# 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:** 77
**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 25, 2010, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1521 "2010-02-25T11:45:39Z")
Does anyone else care to weigh in on the side argument I’ve been having with sachertorte? ---
**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 25, 2010, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1522 "2010-02-25T12:29:50Z")
I tend to side with sach on this one, although I fully understand your discomfort. Let’s say that Mason A lets slip the identity of Mason B. For each side there are two possibilities: either scum realise it, or they don’t; either town realise it, or they don’t. (“Town” are a collective noun here - what matters really is that any protective roles realise they now have a new potential protectee. But from the point of view of any other townie, the only way to be sure protective roles realise this is for the whole town to realise it.) In order from worst to best, before any public announcements, we have the following scenarios: 1. Scum catch the slip, town don’t: Mason B is in trouble. \*2) Scum miss the slip, town catch it: Mason B may get protection he doesn’t need, meaning the protective roles may be caught looking the wrong way. 2. Both sides catch the slip: scum know Mason B is a target, but they also know he’s got a shot at being protected. A basic WIFOM situation. 3. No-one catches the slip: Mason B has dodged a bullet. Public revelation reduces these scenarios to option 3. We lose the best possible case, but also one sub-optimal case as well as the worst possible case. Without it, we could end up better off, but we’ve got more ways of ending up worse off. Put it this way: if you were scum, what would you \*least \*want town to do? This doesn’t mean townies should be hunting power-roles\*, but if as you read through you find yourself thinking, “Hang on, doesn’t that mean that X is in fact the…” then what are the odds that a) you’re the only one thinking that or b) everyone else thinking it is town? (\*Although at first glance this seems like a good outcome for town, I really think the added distraction for protective roles is a big cost. Imagine a situation where two power-roles are already exposed and then this happens. The doc is now trying to cover three targets while the scum are aiming at two - the already exposed power-roles have a 50% chance of being attacked, but only a 33% chance of being protected.) ---
**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 25, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1523 "2010-02-25T12:34:09Z")
NETA: stray asterisk indicates where I thought of going into a long disquisition about whether town ought to think twice in case their scumdar is really picking up a power-role, but thought better of it. Short version: “Ooh, she seems scummy but I suppose might be the detective so I won’t say anything” is a self-defeating strategy. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1524 "2010-02-25T13:22:00Z")
In case I forget to say it later : I have no regrets with claiming. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1525 "2010-02-25T13:56:34Z")
Well, like more than one has said before me: as stated, **Kelly** ’s role-PM doesn’t make sense. However: should **Kelly** turn out to be Town, what we could have is someone who was able to “listen in” to Nighttime scum voting. In other words: **Kelly** would have been getting (randomly) the name of one of the players who received a vote to be Nightkilled by scum. And that would be an indirect confirmation of not scumminess. Thus I **vote KellyCriterion** and **vote Spawn** At least, if **Kelly** ’s town we’ll have a couple of confirmed players. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1526 "2010-02-25T14:18:27Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > However: should **Kelly** turn out to be Town, what we could have is someone who was able to “listen in” to Nighttime scum voting. In other words: **Kelly** would have been getting (randomly) the name of one of the players who received a vote to be Nightkilled by scum. I also thought of this but I don’t think it’s likely because **Chronos** has made a very clear distinction between Spawn (not players) and Scum in the rules and **Kelly** ’s supposed PM explicitly says Spawn. Also it isn’t said that Scum can’t Night-vote for Scum although that’s unlikely to have happened I think unless they knew a (town) role like the claimed one existed. ---
**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 25, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1527 "2010-02-25T14:34:43Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > This doesn’t mean townies should be hunting power-roles\*, but if as you read through you find yourself thinking, “Hang on, doesn’t that mean that X is in fact the…” then what are the odds that a) you’re the only one thinking that or b) everyone else thinking it is town? I would like to also add, that if I were scum I would have no reason to bring up my findings at all. I would be content to keep that information amongst scum. That’s not to say that scum wouldn’t bring up such information, but that using my statement regarding Meeko’s claim as evidence of my being scum makes no sense. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > However: should **Kelly** turn out to be Town, what we could have is someone who was able to “listen in” to Nighttime scum voting. In other words: **Kelly** would have been getting (randomly) the name of one of the players who received a vote to be Nightkilled by scum. This doesn’t make sense. First, the role PM as claimed specifically says Spawn. Second, I’m pretty sure we have a good idea on who Scum were voting to kill each night since we had a dead body each morning. I have a hard time believing that a majority of scum voted to kill Ed and they had a minority voting for someone else; scum usually come to a consensus. Furthermore, a scum vote for KellyCriterion on the most recent night doesn’t even make sense from a game play perspective. A Townie KellyCriterion was a good candidate for lynching Today, so why would scum vote to kill him? The conclusion is pretty clear: KellyCriterion is scum. KellyCriterion’s lack of posting this past evening, which is when I believe he is online, shows a certain level of giving up. If he were town, he would have at least posted all of his PM’s so that we had all the information possible to peruse after his death. **unvote USCDiver vote KellyCriterion** ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1528 "2010-02-25T15:57:17Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Brief summary of the case on Storyteller as I see it: OK. Some of this is out of date, or already addressed, but I’ll deal with it all in the interest of completeness. > [@](#): > > - 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. I disagree that my role and my stance are a contradiction in any understood sense of the word. I simply didn’t and don’t consider the Spawn to be much of a threat. My opinion was that the benefits of an early double-lyse outweigh the disadvantages (the disadvantages being, primarily the persistence of Spawn). That I am unable to ameliorate those disadvantages doesn’t change this opinion in any way at all. > [@](#): > > - Failure to address points against a double player lyse. Because it’s not a matter of “addressing” points against my argument. I freely acknowledge that there is a valid downside to the double-lyse plan; I just argue that the benefits outweigh that downside. Look - say we’re arguing about baseball. Say you want to argue that Bert Blyleven doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame, and I say he does. I’ll tell you positive things about Blyleven. You’ll tell me, for example, that he never reached 300 wins. How do I “address” this latter point? Yes, it’s true. Yes, it’s a point against Blyleven. I still think, based on all considerations, that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. The points raised against double-lysing were _valid_; I just didn’t find them _convincing_. I thought that would be taken as read, but it wasn’t, I guess. > [@](#): > > - Ad hominem attack on me in #481 (if you can’t attack the argument, attack the player). I think this is covered under the blanket “sorry for being a douche” I offered earlier today. But in game terms, what I said in 481 is reflective of my answer directly preceding this one: at some point, an argument reaches a place where all/both participants have heard and understood the evidence, and have reached divergent conclusions. Short of introducing _new_ evidence, you weren’t going to convince me that I was wrong, because you and I had both done the risk/benefit analysis and reached opposite conclusions. > [@](#): > > - Irrelevent defence in #852, something of a smear on Fluid. I don’t see it as irrelevant at all. Fluid made a direct accusation - that my substantive, non-double-lyse-related participation had been “minimal.” I didn’t feel - and still don’t feel - that this was an accurate characterization. **Fluid’s** own posting record was absolutely relevant in this case, because it establishes her baseline for what constitutes “minimal” participation. Note that Fluid didn’t say until later that she meant that my participation was minimal _for me_ - just that it was minimal, period, full stop. So either fluid thought her _own_ participation was minimal (as it was less than mine), and therefore would be silly to consider my participation level to be a Scum tell, or she thought her own participation was adequate, in which case characterizing mine as “minimal” didn’t make sense. And as far as the later “minimal for storyteller” thing: Eh. I am beyond tired of playing against my weird and distorted reputation from games I played three years ago. My participation varies widely from game to game and even within individual games, just like everyone else’s. > [@](#): > > - 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. I don’t understand this argument, so I can’t address it. Yeah, I thought there was a pretty good chance that one of the three of those players is/was Scum. I still think it’s a strong possibility. Almost all votes are made considering the possibility that they are wrong; I had strong suspicions of two players, and the fact that if I was right about the one I was likely (but not definitely) wrong about the other doesn’t mean I should have avoided voting for both. Voting for both gave a clear record of the players I found scummiest. I didn’t have the power to lynch both; if i had, I probably would have voted for only one until his/her alignment were revealed. > [@](#): > > - Unaknowledged self-defence vote on Fluid. I don’t know how to respond to this, given that my vote on Fluid was _not_ a self-defense vote. I had reasons for voting as I did, I outlined them as clearly as I could. At the time I voted, I had a grand total of _two_ votes, and had just made my role claim. It’s a huge reach to characterize this as “self-defense.” I think that’s everything, yes? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1529 "2010-02-25T16:03:45Z")
(By the way, I freely acknowledge that if I had taken several deep breaths and just answered questions in the way I just did, the entirety of the game before ToDay probably would have been more pleasant to play and more effective from a game standpoint. I learned a valuable lesson here, for what it’s worth). * * * Meanwhile: > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > **Chronos, my game is on the line, can you please publicly confirm exactly when the new spawn enters the game?** I think, on the basis of this post (Kelly’s last), that I have increasing concerns that Kelly really _is_ a third-party player. The wording is sort of suspect: “my game is on the line.” Read with the third-party idea in mind, particularly in light of Kelly’s subsequent disappearance, this makes the most sense (as does Kelly’s role claim, which from the standpoint of someone who already KNOWS when the Spawn appear [ie, Scum] just seems like a terribly unlikely mistake). We have absolutely no real choice but to lynch him, of course, but if he’s third-party we’re down four mislynches from a Scum-vs-Town standpoint and we’re going to be in trouble. ---
