# 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:** 61
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1201 "2010-02-15T20:42:49Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > And I still think there is currently no pro-Town reason not to _lynch_ Spawn, but luckily it already has lots of votes! Let me put it this way, it doesn’t matter how many votes Spawn has. Voting two players is providing cover for scummy voting or is scummy voting itself. So if you vote two players, you either: Don’t mind giving the scum team a helping hand, or have superb nigh-incontrovertible evidence on your candidates. ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1202 "2010-02-15T20:43:02Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > 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? Again with the bad analogies (1) you can’t compare a case where you know the outcome with one where you don’t know the outcome. As far as cherry-picking, that is the very definition of it. (2) If you were to shoe-horn the analogy, it would go like this (and you must presume that none of the participants have any additional information than what is posted here): Drain Bead: “I’m gonna bet on the team that loses the OT coin toss.” sachertorte:“What? You’re crazy!” Drain Bead:“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.” sachertorte:“Oh. I didn’t realize that. Okay, I can get on board with that” Am I wrong? In this specific case, yes. Is the reasoning sound? YES. This is basic belief network stuff. Based on the information given, the conclusion is reasonable. Overall, in this _specific_ case it turns out to be less reasonable. But only because we HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Post additional information and the belief changes. Does any of this prove anything? No. (3) A much better argument regarding Rysto would be to point out cases (evidence) where the opposite was true. Someone did this, and I have taken that point under advisement. Storyteller however refuses to acknowledge the basics of how beliefs work and instead attacks fundamental logic. It has yet to be proven either way whether drain bead’s assertion is fully true or not. Based on the information available so far, I find the assertion has merit (though slightly less so given the additional information). If we were to encounter data that refuted the assertion, my belief in that assertion would go down. ---
**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 15, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1203 "2010-02-15T20:49:47Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > To **texcat** : I often vote late because it often takes me a few days to read everything and draw a conclusion from what I read… I vote when I have a strong opinion that I am prepared to stand behind, and not before. I think there is a balance to be struck between half-baked votes and late votes. A well made case late in the day is unlikely to result in a successful lynch, town need time to digest and explore it. Consistently voting very late is anti-town or scummy. Personally, I’ll try to get a vote down in the first two thirds of the Day, but I can’t always manage it. **@Meeko** - I think you need to slow down a bit. YesterDay you voted for 5 different players, now you are voting for a different one toDay with a poor argument. I’m trying to get a read on you, and cannot make any meaningful judgement on you if you play this way. What if one of the players you voted for flips scum? Normally, that would be an important point in judging a player’s alignment. With the sheer number of votes you are making I couldn’t draw any conclusion from it. Also, I’d like you to answer my question from earlier please, did you think Fluid was a better lynch than Story? Brief summary of the case on Storyteller as I see it: - His stance on the double player lyse contradicts his claimed role. From his perspective, leaving spawn alive should have appeared more risky than to the average townie, as he is saying he can’t kill spawn. - Failure to address points against a double player lyse. - Ad hominem attack on me in #481 (if you can’t attack the argument, attack the player). - Irrelevent defence in #852, something of a smear on Fluid. - Inconsistent play. In #968 he says that he thinks no more than one of me, Fluid and Sach are scum, and there is a no better than 50% chance that even one of us is. If I can get mathy for a moment, he is actually saying that there is slightly less chance of finding scum in the group of me, Fluid and Sach than in a random group of 3 players (assuming 4 scum). In #989 he is voting Fluid and Sach. - Unaknowledged self-defence vote on Fluid. It is odd that Story has been arguing the doubple-player lyse so hard, but that could simply be a gambit (great for him if he gets defended for it), or he might have felt the risk was worth it if there is a scum role that interacts with spawn, or if living spawn over Winter give scum an extra out-compete. Story’s claim isn’t an obvious one for scum, but it’s a good one if scum have a redirector or doctor. It’s also a very good claim for a 3rd party, as he would pose little threat to scum (with his restriction), reducing the chance of him being NK’ed, and he will probably never be forced to prove his power. However, I’m not sure Story’s play makes sense if he is a 3rd party. I can’t quite rule out SK, I’ll explain why after Diggit responds to Red’s question. The fact that Story hasn’t been vigged or counter-claimed, and nothing nasty happened last night, is a point in his favour. However, his role is so weak that a normal or limited shot vig might not automatically kill or counter him (they might see him as a backup vig), or they might be worried about a redirector. Claiming a weak role can be a good move for scum. One way to assess claims is to look at whether they upset the game balance (late in the game, when more of the setup is known). An almost useless role doesn’t do that, so it is hard to judge how plausible it is. I’m probably have limited time over the next couple days, but for now I’m pretty comfortable with voting Story. **Vote Story** **Vote Spawn** ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1204 "2010-02-15T20:56:37Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > 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. Eh. Sort of. Not so much “all of you” as much as if there is overwhelming antipathy against lynching storyteller, I don’t want to waste my time. Look. I want storyteller