anyway that it’s pro-Town. This is a huge cost. Arguing against one’s actual beliefs is an incredibly dangerous exercise - it is one of the few places where faultlines can actually be found. So your analysis proposes a Benefit that doesn’t exist and ignores Costs that do. > [@](#): > > Way back on Day One, storyteller gave two options as part of his argument for double lyse, implying that option two is analogous to our situation. I pointed out that the options he gives have no equivalence to this game. storyteller never responded to that point. Sorry, I thought that “nuh-huh, yes they do” was implied. You say that option two is not analogous; I say it is. Wow, I sure am glad we wasted typing time on this illuminating exchange. A situation needn’t be identical in order to be analogous. Way back on Day One, I was placing the Spawn to one side for a moment, as a way of responding to a specific discussion (I don’t remember the context particularly, but it’s not relevant). My point was that _Spawn aside_, we would generally be glad to have a no-action Night One following a standard lynch, even if it meant delaying the results of the standard lynch until the end of Day Two. This IS analogous to our present situation, except for the existence of Spawn. > [@](#): > > I produced tables to show the differences between looking at the game on a lynch-by-lynch basis versus a day-by-day basis. Outright stating that day-by-day outlook is deceiving. Again, storyteller did not respond on this point. Again, not to get all third grade on you, but _yes, I did._ I explained my feelings on this: that our opinions of the situation (and I have no doubt that yours is genuine regardless of your alignment, by the way) vary because we assign different levels of value to different events. Your tables do not, and cannot account for this. No, I didn’t quote your tables > [@](#): > > Storyteller has charged me with ‘cherry-picking,’ regarding Rysto and scum bringing up perfect information slips. I have stated my thought process on this front repeatedly. I’ve already stated that I reject the notion that I need to commission a comprehensive survey to support an idea. Supporting data is enough for the purposes employed. My reasoning is sound. I ask that others weigh in on this nonsense. This is such bullshit. No one is saying you need a comprehensive survey of anything. You’re trying to hand-wave it because you know you blew it, but I’ll say it again, for the benefit of our readers: 1. The claim was that Scum are more likely than Town to jump on Perfect Information-type slips and use them as the basis for voting. 2. When the claim involves “more likely,” one data point is _useless._ This is as simple as anything has ever been. I’m going to give you an example, using your own quote. In your next paragraph, you say this: > [@](#): > > Also, I would like to point out that keeping an eye on storyteller is _always_ a good idea. I hereby state the following. **Players who make references like this (ie, referencing my play in previous games as a de facto reason to watch me more closely than others) are much more likely to be Scum than Town.** If I can find you a single example where someone said something like this and _was_ Scum, will you accept this proposition? Will you vote for yourself? Of course you won’t. Because you’d reasonably say, "that has nothing to do with anything. It’s one example. > [@](#): > > From the moment storyteller claimed, his play has shifted. He has become much more aggressive. Wow, who’d have thunk that a power role might become more aggressive once he was claimed and no longer had anything to lose by playing aggressively? Seriously, this is beneath you. > [@](#): > > Where he placed his vote Yesterday is very telling. storyteller simultaneously stated that he wasn’t sure what to make of Alka Seltzer, but was willing to vote for fluiddruid. I found this play perplexing. Why? I was pretty explicit. I find **Alka Seltzer** impossible to read accurately not because he has pursued me, but because in an out-of-game sense I find his playstyle a bad mesh with my own. He and I will always clash, regardless of our respective alignments, and I struggle with analyzing him because my opinion of him is colored by out-of-game considerations. I have no such issue with **fluiddruid,** (or with you) and felt more comfortable looking at her arguments and actions in a (relatively) dispassionate way. > [@](#): > > And now, Today, he goes after me. Is this the reaction of a townie? I say no. He has just seen a Townie devote a big chunk of time examining him and concluding he was scum. So the obvious conclusion is to be suspicious of the other player who finds his play scummy :rolleyes:! Wow. The above paragraph is such bad reasoning. I mean, read it again. Yeah, I was wrong yesterDay. Happens. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong toDay. Is your contention really that because one player who was pursuing me turned out to be Town, then - presto! - all players pursuing me are probably Town, and not worthy of attention? I doubt it, because that would be silly. My case against you is independent of my case against **fluid** , and neither is/was a function of the fact that your arguments are/were against me, but rather a function of the weakness of those arguments. > [@](#): > > Town, put yourself in storyteller’s shoes. What would be your reaction to fluiddruid’s death? Meh. With all do respect to **fluid** , I was wrong. You want maybe sackcloth and ashes? ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1182 "2010-02-15T17:00:28Z")
> [@USCDiver](#): > > **Meeko** , you decided that **Natlaw** is Scum because he hasn’t voted for Spawn and then you go through his posts already having made up your mind. No wonder you see scum motivation in everything he says. I don’t think a player can be half scum. If that is what you mean. Further more, I kinda thought that was the idea of a WOW. I mean would you WOW someone you think to be Town? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1183 "2010-02-15T17:04:03Z")
