# 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:** 63
**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 16, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1241 "2010-02-16T15:34:14Z")
[quote=“KellyCriterion, post:1233, topic:526202”] **Oredigger** stated: **How do we know that we have at least 2 power roles in this game?** /QUOTE] Well, the way I figure it we have a mason claim and a Vig claim so if both are true we have at least two power roles. If Story’s claim is a lie then we still have a mason claim I think it’s unlikely that they started off with a masonry of two so there is probably at least one more mason out there. If by some weird chance both of them are lying then the other half of Ed’s masonry is still out there and in a game this size then it is unlikely there would only be just two masons. If we are completely wrong and Drain isn’t a mason and neither was Ed and Story is lying then I go back to the size of the game and I think I’m safe in assuming there are at least a Doc and Detective out there. Any way you look at it I think it’s safe to say that there are at least two power roles in play. I guess I was aggressive in my estimate because there are probably more power roles and Spawn will act protown less often then I predicted but I don’t think it matters because we’re not going to leave a spawn alive to vote at Night. ---
**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 16, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1242 "2010-02-16T15:49:11Z")
**unvote storyteller** I keep a strong separation between games and personal life. It has never been my intention to insult you personally. “It’s all a game” is a rather shallow CYA sort of statement. I’m sorry for upsetting you. I don’t intend to let anything that happens in game to affect my personal relationships with players. You, of course, are not required to do the same. The unvote is because I’d rather not exasperate a friendship. I don’t believe storyteller is the type of person to use an out-of-game personal friendship to manipulate the game. If storyteller is using out-of-game friendships in this manner I would have to revisit my thoughts on keeping in-game stuff separate from who I consider friends. ---
**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 16, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1243 "2010-02-16T17:37:19Z")
Vote total: Spawn 13 Storyteller0910 3 Mahaloth 3 sachertorte 2 Natlaw 2 Meeko 1 DiggitCamara 1 [del]1: special\_ed[/del] 2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (1139) 3: Drain Bead – Mahaloth (1162), [del]Storyteller[/del] (1210-1220) 4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (1176), sachertorte (1194-1212,1214), [del]Storyteller[/del] (1212-1214) 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), Mahaloth (1233) 17: Red Skeezix – Spawn (1146), Natlaw (1222) 18: sachertorte – [del]Storyteller[/del] (1179-1242), Spawn (1179) [del]19: fluiddruid[/del] 20: TexCat – Spawn (1155), Storyteller (1155) 21: Rysto – Diggit (1226), Spawn (1226) ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1244 "2010-02-16T17:53:08Z")
FYI: I wont be back in until later tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1245 "2010-02-16T19:00:36Z")
And now, a message from one of our lovely sponsors. Have you been finding mafia games here not quite complicated enough? Do you sigh upon receiving that VT role for the 5th time in a row? Are you just getting that itch for a new game? Then check out [www.idlemafia.com](http://www.idlemafia.com), a mafia site specifically designed for mafia games. [www.idlemafia.com](http://www.idlemafia.com), where sign-ups for a new and complicated game are currently in progress–only 12 slots left! Newbies and experienced players alike are welcome! Guaranteed to last five days per Day or less this time, or your money back! This message brought to you by the SDMB/Giraffe Mafia conglomerate. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1246 "2010-02-16T19:21:35Z")
Amrussel: You say preemptive backpedaling, I say doubt. Not enough to stop me from voting for her, though. I posted again about storyteller that may shed some more light on the other statements that you highlighted: > [@](#): > > 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 16, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1247 "2010-02-16T19:47:38Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > 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. If a dual vote is possibly scummy, that means you can evaluate it. A Spawn vote doesn’t tell anything at all. I didn’t actually vote two players yet although I planned to last Summer. My vote for **Meeko** was for his vote switch to **Scuba\_Ben** (now you) after rapidly voting both lynch leaders and **TexCat** in between, while I was considering to place the other for Story or fluiddruid. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Next, Natlaw is looking scummier and scummier the more he tries to stick the indictment against Meeko. It just doesn’t fit. Meeko’s play has been somewhat confusing, but it doesn’t fit as scummy. Natlaw trying to make confusing and hapless into scummy is Scummy. Secondly, Natlaw is of the opinion that voting two players is A-OK because spawn is already getting second votes. This play is anti-town IMO. So scummy + anti-town = my vote for today. > > **vote Natlaw** What indictment? I asked him a question (scummy!) and responded to his case against me (scummier!!) ? But since I said I would come back to Meeko votes: next post with the indictment you foresaw. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1248 "2010-02-16T19:49:50Z")