lynched, I think that is very very clear. Nothing I can do or say at this point with change that clear and accurate perception. I’m only noting that I recognize that pursing storyteller when everyone else isn’t interested is not helpful. > [@](#): > > 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. Actually, it’s less “do you want to vote for story” and more “are you opposed to voting for the claimed vig simply because of his claim?” It’s a subtle difference and one that I’m willing to take equivalence over if you insist, but I think the fine shading gives it a different tone. > [@](#): > > Secondly the way you’re phrasing it Story vs. Vanilla implies that Story vs. Non-Vanilla would be different and you would like different. It is not my desire to imply this. > [@](#): > > 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. I fail to see how this is scummy. I’m trying to take an active role. Activity is GOOD. I’m trying to be clear in my intentions and thoughts. How is this scummy? > [@](#): > > 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. Again. I never said, nor intended to say that I wanted a story versus power role lynch. If my phrasing sucks, then I apologize. But if you think I’m implying a power role lynch then there is all sorts of wrong with that. Do you really think I(or anyone) would suggest such a thing? Even if some scum proposed such a thing, do you think Town would adopt it simply because someone brought it up? That’s a whole bunch of crazy right there. My entire point was that storyteller versus vanilla would almost certainly lead to the vanilla getting lynched. I want to avoid this by removing storyteller from the equation… NOT by adding a power role to the equation. Thus: #1 choice: lynch storyteller #2 choice: ignore storyteller What I want to avoid is a claimed vig vote versus vanilla leading to the vanilla getting lynched. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1205 "2010-02-15T21:09:18Z")
Vote total: Spawn 12 Storyteller0910 4 Mahaloth 2 sachertorte 2 Meeko 1 Natlaw 1 [del]1: special\_ed[/del] 2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (1139) 3: Drain Bead – Mahaloth (1162) 4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (1176), sachertorte (1194) 5: storyteller0910 – sachertorte (1174), Spawn (1174) 6: Meeko – Spawn (1135), Natlaw (1170) 7: Mahaloth – Spawn (1140) 8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (1136) 9: USCDiver – Spawn (1161), Meeko (1161) 10: Alka Seltzer – Storyteller (1203), Spawn (1203) [del]11: peekercpa[/del] 12: Natlaw [del]13: Zeriel[/del] 14: DiggitCamara – Storyteller (1186) 15: amrussell – Mahaloth (1172), Spawn (1173) 16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (1145) 17: Red Skeezix – Spawn (1146) 18: sachertorte – Storyteller (1179), Spawn (1179) [del]19: fluiddruid[/del] 20: TexCat – Spawn (1155), Storyteller (1155) 21: Rysto ---
**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 15, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1206 "2010-02-15T21:16:09Z")
\*\*@Story \*\*-- I never saw any explanation for the drawback discrepancies. Did I miss it? I still do not know why you claimed that letting the pond know about the drawback was such a bad idea and harmful to the pond. > [@TexCat](#): > > After all of that, I understand that not getting roles or alignments is bad for pondies. I don’t understand how revealing the drawback is “a handbook on how to handle me available to the Scum.” I don’t understand how “the Pond benefits from my information remaining secret.” And I don’t understand the one situation that story might have used his power is somehow different now that the pond knows the drawback. > > This all smells like a scum claim to me. Story claimed vig and then had to provide some reason for not having his claim tested and so he invented the drawback. He did not plan on revealing the drawback and so some of the reveal seems not to have been thought out very thoroughly. The reasons for not revealing the drawback do not seem to match the actual drawback. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 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 do note for the record that your claim came during the second summer, after a winter with only one dead. Perhaps not such a big risk as you are making out. Also it might be even less of a risk if you know someone who is a protector or deflector. ---
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1207 "2010-02-15T21:38:15Z")
Know what? Go ahead and lynch me. This game is too frustrating for me to continue playing. When I am dead and my alignment has been revealed, perhaps some of the players in this game who are actually Town will read my arguments in a different way, and I can make an actual positive pro-Town impact in that way. As it is now, I am a useless distraction. Enjoy the rest of the Day. I’m done. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1208 "2010-02-15T21:42:38Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Also, I’d like you to answer my question from earlier please, did you think Fluid was a better lynch than Story? I’m not sure I follow this question at all. I voted for both of them. I unvoted both of them. Kinda hard to state anything further, as Story is still with us. ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1209 "2010-02-15T21:58:58Z")
Oh, one final thing, in the interest of very full disclosure: I believe sachertorte is arguing in incredibly bad faith; to list the ways that he has done so would take me hours that I no longer have interest in devoting to this game. In my experience, this sort of thing has uniformly happened when the player in question is Scum. Thus, the following. If I am not lynched toDay, I may attempt to kill sachertorte this Winter. I also may not, but I am strongly considering it. If you disagree with this planned course of action, you can certainly tell me why; you can also lynch me. Your call. ---
**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 15, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1210 "2010-02-15T22:06:49Z")
Well, that decides things for me. **sachertorte** may very well be Scum, and may not be. But with the claimed drawback to your role, it would be very anti-Town for you to kill **sachertorte** and still be allowed to live. **unvote spawn** (am I even voting for Spawn? I can’t remember) **[color=blue]vote storyteller** ---