And while I’m here, regarding my claim. To **texcat** , and others explicitly doubting my claim, here’s all I’m asking. Really think about what you’re suggesting, when you suggest that it’s false. In order for my claim to be false, I’d have to have decided to take a huge risk: the risk that there was a real Vig and that the real Vig would kill me last Winter. I’d have put out a false claim that was especially useless to Scum because it wouldn’t likely generate a counterclaim (the real Vig, if one existed, wouldn’t counter, just again - try to kill me). I’d have done this at a time when I was in modest but not extreme danger - so I’d have to have considered the risk of my own death by lynch at the time of the claim to be _greater_ than the risk that there was, in fact, a Vig (very likely in a game of this size) and that (s)he would kill me Night One or else out me Day Two (probably 100% assuming the existence of a Vig). Basically, I’d have been putting all of my eggs in the “There is No Vig” basket, taking a huge and unnecessary risk, when I could have just not-claimed (and showed up close to the deadline, thrown out whatever false-claim seemed best if I was in trouble, and let the inevitable fallout generate a bad lynch late), or claimed a role like Detective (where at least a counterclaim would out the real Detective). In order for my claim to be false you have to believe that: (1) the Pond has no Vig (or the real Vig either decided not to kill me or failed to kill me and decided not to counterclaim me toDay); and (2) I was willing to stake everything on the _hope_ that there is no Vig, without knowing anything about the set-up. I’m not saying that these things are impossible. I’m just asking each person who doubts my claim to decide individually whether you think they are the _most likely_ premises. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1184 "2010-02-15T17:04:45Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > I would, as they say, forget my balls if they weren’t in a bag: > > vote spawn Although I will probably use that quote later IRL, one has to wonder if I reminded you to vote spawn with my vote. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1185 "2010-02-15T17:14:42Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > but if a significant portion of the population is against lynching storyteller because of the role claim, speak up now! I thought my stance on that matter was well known. What, are we voting to vote now? Then again, IIRC, you were the one that was “ **I’d back a Meeko Lynch if everyone else does** ”. Trying too hard to blend in as townie, methinks? ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1186 "2010-02-15T17:33:14Z")
It’s weird, but **storyteller** ’s own posts have me thinking about the possibility that he’s a Serial Killer, not a part of the scum collective: 1. The double lysing would absolutely work in his favor 2. It fits with his role description (after all, why would the serial killer care about anyone’s alignment after their lysing) 3. Even his outing would be a calculated risk. After all, in a game of this size and with two potential Deaths during the Day, and no other Deaths during the first Night, it’s rather unlikely there’s a Vig around **vote storyteller** ---
**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 15, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1187 "2010-02-15T17:37:19Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > In your summary of cost, you ignore the most significant cost: that in order to do what you are suggesting, I’d have to be arguing _against my own real opinion._ I’d have to actually believe that the double-lyse is Anti-Town, but argue anyway that it’s pro-Town. This is a huge cost. Arguing against one’s actual beliefs is an incredibly dangerous exercise - it is one of the few places where faultlines can actually be found. So your analysis proposes a Benefit that doesn’t exist and ignores Costs that do. This is not a high cost. We have already agreed that voting for you simply for having these ideas is not a good reasoning. What’s more is you have the added benefit of conflating those voting for you for your attitude and behavior about it with your belief. > [@](#): > > Sorry, I thought that “nuh-huh, yes they do” was implied. You say that option two is not analogous; I say it is. Wow, I sure am glad we wasted typing time on this illuminating exchange. Right. Because we all know that telepathy works. > [@](#): > > A situation needn’t be identical in order to be analogous. Way back on Day One, I was placing the Spawn to one side for a moment, as a way of responding to a specific discussion (I don’t remember the context particularly, but it’s not relevant). My point was that _Spawn aside_, we would generally be glad to have a no-action Night One following a standard lynch, even if it meant delaying the results of the standard lynch until the end of Day Two. This IS analogous to our present situation, except for the existence of Spawn. Oh My God. I’m not the insane one here, right? So you’re saying they are analogous except for the parts that make them not analogous. Got it. > [@](#): > > Again, not to get all third grade on you, but _yes, I did._ I explained my feelings on this: that our opinions of the situation (and I have no doubt that yours is genuine regardless of your alignment, by the way) vary because we assign different levels of value to different events. Your tables do not, and cannot account for this. No, I didn’t quote your tables WTF is this supposed to mean. If you feel we should be thinking on a day-by-day basis, explain why. If you feel the lynch-by-lynch basis is WRONG, explain why. You haven’t done so. You have acknowledged that “we think