[His reasoning Summer One](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12068335&postcount=506) to vote **Scuba\_Ben** wasn’t that bad. Day Two however we get this: > [@Meeko](#): > > **Unvote Story** > > Thanks for wasting my time. > > **Vote Scuba Ben** > Even if he will get subbed, I never got an answer, and I feel my vote on him at this point is better than not voting at all. He voted Storyteller until he revealed his drawback then unvotes him to leave the lynch in a tie and place a one off vote for someone who might get replaced but won’t be able respond about his predecessor motivation. Does he go back to **TexCat** [who smudged him](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12105223&postcount=1009)? Or why not to back to **fluiddruid** who ‘[pingged me earlier, and for solid reasons brought up earlier, I believe that I need to revisit my vote there](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12103950&postcount=987)’. Later he even says: > [@Meeko](#): > > I do not have a better place for my vote currently, I want to give Story benefit of the doubt. I don’t want to vote for anyone else. I could be wrong on my vote, I could be wrong on any other vote. So fluid has pinged him, there were other solid reasons for voting fluid as well and he wants to give **Story** the benefit of the doubt. But then he doesn’t vote fluid because he could be wrong? So yes, I have a strong disapproval of the way he votes. Does it mean he is scum? I can see a motivation if Storyteller is the vigilante and a scum Meeko didn’t feel comfortable being a deciding vote. On another hand as suggested a scum Meeko might have been coached better and he is truly panicky because he has no backup to talk to. And it looks like he lost interest in his wall of words on at the end (just repeating, ‘yup scum would say that’) - I would except a scum to be more careful with a case than that. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1249 "2010-02-16T20:08:34Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > I used to have the right to unvote in this game. If this was directed at me, I never said that you aren’t allowed to unvote. I do have the right to criticize your votes. > [@Meeko](#): > > As I said before, or otherwise implied, Story’s actions should be based on the action, and not the information afterward. **Storyteller** claims we don’t get any information afterward, and he has already said he doesn’t want to kill because of that. So I would be really surprised if does kill **sachertorte** next Winter. For the rest I agree I don’t think a scum Storyteller would play the game as has happened, so that all I’m going to say about it for Today. ---
**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 16, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1250 "2010-02-16T20:26:24Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > What indictment? I asked him a question (scummy!) and responded to his case against me (scummier!!) ? > But since I said I would come back to Meeko votes: next post with the indictment you foresaw. No, you’re right. I went back and checked again, I must have gotten USCDiver’s case against Meeko and your questioning of Meeko intertwined. :smack: **unvote Natlaw** ---
**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 16, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1251 "2010-02-16T20:36:03Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > But if **storyteller** is town, my goodness.. it means all we have witnessed is a colossal dummy spit from a townie who just shouldn’t be playing this game. > > I hope for _non-Cecil-Pond-specific_ reasons that if **storyteller** gets lynched that he turns up scum, or else my goodwill investment in Mafia is going to be negatively affected. This whole, “I sure hope Story is town” thing just feels off to me. Maybe I’m totally wrong but it screams to me of, “I know Story isn’t scum, and I’m so going to be proven right when he isn’t.” > [@](#): > > **Oredigger** stated: > **How do we know that we have at least 2 power roles in this game?** Well, we know special ed is a Mason, so there have to be others out there. Not to jump over you for asking a stupid question, but this does kind of feel like…wow, how did he not know that? > [@](#): > > Finally: If **story** gets lynched and turns up town, I think we need to seriously turn the blowtorch on to the players who are not really getting their hands too dirty. If you think that **story** is town, then by all means defend him. But this speaks to me of, “I told you so” before the fact. Why do you think **story** may come up town? Because you know who is and isn’t town? I’ll cast a second vote. **Vote KellyCriterion** Aware that you could be coming off as scummy just because you’re a noob. That’s happened to me in the past, but hey…sometimes a noob is a scummy noob. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1252 "2010-02-16T20:42:33Z")
Finally getting back to addressing Red as Scuba’s sub. You had previously asked for people who had been suspicious of him to restate their cases. Unfortunately, most of the responses aren’t going to be something that a sub would answer, at least my questions, and they now sit in a null tell category. A Pondie Scuba may have had suspicions of other Pondie players that you may not agree with and won’t be able to defend or dismiss them in debate. If you inherited a role from a Scum Scuba, you’re not going to help us better understand how/why we were suspicious of him. And there’s the whole mason possibility which I’m fine leaving a mystery for now. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1253 "2010-02-17T10:28:41Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > This whole, “I sure hope Story is town” thing just feels off to me. Maybe I’m totally wrong but it screams to me of, “I know Story isn’t scum, and I’m so going to be proven right when he isn’t.” > [@](#): > > If you think that **story** is town, then by all means defend him. But this speaks to me of, “I told you so” before the fact. Why do you think **story** may come up town? Because you know who is and isn’t town? I actually made no claim on what I think **story’s** alignment is. You’ve imagined it. ---