**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 15, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1211 "2010-02-15T22:07:52Z")
fuck **vote storyteller** ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1212 "2010-02-15T22:21:17Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > Thus, the following. If I am not lynched toDay, I may attempt to kill sachertorte this Winter. I also may not, but I am strongly considering it. If you disagree with this planned course of action, you can certainly tell me why; you can also lynch me. Your call. Holy crap, if you’re not having fun maybe you should just ask for a sub rather then trying to bomb the game. I agree that some of Sach’s actions have been pretty scummy but I don’t think this is the way to handle it. That being said I’d rather not lose the important information on what Sach is not to mention eliminate any possibility of a role claim in defense so I’ll oblige you but I still think that asking for a sub is a better option. **Unvote Sach Vote Story** ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1213 "2010-02-15T22:34:24Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Holy crap, if you’re not having fun maybe you should just ask for a sub rather then trying to bomb the game. I have no interest in “bombing the game.” Killing people you think are Scum is the point of playing. Right? ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1214 "2010-02-15T22:42:07Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I have no interest in “bombing the game.” Killing people you think are Scum is the point of playing. > > Right? Ok, I thought you were going for more of a I’m quitting and taking Sach with me if you don’t take me out of the game. If this is just a tactic to end your frustration either by being lynched or by killing Sach I’m not quite as bothered by it. I’d still suggest a sub since you seem pretty worked up. I agree about Sach acting scummy but I worry about the knowledge we would lose either about the number of scum or the power roles in the game if you remove him. Of course I’m assuming this isn’t just a freak-out scam where you pretend to be bothered to get everyone to unvote you. For now it’s good enough for me. **Unvote Story 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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1215 "2010-02-15T23:31:46Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > Oh, one final thing, in the interest of very full disclosure: > > I believe sachertorte is arguing in incredibly bad faith; to list the ways that he has done so would take me hours that I no longer have interest in devoting to this game. In my experience, this sort of thing has uniformly happened when the player in question is Scum. > > Thus, the following. If I am not lynched toDay, I may attempt to kill sachertorte this Winter. I also may not, but I am strongly considering it. If you disagree with this planned course of action, you can certainly tell me why; you can also lynch me. Your call. Seriously, this is precisely why I’m so suspicious of you. Here you throw out a baseless accusation with the excuse that you don’t want to bother… as if that’s my fault. I think I’ve played the game upfront and fairly. I’ve explained my thoughts and reasonings to the best of my ability. Bad faith? The Hell. What the hell does that even _mean_? It’s a vague accusation. If you are Town, I repeat you are being grossly hypocritical: The great and wonderful storyteller can be wrong and we should all ignore it because it doesn’t mean anything! But should you turn out Town and I was wrong about you, it’s because I’m arguing in “bad faith.” Does it not occur to you that your behavior in this game is plenty reason to be suspicious of you? Your disgusting jabs at me are not appreciated and quite frankly, I don’t see how you should expect me to want anything other than to lynch you if you’re just going malign me like this. I don’t like getting emotional about these things, but at least I wanted you lynched before this, so I don’t feel so bad about it. And a Townie storyteller would know that killing me and suppressing my role is an incredibly bad idea. A Townie storyteller would remember his outright certainty that I was scum in Mini-Munchkin, yet was wrong. That you behave counter to these things only makes me think you are scum even more. Hey, I could be wrong, but all these things you do broadcast scum to me. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1216 "2010-02-15T23:36:19Z")
**It is now past Year 2, and I will therefore not be making any more substitutions. Anyone who does not participate, or who requests to be removed from the game, will simply be mod-killed**. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1217 "2010-02-16T00:12:28Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Your disgusting jabs at me are not appreciated and quite frankly, I don’t see how you should expect me to want anything other than to lynch you if you’re just going malign me like this. Coming from someone who has directly called me stupid repeatedly throughout the course of this game, I don’t particularly care, frankly. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1218 "2010-02-16T00:16:36Z")
But for the record: “in bad faith” means I think you are not actually intending to consider my points; you either made up your mind long ago what you thought about my alignment and will twist whatever I say to support your foregone conclusion, or you’re Scum and you are obviously being dishonest in the whole conversation. In either case, the incredibly insulting way you’ve gone about the whole thing is really the issue. But I sincerely doubt you will see that, so just tell yourself you’re right and move on, OK? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1219 "2010-02-16T00:20:17Z")
Aaaand while I’m here: > [@sachertorte](#): > > The great and wonderful storyteller can be wrong and we should all ignore it because it doesn’t mean anything! Screw that. You can put those words in my mouth, but I have _never_ thought of myself that way and certainly never referred to myself that way. That’s a crappy thing to say, piled on top of a bunch of crappy things you’ve had to say in this game. ---
**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 16, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1220 "2010-02-16T01:30:50Z")
**unvote story** The way they’re both taking such major offense seems like a town-town fight to me, more than anything else. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=60) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=62)