differently,” but this touchy-feely stuff doesn’t do any good. > [@](#): > > This is such bullshit. No one is saying you need a comprehensive survey of anything. You did. You asked me if I checked every historical game to reach this conclusion. > [@](#): > > You’re trying to hand-wave it because you know you blew it, but I’ll say it again, for the benefit of our readers: > > 1. The claim was that Scum are more likely than Town to jump on Perfect Information-type slips and use them as the basis for voting. > > 2. When the claim involves “more likely,” one data point is _useless._ This is as simple as anything has ever been. I’m going to give you an example, using your own quote. In your next paragraph, you say this: Dude. It’s not MY CLAIM. It was Drain Bead’s, which I thought was bull. I went back to check and found supporting evidence… ie NOT bullshit. > [@](#): > > I hereby state the following. **Players who make references like this (ie, referencing my play in previous games as a de facto reason to watch me more closely than others) are much more likely to be Scum than Town.** If I can find you a single example where someone said something like this and _was_ Scum, will you accept this proposition? > > Will you vote for yourself? > > Of course you won’t. Because you’d reasonably say, "that has nothing to do with anything. It’s one example. Its precisely this type of false argument that makes me want you dead! Of course I won’t vote for myself! Chronos could chime in and tell you all to vote for me because I killed his sister, and I still wouldn’t vote for myself. My not voting for myself is the _standard state of the game_. You keep equating things that are NOT EQUAL! How does my refusal to vote for myself equate to supporting drain bead’s vote on Rysto based on historical evidence? They are entirely different! As for the proposition that you assert, if you feel that way, then that is justification for _your_ vote. Mine is irrelevant. If you want to justify it that way, you are welcome to do so. My response would be to point out, that in our most recent game I dropped some vague references to ‘kind of wanting to kill storyteller’ or something to that effect. I believe in that game I openly admitted it was for effect. Furthermore, storyteller himself has stated his belief that I’m always happy to see him dead and that doesn’t mean anything. > [@](#): > > Wow, who’d have thunk that a power role might become more aggressive once he was claimed and no longer had anything to lose by playing aggressively? Seriously, this is beneath you. Different kind of “aggressive,” but nice try. I’m pointing out that you pursued a flawed case against fluiddruid. One that a Town storyteller would not have. [QUOTE] Why? I was pretty explicit. I find **Alka Seltzer** impossible to read accurately not because he has pursued me, but because in an out-of-game sense I find his playstyle a bad mesh with my own. He and I will always clash, regardless of our respective alignments, and I struggle with analyzing him because my opinion of him is colored by out-of-game considerations. I have no such issue with **fluiddruid,** (or with you) and felt more comfortable looking at her arguments and actions in a (relatively) dispassionate way. > [@](#): > > Wow. The above paragraph is such bad reasoning. I mean, read it again. Yeah, I was wrong yesterDay. Happens. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong toDay. Is your contention really that because one player who was pursuing me turned out to be Town, then - presto! - all players pursuing me are probably Town, and not worthy of attention? I doubt it, because that would be silly. My case against you is independent of my case against **fluid** , and neither is/was a function of the fact that your arguments are/were against me, but rather a function of the weakness of those arguments. No. I’m pointing out that your narrow focus is remarkably NARROW. It lacks uncertainty, it is far too confident for your situation. You happily point out that being wrong about fluiddruid doesn’t show you are scum, yet you bullheadedly expect me to believe that your stance regarding fluiddruid and now me has nothing to do with our suspicion of you, but based on the merits of the case only. If you are Town, then you are being really hypocritical here: that is, if I’m wrong about you, its because I’m scum, but your being wrong about fluiddruid says nothing. I think storyteller is scum, but I don’t know it. I honestly was torn about what to do today, but storyteller’s attack on me makes me fine with fighting back and pushing for his lynch. The Vig roleclaim gives me pause. _I’ve explictly stated so_. On one hand I look at all that storyteller has done and I see scum. On the other we have a vig claim that has gone uncontested for a day and a half. ---
**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 15, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1188 "2010-02-15T17:47:29Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > I thought my stance on that matter was well known. > > What, are we voting to vote now? > > Then again, IIRC, you were the one that was “ **I’d back a Meeko Lynch if everyone else does** ”. > > Trying too hard to blend in as townie, methinks? (1) Not to put a too fine of a point on it, but assuming we can read your mind is not a good assumption. Repeating yourself is neither difficult nor bad. (2) Basically, if a significant portion of the population is squicked out by the prospect of lynching a claimed power role, I’d rather completely drop storyteller all-together. I don’t want the vote to be powerrole claim vs. vanilla, because that is setting us up for failure. Though now that I think about it more, perhaps my worries are not so terrible. If storyteller’s counterpart is scum, then we wouldn’t need to worry. (3) Yes. I felt a strong urge to lynch you at the end of Yesterday. I was explicit in my thoughts and intent. Your play makes no sense to me. But I will smack myself and remind myself that “I don’t understand” does not equate to “He’s scum.” But I don’t deny that the urge is there. (4) I fail to see how anything I’ve done is “trying too hard.” I’ve stated in past games, and I state here: I’ve had a bizarre run of being Town, often there is a worry that I’m successfully playing “Town” as scum. This fear has yet to be realized. The point is, I’m playing the way I always do. Furthermore, the charge of “trying too hard” really needs more support and explanation than a flat statement. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1189 "2010-02-15T17:55:44Z")
OK, **sach** : Do you follow professional (American) football? In case you don’t: if an NFL game is tied at the end of regulation play, the two teams flip a coin. The team that wins the coin toss gets possession of the football to begin an extra (overtime) period. The overtime is played “sudden death” style (ie, the first team to score any points by any means wins the game). I make the following statement: **The team that loses the coin toss is more likely to win a game that goes into sudden-death overtime.** Does that sound likely to you? No, right. It probably sounds like bullshit. I have evidence, though. On Sunday night, January 10, 2010, the Arizona Cardinals and Green Bay Packers were tied at 45 at the end of regulation. The Packers won the coin flip, and possession of the ball to start off overtime. After three plays, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers fumbled; Arizona linebacker Karlos Dansby picked up the fumble and returned it for a touchdown, resulting in a 51-45 win for Arizona. Thus, the team that lost the coin flip won the game. Again, I am positing that the team that loses the coin toss is more likely to win a game that goes into sudden-death overtime. Do you now feel you have evidence enough to evaluate whether my claim is bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1190 "2010-02-15T17:58:40Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > I don’t think a player can be half scum. If that is what you mean. I don’t have any idea what that means. > [@](#): > > Further more, I kinda thought that was the idea of a WOW. You thought the point was to decide a player was scum first, and then go back through all their posts? > [@](#): > > I mean would you WOW someone you think to be Town? If you have already made up your mind on someone’s alignment, scum or town, why do a WoW at all? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1191 "2010-02-15T18:13:49Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Oh My God. I’m not the insane one here, right? So you’re saying they are analogous except for the parts that make them not analogous. Got it. One of us is confused about what an “analogy” is. “Analogous” and “Identical” are not the same words. Wait - let me check my dictionary. Yup, still different. In fact, an analogy is _explicitly_ defined here as a “resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike,” and an “inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others.” The definition of “identical,” interestingly, does not contain these same words. More importantly, though, you’re taking my original post out of context. If I remember correctly, I was responding to someone who seemed to be implying that the double-lyse would be bad even if there were no Spawn at all, and I was disagreeing with this contention and using the above analogy to illustrate my disagreement and the reasons underlying it. > [@](#): > > WTF is this supposed to mean. If you feel we should be thinking on a day-by-day basis, explain why. If you feel the lynch-by-lynch basis is WRONG, explain why. You haven’t done so. You have acknowledged that “we think differently,” but this touchy-feely stuff doesn’t do any good. The whole lynch-by-lynch vs. day-by-day thing is a pointless discussion. A game can’t be considered in either way. It has to be taken as a whole. Things that happen on Day One will inform the game from that point forward, beginning with Night Two. But I’ll try to speak in your terms, hoping it will be helpful: each Night the Scum get to advance their win condition in whatever way they think will help them the most. Each Night, the Scum have things that they can do. One of them is to kill. I don’t know what else they can do. Maybe investigate. Maybe secure an extra kill. Maybe other stuff; partly it depends on how imaginative **Chronos** has been with the Scum roles. Killing twice on Day One would have increased our percentage chance of catching Scum, and being able to act upon the knowledge gained, more quickly. Our chances of having caught at least one by Night One increases; our chances of having caught at least one by Night Two increases dramatically. Catching a single Scum via lynch gives us a huge bolus of information that is useful in a lot of ways - it’s useful for our power roles at Night, and useful for us during the Day. > [@](#): > > You did. You asked me if I checked every historical game to reach this conclusion. You are lying. I said this (#970): > [@](#): > > Wait. How many other games did you check to reach this conclusion? Was it just Munchkin? Because that’s only one random cherry-picked data point. > > Or did you actually look at multiple games and find that Scum are more likely than Town to use PIS attacks? “Did you look at multiple games?” is not substantively the same as “did you check every historical game?” > [@](#): > > Dude. It’s not MY CLAIM. It was Drain Bead’s, which I thought was bull. I went back to check and found supporting evidence… ie NOT bullshit. See above. > [@](#): > > Its precisely this type of false argument that makes me want you dead! Of course I won’t vote for myself! Chronos could chime in and tell you all to vote for me because I killed his sister, and I still wouldn’t vote for myself. My not voting for myself is the _standard state of the game_. OK, seriously? Do you actually think I was being anything other than faecetious with that question? I _know_ you’re not going to vote for yourself; I’m trying to make a point. > [@](#): > > Different kind of “aggressive,” but nice try. I’m pointing out that you pursued a flawed case against fluiddruid. One that a Town storyteller would not have. > [@](#): > > If you are Town, then you are being really hypocritical here: that is, if I’m wrong about you, its because I’m scum, but your being wrong about fluiddruid says nothing. Gosh, that’d be a weird assertion. Fortunately, I never said anything of the kind. In fact, if you’re _wrong_ about me, then you’re Town. I don’t think my case against **fluid** was Scummy; I think your case against me is. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1192 "2010-02-15T18:23:31Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > In order for my claim to be false, I’d have to have decided to take a huge risk: the risk that there was a real Vig and that the real Vig would kill me last Winter. Hugely risky plays can pay off. Especially if you are on a team. Arguing that a player would or wouldn’t do something based on how risky it is, is futile. The more risky something is, the more free credit it garners. Not proof, but an example: Natlaw in the Civil War game. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I’d have put out a false claim that was especially useless to Scum because it wouldn’t likely generate a counterclaim (the real Vig, if one existed, wouldn’t counter, just again - try to kill me). As town, how are you able to gauge the usefulness to scum of any action? Also, the don’t counter just kill thing works as long as the false claimer is not protected by some means. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I’d have done this at a time when I was in modest but not extreme danger - so I’d have to have considered the risk of my own death by lynch at the time of the claim to be _greater_ than the risk that there was, in fact, a Vig (very likely in a game of this size) and that (s)he would kill me Night One or else out me Day Two (probably 100% assuming the existence of a Vig). > > Basically, I’d have been putting all of my eggs in the “There is No Vig” basket, taking a huge and unnecessary risk, when I could have just not-claimed (and showed up close to the deadline, thrown out whatever false-claim seemed best if I was in trouble, and let the inevitable fallout generate a bad lynch late), or claimed a role like Detective (where at least a counterclaim would out the real Detective). I believe that this is an incorrect assessment of the situation. If a vig existing is likely, then one or more protective roles are equally likely. A scum claiming vig has the ability to effectively roleblock the actual vig, by forcing the vig to target him every night. If the scum team has a protective role or a target redirect role then you could be playing honeypot. These points however, are largely circumstance, and don’t even convince me of anything regarding your claim. AKA I’m still digesting. **@Diggit** : Given the single death per night that we’ve seen so far, why are you voting storyteller on the basis that you think he might be a SK? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1193 "2010-02-15T19:14:49Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > It’s weird, but **storyteller** ’s own posts have me thinking about the possibility that he’s a Serial Killer, not a part of the scum collective: > > 1. The double lysing would absolutely work in his favor > 2. It fits with his role description (after all, why would the serial killer care about anyone’s alignment after their lysing) > 3. Even his outing would be a calculated risk. After all, in a game of this size and with two potential Deaths during the Day, and no other Deaths during the first Night, it’s rather unlikely there’s a Vig around Why is it likely there’s a vig but not an SK? If he were an SK, too, I doubt that he’d call attention to himself through a claim. I just think this is a weird inference to make from his behavior, which granted has been a bit sketchy. The only way I could see him being SK is if he killed but scum just decided not to. Why do you have any reason to think scum didn’t make the kill last night? Unless…you have some reason to know what scum did/didn’t do. (I keed, I keed.) Also, wouldn’t we have had two kills first night, too? ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1194 "2010-02-15T19:21:24Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > \*\*My top choice of things I want, would be for storyteller to be lynched. But I feel it necessary to also state precisely what I DON’T want. We absolutely must avoid a storyteller vs. vanilla choice. I think this is the most blatantly scummy thing I’ve ever read. Basically you just asked if there are enough other people who want to lynch Story and if so you want to lynch him. If not you don’t want to put a vanilla role against him you’d prefer a power role so that Story is more like to get lynched. I understand you pushing a case against Story especially in light of the fishy role claim but to go looking for a wagon to hedge your vote is horrible. Since our vig was unable to kill Story for what ever reason last Night (Story being the vig one of the possibilities). I’d be willing to vote for Story once he fails a role test but considering we’ve gotten death info from every Night kill I think we can tell him from scum. In the mean time I think you should be number one on everyone’s scum list. **Vote Sach** ---