**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 17, 2010, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1254 "2010-02-17T11:35:27Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Amrussel: You say preemptive backpedaling, I say doubt. Not enough to stop me from voting for her, though. I posted again about storyteller that may shed some more light on the other statements that you highlighted: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. Yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. I’m a little torn on this - part of me doesn’t like the idea of votes that come with an excuse in place. On the other hand, I do think the best thing town can generally do is be absolutely honest about their cases - overstating your confidence can be just as damaging. And especially in the early game, we are often going to be somewhat unsure about our votes. However, I think there’s a difference between acknowledging an element of doubt on one hand, and blaming a specific player for your vote turning out to be wrong in the future on the other. It’s really quite a big smear against that player, as well as a way of disavowing responsibility for your vote. [Your post early this Summer](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12115046&postcount=1139) (i.e. following the revelation that fluid was a townie after all) concerns the case against **story**. It’s slightly odd - you start by stating that the case against story is purely circumstantial, then go out to lay out that case in detail for everyone to see. You don’t provide the balancing aspect of explaining why you think that circumstantial evidence might be wrong - you just reference a vague fear that it might be. Is there nothing to cast on the other end of the scale? The effect of the post is to lay out a long list of reasons why other people might want to vote **story** , but not actually follow-through yourself. Again, that would be fine if you were equally emphatic about the reasons for not voting, but these are given much less detail and emphasis in your post. It’s tendentious. What reasons do you have for not voting **story**? ---
**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 17, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1255 "2010-02-17T15:32:13Z")
Taking a look at the Fluid wagon: > [@Rysto](#): > > First off, **vote spawn** before I forget. > > Second of all, I’ve spent much of my time looking at fluid, focusing on her case against story. The short version is, she looks extremely scummy to me > > - First, fluid has placed two non-Spawn votes in this game. [Her vote for peeker](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12053713&postcount=296) was quite provocative – her reasoning was > [Her vote for storyteller](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12096097&postcount=850) has focused on the double lynch debate – a subject that fluid herself has admitted is more of a distraction to Town than anything, and a subject that story is obviously extremely frustrated over. > > The two votes, taken together, look like they were deliberately crafted to try and provoke and angry, and _noisy_ response from their targets. I can see no Town motivation to be so intentionally provocative – especially the peeker vote. There is a very good scum motivation, though: an angry response is likely to draw attention and votes(as happened to peeker), and the fracas is going to be noisy, which can really help scum stay under the radar. > > - Second, fluid consistently puts the scummiest spin on every post that story has made, and has mischaracterized storyteller so often I can only conclude that this is deliberate. I’m going to be doing a lot of snipping here, but hopefully I keep enough context: > This argument is absurd. The original example, that fluid apparently had no issue with, starts with us double-lynching Day One. But then she takes this second quote from the same post, and says that story is attempting to make a subtle shift from “double lynching is good” to “double lynching TODAY is good”. And if you’re just skimming through that huge quote from story you can completely miss it, but if you really take the time to read the quotes it’s clear that fluid has invented this supposed shift out of thin air. story was completely consistent from the start. > > Hey, fluid, what was the next bit in that post you snipped? [Let’s see now:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12051835&postcount=233%E2%80%9D) > Well that rather changes the tenor of things, doesn’t it? > > Seriously, go look at the post that fluid quoted. story basically fit two posts into one. The first is a reply to me. The second is a reply to Cookies. fluid quoted all of the reply to me, except for that last, critical line. Snipping like that amounts to a blatant mischaracterization of what story was actually saying. > First, at the time story posted his capitulation, there **18** votes for spawn. That meets any definition of academic I can think of. This is another serious mischaracterization of storyteller. > > I don’t even know where fluid is going with the second paragraph. story took a step back from the game and realized that he was spending all of his time and energy defending a position that the Town as a whole disagreed with him on, and that wasn’t helping us find scum. So he comes out and says that, and tries to move on, and fluid says this is scummy somehow? > > fluid asks “Further, why is it at this point that it is suddenly not worth Town’s time?”