**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 15, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1195 "2010-02-15T19:35:05Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I think this is the most blatantly scummy thing I’ve ever read. Basically you just asked if there are enough other people who want to lynch Story and if so you want to lynch him. If not you don’t want to put a vanilla role against him you’d prefer a power role so that Story is more like to get lynched. > > I understand you pushing a case against Story especially in light of the fishy role claim but to go looking for a wagon to hedge your vote is horrible. Since our vig was unable to kill Story for what ever reason last Night (Story being the vig one of the possibilities). I’d be willing to vote for Story once he fails a role test but considering we’ve gotten death info from every Night kill I think we can tell him from scum. In the mean time I think you should be number one on everyone’s scum list. > > **[color=blueVote Sach**[/color] Sigh. I’m not saying that I only want to lynch storyteller if others agree first. My vote is currently on storyteller! I’m NOT saying I want a power claim versus storyteller vote (I have no idea where you are getting this idea). I’m recognizing town tendencies. If we corner someone who claims a power role we will likely drop it. The end result would be storyteller versus vanilla. Listen to what I am saying. My point is putting a vanilla claim up against storyteller is weighted against the vanilla. Look at what happened in Cecilvania. Look at what happened to fluiddruid. She couldn’t claim anything as powerful as storyteller because that would be a lie. What are you going to do if the choice is between storyteller and someone who claims vanilla? If the default is to lynch the vanilla, then I’d rather drop storyteller and look elsewhere for scum (He’s not the only scum to find!). I’m saying that if too many people don’t want to lynch storyteller simply because he is a claimed power role, then I don’t want to go down that route. It’s a recipe for disaster. I’m asking if people are going to give storyteller a pass simply due to his roleclaim, then I don’t want to pursue it. It’s not cover, its transparency! ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1196 "2010-02-15T19:43:29Z")
Spoiler-ed most since it got long except for the most solid point (in my opinion). [spoiler] > [@Meeko](#): > > There is NO REASON for town not to vote spawn. > > That being said, it should be easy to look for players who have not voted for Spawn. > > > [@Chronos](#): > > > > 5: storyteller0910 – [del]fluiddruid (968), Spawn (968), sachertorte (989)[/del] > > 6: Meeko – Spawn (715), [del]KellyCriterion[/del] (824-874), [del]fluiddruid[/del] (987-1009), [del]TexCat[/del] (1009-1013), [del]storyteller[/del] (1013-1045), Scuba Ben (1045) > > 9: USCDiver – Spawn (749) > > 12: Natlaw – [del]KellyCriterion[/del] (886-1061), Meeko (1061) > > That was a lot easier than I thought it would be. You forgot some, added them (and your own votes, but I do a separate post on that). **USCDiver** was away I think, so what do you think of Storyteller not voting Spawn (effectively he voted no one, but I assume he meant to vote **fluiddruid/sachertorte** ). If it was snuggly it was because I didn’t want to step on your toes (which happened in _Crimson Glyph_ IIRC). > [@](#): > > Some Snuggling [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12056306#post12056306)? Some I play as Good Scum, so look for me to be townie here? That was in response to you voting **fluiddruid** based on ‘peeker playstyle is a bit like mine OMGUS!’, which I don’t think is a valid reason (it doesn’t indicate at all whether he is scum or not in my opinion). > [@](#): > > > [@Natlaw](#): > > > > But I don’t see how it follows that a double player lynch is better than one from that argument? > > Yet you don’t vote Spawn. No, because I’m talking about lynching the Spawn not voting it. And since almost everyone voted Spawn so far, it has never been in danger of not being lynched. > [@](#): > > > [@Natlaw](#): > > > > > [@Meeko](#): > > > > > > How does Pond effect a double spawn or a double player vote, with out appearing to be Scum? > > > > How does Scum effect a double spawn or a double player vote, while appearing to be Pond? > > > > That’s basically the same question :). > > Interesting to bring this up. Did you want to ask this, all along, and just now found the way to do so? Yes, interesting _you_ brought it up first. So I guess the peculiar fact is that we both just call it interesting, but not openly says whether it’s scummy or not.[/spoiler] > [@](#): > > Why aren’t you Spawn hunting? > > > [@Natlaw](#): > > > > I didn’t mention it but since the Spawn has a big vote lead so I don’t see the need. I’ll put it in at the end of the Day or if someone else would get close to make sure it is lynched. > > If you feel me not voting Spawn robs you of your second vote like **sachertorte** / **special ed** think it does, let me know and I’ll put it on immediately to free yours. > > Ah. Ok. This answers it. > > No wait, it doesn’t. Why on earth would Town want a freed vote off of spawn? > > This is VERY Dangerous thinking here Nat. It’s me trying to use sarcasm. It has been argued that using two votes gives scum opportunity to vote each other without consequences and that makes it hard to look at vote record. I think because you cannot vote for the same person twice, it’s not that big an issue. Vote Spawn/Player -\> you want that player lynched (and a Spawn). Vote Player/Player (both player close to lynch) -\> effectively a no vote unless a dual player lynch is agreed upon (if no dual lynch and no unvote one by the end, it looks scummy to me. Vote Player/Player (only one close to lynch) -\> Vote and a FoS (as long as Spawn gets lynched not OK, but don’t expect it to buy any credit if the FoS’ed one turn up scum later). Vote Player/None -\> Vote to lynch that player (as long as Spawn gets lynched, the no vote doesn’t really matter since voting the obvious scum is null tell really) Vote None/None -\> bad, because not voting is bad [spoiler] > [@](#): > > > [@Natlaw](#): > > > > I think the people who didn’t have a vote for either peeker or Scuba\_Ben also might be worth looking at as the didn’t commit one way or the other for the to players with a chance to be lynched. > > Wait. What?! If you are a Scummy Nat, tell me how this is NOT : > > “I think you should look at Townies who didn’t vote for Townie A or Townie B.” Why are you so sure B ( **Scuba/Red** ) is Town? Plus I’m saying it _also might be worth_ in response to **Cookies** declaring to look at the peeker/Scuba voters, not exclusively like you suggest. > [@](#): > > > [@Natlaw](#): > > > > Take this Summer for example - would there really be a difference between a double lynch of **fluiddruid** and you or lynching one and a vigilante taking out the other (ignoring that you claimed vigilante, just the situation of a close lynch early game). > > > > I don’t see much of a difference except that if the lynched one flips scum, the vigilante can decide not to kill. > > I guess Scum wouldn’t > [@](#): > > [me unvoting Kelly and voting Meeko] And at this point, you just abandon all facade at voting Spawn. I was considering to use my other vote for Storyteller or fluiddruid, but didn’t check the time (which you call ‘kinda warmed over’ and ‘This just seems flat off to me’ :dubious:). You got a concrete point there?[/spoiler] > [@](#): > > I re-assert that there is no Pro-Town reason to not vote Spawn. And I still think there is currently no pro-Town reason not to _lynch_ Spawn, but luckily it already has lots of votes! ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1197 "2010-02-15T19:51:27Z")
His claim is not the reason I haven’t voted for him. I also happen to vote later than many players so his justification for late voting makes some sense to me, but it also means that I’d like to hear other thoughts from other players. The issue with voting early can be that a town-on-town vote, especially one that is not well thought out and justified, can be an opportunity for Scum to leverage against either the player voting or being voted for. Either fan the flames and hope for a bandwagon or attack and imply scum motives on the voter. I like to ruminate a while before exposing myself, the other player, and the Pond/Town at large to the risks. All that being said, just because Story makes sense doesn’t mean he’s not reading a townie wrong or that he’s not scum or 3rd party. Which dovetails, I think, into sache’s point about being careful with storyteller. He can talk you into things in spite of you and/or in spite of himself. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1198 "2010-02-15T20:08:18Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > My point was that _Spawn aside_, we would generally be glad to have a no-action Night One following a standard lynch, even if it meant delaying the results of the standard lynch until the end of Day Two. This IS analogous to our present situation, except for the existence of Spawn. You are leaving out the fact that the second lynch can use information revealed by the first. But you get that information with a dual lynch. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > But I’ll try to speak in your terms, hoping it will be helpful: each Night the Scum get to advance their win condition in whatever way they think will help them the most. Each Night, the Scum have things that they can do. One of them is to kill. I don’t know what else they can do. Maybe investigate. Maybe secure an extra kill. Maybe other stuff; partly it depends on how imaginative **Chronos** has been with the Scum roles. Killing twice on Day One would have increased our percentage chance of catching Scum, and being able to act upon the knowledge gained, more quickly. Our chances of having caught at least one by Night One increases; our chances of having caught at least one by Night Two increases dramatically. Catching a single Scum via lynch gives us a huge bolus of information that is useful in a lot of ways - it’s useful for our power roles at Night, and useful for us during the Day. You are leaving out Town power roles (again) on the Night we have less, although this time you mention they could use the extra information. You don’t mention the increased chance to out power roles (which may or may not be bad - in Dr. Horrible having the investigators outed but the doctors not turned out pretty good because the scum strongman was dead). You still gloss (I think) over the fact that a dual mislynch isn’t just two dead town, but a new Spawn. That makes it close to a four town loss (close because scum need a strict majority). Could you respond to: > [@](#): > > Take this Summer for example - would there really be a difference between a double lynch of fluiddruid and you or lynching one and a vigilante taking out the other (ignoring that you claimed vigilante, just the situation of a close lynch early game). > > I don’t see much of a difference except that if the lynched one flips scum, the vigilante can decide not to kill. According to **Meeko** , if you’re scum you won’t see a difference (and I saw one so I’m not despite his vote for me :p). On overall (since **sachertorte** asked), I don’t think you should be lynched Today: -There is no real vigilante or you are it -If you are PFK who claimed truthfully, I would have expected an extra kill (you might have not killed on purpose) but if someone extra dies without reveal I’ll reconsider this (yes, Cookies mentioned scum might be able to frame you that way) -If you are Scum hit man (extra kill) because you had the fitting color, you would have used it. Although I guess you could have borrow the claim from a real scum hit man. An extra kill with no reveal would be pretty powerful for scum, so not as likely I think. -Motivation? No, I don’t see a direct scum one and I guess your claimed one (wanted to claim Day One) so claimed early Day Two seems to be consistent. But that doesn’t mean I have to stop asking questions. ---