. I ask in response, “Is story not admitting in this post that the discussion was not worth the Town’s time?” > There’s a whole second post, but I’m quickly running out of the energy to keep this up, so I’m going to move to my last point: > > - There are several critical, glaring inconsistencies in fluid’s case > fluid has taken story to task for refusing to back down over the double lynch issue. But here she indicts him for giving in a little on the subject? fluid, you can’t have it both ways. This reads to me like you are reaching for any individual piece of evidence you can find against story, without considering whether it fits with the whole picture you are trying to present. You’ve clearly read story’s posts looking for reasons to call him scum, and that’s extremely scummy. > > (bolding mine) > > This is a good point. There is no good reason _not_ to continue to discuss doubling-lynching, right guys? > fluid, you acknowledge that the double-lynch debate has not been helpful to Town, and you are hesitant to post something that could re-kindle the debate. **Why can you not believe that story feels the same way?** > > **Vote fluiddruid** Rysto places the first vote, his basic case seems to be that Fluid was trying to provoke peeker and Story, and create a distraction. He then picks at some points in Fluid’s WoWs on Story (#850 and #851). Obviously, I’m largely in agreement with Fluid here. Rysto picks up on a bad snip that Fluid made which was somewhat misleading, but misses the point of the argument (that considering double player lyse without accounting for the spawn mechanism, or comparing it to a doctor protection is meaningless or misleading). He makes a reasonable point about how Story might be wanting to drop an unproductive argument. I’m pretty null on Rysto’s case, I can see why he might think this way even if I don’t agree with his position. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’m a bit concerned that Story still has two votes. I realize that it wasn’t the strongest role claim but having a claimed power role one vote out fo the lead with 24 hours left in the Day strikes me as a bad play that scum could easily jump on. To that extent I went back and took a look at Fluid and Alka. > > Rysto put together an interesting case against Fluid that eventually will be responded to and Alka received some heat yesterDay for some questionable activities that have largely been ignored toDay. > > 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 but as Rysto points out using that to poke other players into reacting. I think it’s quite likely to be anti-town motivated. > > To sum it up: Fluid is keeping a claimed power role one vote away from being our lynch leader and most of her posts are about what I think is a side issue while ignoring the rest of the game around her. So > > **Vote Fluiddruid** > > and FOS Alka I just don’t think the case is as strong. OreDigger is concerned about a claimed power role being close to the vote lead as the deadline approaches. I don’t think this is a legitimate concern, town needs to be prepared to vote for players if they think they are scum. He backs up his vote by saying Fluid is overly focused on one player. This can be something of a scum-tell, it can allow scum players to coast through large portions of the game, especially if their target doesn’t get lynched. Fluid was very focused on Story, but it’s an accusation that could be leveled at other players (Kelly, Mahaloth), so I don’t think it supports his vote that well. He adds a weak FOS on me to the case, which didn’t go anywhere when I challenged him on it. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **vote fluiddruid** > > I backed off of my **Chronos** vote from Day One of whatever that game was we were in…Screamers? He turned out to be Scum. I’m glad to see the case I started way back when is picking up some momentum. I just hope my intuition is as good as it was back then. Drain Bead places a hunch vote on Fluid. This is a pretty poor vote, but Drain is almost certainly town. It has the effect of making the Fluid wagon a lot more viable. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Explain to me though, how this differs (aside from intent and PI) from what most players are also trying to do? Humor me if you have to, as it is just that little niggle of doubt in the back of my neck that we’re about to lynch fluiddruid and be wrong. > > However, Fluid ping’d me back on what I considered her unnecessary, illogical, emotional and potentially baiting post about voting for peeker because she doesn’t like playing with him. I’ve stated as much previously but have been trying to let that exchange lie and see what else turns up. For the most part I agree with storyteller’s unsettling-and-eloquent-a-usual assessment. I also don’t recall fluid ever being so long-winded and Rooshian, but that is a minor point. What doesn’t make sense to me, and what dovetails into story’s thesis that it is manufactured smoke and mirrors, is a player feeling so confident in a case against another player as to devote so much time and energy to putting together such a wall of words on Day 2. Mid-game or end-game, sure, but now? Not only is it so much of her time but potentially so much of the Pond’s time as well, where diligent Pondies trying to make informed decisions will try and read through each wordy and academic paragraph, only to find yet another rehash of a marginally compelling case against an unpopular strategy. > > **Vote fluiddruid** Very quickly, Cookies joins the wagon. This isn’t a good vote. Fluid posted a WoW on Story because there have been a lot of oddities in his play. Posting a WoW isn’t a scum tell. > [@Meeko](#): > > 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. At this point, Meeko thinks that Story is probably town, and that if he isn’t he will be vigged. He is making an assumption about Story’s kill drawback. > [@Meeko](#): > > But you can’t tell us the Drawback, because? > > I’m just saying, and I still believe this, we will understand Story’s previous posts a LOT better, if he would reveal the drawback. I would go so far as to say, if he had brought forth “I am a Town power role, but if I use my power \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ will happen.” INSTEAD of saying he was a Vig, it would have gone a LOT better. > > At a certain point in time, it does become Anti-town to maintain your stance here, Story. > > \*\* > I’m on the hook for something that Story won’t do? How is that now? \*\* > > If story will not Vig, there is no reason why we cannot know the Drawback. Not telling us only Helps Scum. > > And you know, the smudge there is so great, I just talked myself into something :: > > **Unvote Fluid** > > **Vote TexCat** > > Attack me for something that Story won’t do, and imply that it will impair my judgement for the rest of the game? Yeah. No. OMGUS or whatever, there is too much here to ignore. > > You are like a certain “News” Channel that loves to use the Question mark to get their impression across. A bit later and Meeko is worrying about the kill drawback (and therefore less confident about the case on Fluid?) and unvotes to vote TexCat. I haven’t had the time to review Meeko’s play properly, but this is at least somewhat consistent with his later policy vote and unvote for Story, trying to get him to reveal what it is. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > Really? You have never seen this action? > > I can see a very strong motivation for this line of action: > > Let’s suppose, for a moment, that neither **storyteller** nor \*\*sachertorte \*\*are scum. Their discussion seems to be headed to the lynch of one of both of them. > > 1. Arguing (strongly) for the “winning” cause gets you on the good side of a strong Town player > 2. Arguing (strongly) for the “losing” cause shows you were supporting the cause of a Town player. If you play your cards right you can even get the other player lynched during the next Day > 3. Both cases allow you to hide behind the “ringleader” > > Anyhow, I do remember your actions during the one game where you were scum and I was mason. I think your actions now resemble those back then. Too closely for my own confort > > So: > > Lyse **fluiddruid** > Lyse spawn Diggit places a vote on Fluid, based on the assumption that neither Story nor Sach are scum (I don’t see why he would make that assumption), and that it would be a good scum strategy. The strategy argument is somewhat flawed, if Fluid was scum and a town Story flipped, she’d be pretty exposed. A Sach-town flip would have worked well for a scum-Fluid. The Cookies and Oredigger votes stand out the most to me, followed by Diggit’s. ---
**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 17, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1256 "2010-02-17T15:43:26Z")
I’m looking for controversial stuff. Statements that put oneself on the line. Natlaw (48): Early Day One is lots of math, lynch discussion. Nothing controversial here, and not particularly alarming either as it is early on day one. One statement threw up a red flag in my opinion: post 340: “Now let’s talk about finding scum, mkay?” Not a biggie, but it does catch my eye. MidDayOne: Natlaw gets into a bit of a discussion with Meeko about “third vote” re: fluiddruid, but it’s Meeko who wants to ‘fight’ Natlaw diffuses the situation. Natlaw leans toward peeker being ‘bad play’ and not necessarily scum, but explicitly declines to “guarantee his is town or scum now.” Which is reasonable, but it would have been nice to know what he was thinking. In other words, obviously we aren’t looking for guarantees, but opinions need to be stated. Natlaw votes Scuba\_Ben in post 460 in response to amrussell’s vote on Scuba\_Ben. For ‘snuggling.’ Explicitly declines to vote of peeker. Explicit statements like that make me happy. As for what it means, I don’t know yet. TexCat seems upset with Natlaw for only having one vote (i.e., not voting Spawn). I find this weird. Natlaw, especially scummy Natlaw, could easily vote spawn without consequence. I find it a strange charge and will have to revisit when I look at TexCat. Based on the read it looks like Oredigger was also pressing this point, though I’m not sure since I’m reading Natlaw’s posts not Oredigger’s yet. Day Two: votes for KellyCriterion. The charge is playing the ‘new’ card too much. Later post clarifies and strengthens the argument. Overall I have an OK feeling with Natlaw. The point of this exploration was to see if anyone was playing too safe. While I would like Natlaw to jump in and state his opinion on more topics, he has voted, and he has justified the votes with reasoning. In the case of KellyCriterion, he offered more than a ‘me too’ reason too. Natlaw engages storyteller in the latter part of Day Two. Natlaw switches his vote to Meeko. Conclusion: I would not classify Natlaw a “clean noser.” My lack of impression was my own deficiency. ---