**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 15, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1199 "2010-02-15T20:25:34Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > One of us is confused about what an “analogy” is. Well, it’s not me, so it must be you. Look, you want to focus on minutiae you can, but the central point I’ll re-phrase avoiding the taboo word of ‘identical.’ In your analogy you ignore the aspects that make your analogy not work. > [@](#): > > More importantly, though, you’re taking my original post out of context. If I remember correctly, I was responding to someone who seemed to be implying that the double-lyse would be bad even if there were no Spawn at all, and I was disagreeing with this contention and using the above analogy to illustrate my disagreement and the reasons underlying it. If that is the case, then you would have a point. However, my central ire comes from the fact that you ignored my argument entirely. If the case was I was quoting you out of context, I would have expected you to point that out at the time. My central problem with storyteller has little to do with the explicit views, but the way he ducks arguments when confronted about them. [QUOTE] The whole lynch-by-lynch vs. day-by-day thing is a pointless discussion. A game can’t be considered in either way. It has to be taken as a whole. Things that happen on Day One will inform the game from that point forward, beginning with Night Two. [QUOTE] I disagree. In standard games lynch-by-lynch and day-by-day are equivalent. It is only in this game that we see a mechanic where they diverge. The divergence is central to this game and to the spawn design. Again. A Dodge. > [@](#): > > But I’ll try to speak in your terms, hoping it will be helpful: each Night the Scum get to advance their win condition in whatever way they think will help them the most. Each Night, the Scum have things that they can do. One of them is to kill. I don’t know what else they can do. Maybe investigate. Maybe secure an extra kill. Maybe other stuff; partly it depends on how imaginative **Chronos** has been with the Scum roles. Killing twice on Day One would have increased our percentage chance of catching Scum, and being able to act upon the knowledge gained, more quickly. Our chances of having caught at least one by Night One increases; our chances of having caught at least one by Night Two increases dramatically. Catching a single Scum via lynch gives us a huge bolus of information that is useful in a lot of ways - it’s useful for our power roles at Night, and useful for us during the Day. You’ve said this before, so don’t think I’m not paying attention. I recognize that you have stated some defense of your position, but you neglect to address the counterpoints to your statements. Many people, not just me, have given you, “yeah but…” replies to your position. You don’t take these points head on. storyteller repeats his point of view, which is understandable to an extent, but really all it does for me is give the illustion that he is being responsice while ducking confrontation and counterpoints. > [@](#): > > “Did you look at multiple games?” is not substantively the same as “did you check every historical game?” Fine. Either way the implication is that I needed to do a deep dive. Stop arguing semantics and argue the POINTS. > [@](#): > > OK, seriously? Do you actually think I was being anything other than faecetious with that question? I _know_ you’re not going to vote for yourself; I’m trying to make a point. It’s all fine and dandy to play ‘facetious’ now (which is so freaking hypocritical given all of the above where you’re the one arguing sematics). Furthermore, your post had nothing to do with facetiousness, your point was that I would not vote my self therefore your point is proved, which is a falsehood. Again dodge and duck. Not confronting the point head on. storyteller defers the ‘deficiency’ on me instead of taking head on the point that his argument is crap. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1200 "2010-02-15T20:39:00Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Listen to what I am saying. My point is putting a vanilla claim up against storyteller is weighted against the vanilla. Look at what happened in Cecilvania. Look at what happened to fluiddruid. She couldn’t claim anything as powerful as storyteller because that would be a lie. What are you going to do if the choice is between storyteller and someone who claims vanilla? If the default is to lynch the vanilla, then I’d rather drop storyteller and look elsewhere for scum (He’s not the only scum to find!). I’m saying that if too many people don’t want to lynch storyteller simply because he is a claimed power role, then I don’t want to go down that route. It’s a recipe for disaster. I’m understanding you I just see it differently (waves at Story). What you’re saying is that Story vs Anyone is a story Win. Which leaves us with you want us to all vote for Story so there is no one against him or you’ll drop the case. In other words “Do you guys want to vote for Story? Other wise forget it.” I don’t see how this is any different from asking is a wagon will be formed on Story. Secondly the way you’re phrasing it Story vs. Vanilla implies that Story vs. Non-Vanilla would be different and you would like different. I see both of these as scummy because if you don’t get town support you are going to change your case so you are actively looking for a bandwagon to lead. Secondly the way you’re wording it if a power role is outed toDay (or in the future) you will jump back on to the Story wagon trying to use power role vs. power role to get Story lynched. I see setting up that scenario as very pro-scum. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=59) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=61)