**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 17, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1257 "2010-02-17T16:20:25Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > TexCat seems upset with Natlaw for only having one vote (i.e., not voting Spawn). I find this weird. Natlaw, especially scummy Natlaw, could easily vote spawn without consequence. I find it a strange charge and will have to revisit when I look at TexCat. Based on the read it looks like Oredigger was also pressing this point, though I’m not sure since I’m reading Natlaw’s posts not Oredigger’s yet. Without looking back, I would not say that I was upset. I am a firm believer that everyone needs to vote, however. And I thought Natlaw’s only having one vote down was worthy of a query for explanation. He explained and we moved on. ---
**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 17, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1258 "2010-02-17T16:23:21Z")
> [@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. If Story is town, it gives scum a bit more information on when exactly he is a danger, so they could make a more informed decision on killing him. However, Story had already said he was very unlikely to kill, so scum would already have known his drawback was severe and he wasn’t much of a threat. It would be in the interest of a scum or 3rd party Story to conceal exactly what the drawback was if he could get away with it, as it gives town no idea of when his claim could be tested. He said he wouldn’t reveal it unless he was about to die, but then he revealed it when he picked up a couple more votes. > [@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. If you are town, that would be an incredibly anti-town action. This sounds like a bluff to me. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > Because it would be a pretty intelligent way to play SK (assuming he doesn’t have to kill every Night, of course). > > 1. He’d present himself as town > 2. He’d argue to accelerate the process (via 2 Day lyses) > 3. When (if) pressured about his identity he could easily argue he’s the Vig instead. Who’s to know? > Of course he’d need the Detective (if there’s one in this game) not to investigate him and/or die before (s)he could disclose their result(s) and this technique wouldn’t work if there was a SK and a Vig in the game but I think we can safely rule that possibility out, because, like you said, there haven’t been more than 1 kill each Night. I was thinking along similar lines. SK is a pig to play, as to win it’s necessary to appear lynchable enough to avoid being NK’ed, while giving town a reason not to lynch you. However, I don’t think an SK could afford to give up 2 NKs. An investigator is a big threat, unless they are immune to investigations, but an SK also can’t afford town to build a pool of confirmed town, or allow the scum to eliminate town. I think it’s very unlikely Story is an SK unless he was blocked. Point 2 was never likely to work, but the goal might have been to attract some controversy if Story is 3rd party. > [@Meeko](#): > > \*\*I used to have the right to unvote in this game. \*\* You can unvote, but any unvotes will get the same scrutiny as any votes. When a player unvotes the question always is “why did they change their mind”? > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I know that **Alka** has probably been the most vocal of this quartet, but a review of his posts indicates that he often only arrives suited up for a battle after the village cavalry have already gone in and done most of the damage. This is baseless. I placed the 1st vote for Story on Day 1, the 2nd on Day 2 and the 3rd toDay. In my first post toDay I flagged up a point against Story, it should have been pretty obvious I was thinking about voting for him again. ---
**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 17, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1259 "2010-02-17T17:20:59Z")
Oredigger: Early position: Hedges on understanding spawn, but takes stance that spawn should be eliminated. Jumps in and answers a question not directed at him. While possibly annoying to the questioner, this type of active play is a point in Oredigger’s favor for the purposes of ‘clean nose’ identification. Joins the peeker is crazy not scum side of the argument. Joins the Scuba is snuggling Meeko point of view. Votes for Scuba. Would rather lynch a quiet townie. I like this point because Oredigger offers a point that is (I believe) novel at this point in the game. I also agree with the point made here. That’s all for Ordigger for now. I have a pop-up meeting. ---
**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 17, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1260 "2010-02-17T17:21:31Z")
**Alka** , my main reasoning for the **fluid** vote was in my post voting for him on Day One, actually–I was referencing that when I voted on Day Two. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=64)