**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 25, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1530 "2010-02-25T16:15:21Z")
Paranoia aside, Third-party what? The two most common third party roles are survivor and serial killer. I think we can rule out serial killer since we’ve only ever seen a single kill each night. While the thought of an SK simply not killing at all sounds intriguing, there really isn’t any motivation to do so. The SK wants the game over as quickly as possible with a minimum number of events that could get the SK killed. This warrants killing as much as possible. Survivor? possibly. But claiming survivor would have gone over much better than pushing a false claim… especially one that carried the guarantee of being countered at some point. I will be very surprised if KellyCriterion turns up Third-Party. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1531 "2010-02-25T16:17:14Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Paranoia aside, Third-party what? > The two most common third party roles are survivor and serial killer. I think we can rule out serial killer since we’ve only ever seen a single kill each night. While the thought of an SK simply not killing at all sounds intriguing, there really isn’t any motivation to do so. The SK wants the game over as quickly as possible with a minimum number of events that could get the SK killed. This warrants killing as much as possible. > Survivor? possibly. But claiming survivor would have gone over much better than pushing a false claim… especially one that carried the guarantee of being countered at some point. > > I will be very surprised if KellyCriterion turns up Third-Party. Mad bomber? Some weird role reminiscent of The Riddler in Arkham? Anything is possible, but… well, paranoia is a powerful force 🙂 Again, we have no choice but to lynch here, so this is sort of just spitballing because we can’t talk strategy once it’s done. ---
**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 25, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1532 "2010-02-25T16:26:27Z")
Well, one of the very concerning parts of this game is that we don’t receive role information as we are used to. When Ed died we got “Communal Organism” or some such nonsense. If KellyCriterion dies and is a Scum Rotifier, (or even a Third-Party Rotifier) we won’t have any idea what that means. Even if a Town power role dies, we won’t necessarily know what role died. ---
**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 25, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1533 "2010-02-25T17:10:37Z")
Vote count: Spawn 12 KellyCriterion 11 sachertorte 2 Rysto 1 Alka Seltzer 1 [del]1: special\_ed[/del] [del]2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies[/del] 3: Drain Bead – KellyCriterion (1343), [del]Spawn[/del] (1343-1441), sachertorte (1441) 4: Oredigger77 – Alka Seltzer (1371), Spawn (1371) 5: storyteller0910 – Rysto (1356), KellyCriterion (1472) 6: Meeko – -[del]KellyCriterion[/del] (1342-1377), Spawn (1342-1361, 1377), [del]Storyteller[/del] (1361-1450), sachertorte (1450) [del]7: Mahaloth [/del] 8: Freudian Slit – KellyCriterion (1345-1400, 1489), Spawn (1345) 9: USCDiver – Spawn (1403), KellyCriterion (1471) 10: Alka Seltzer – Spawn (1496) [del]11: peekercpa[/del] 12: Natlaw – KellyCriterion (1503) [del]13: Zeriel[/del] 14: DiggitCamara – KellyCriterion (1525), Spawn (1525) 15: amrussell – [del]USCDiver[/del] (1457-1520), KellyCriterion (1488), Spawn (1520) 16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (1350) 17: Red Skeezix – KellyCriterion (1344-1363, 1504), Spawn (1344), [del]TexCat[/del] (1363-1504) 18: sachertorte – [del]USCDiver[/del] (1440-1527), Spawn (1440), KellyCriterion (1527) [del]19: fluiddruid[/del] 20: TexCat – [del]Storyteller[/del] (1360-1511), Spawn (1360), KellyCriterion (1511) 21: Rysto – [del]DiggitCamara[/del] (1341-1474), Spawn (1341), KellyCriterion (1474) ---
**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 25, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1534 "2010-02-25T17:15:06Z")
Kelly’s claim doesn’t make sense to me. I agree we have to lynch him given that it doesn’t match the public info. If he is town, looks like Oredigger is too, so at least the lynch isn’t a total loss. If he is scum, looks like it was botched. Possibly the odd mechanism was chosen so that Kelly didn’t have to justify any investigations. Colour-wise, rotifers are hardy organisms, so some sort of 3rd party survivor role is possible. From Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > Under drought conditions, bdelloid rotifers contract into an inert form and lose almost all body water; when rehydrated, however, they resume activity within a few hours. Bdelloids can survive the dry state for prolonged periods, with the longest well-documented dormancy being nine years. **Vote Kelly** ---
**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 25, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1535 "2010-02-25T18:12:16Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Of course I think my case against Alka is looking stronger because I think it was obvious that he was protecting Kelly. I’m admittedly not sure if it was a protection of a scum buddy or trying to keep a townie around who was too new to catch scum. **@Oredigger** - Why me and not one of the other Mahaloth voters? Also, why would I protect a town Kelly if I was scum? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > You’re right, **Oredigger** –it does look like **Alka** was attempting to protect **Kelly**. If **Kelly** flips scum, my next vote will so be on **Alka**. **@Freudian** - Same question, why me and not one of the other Mahaloth voters? > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I disagree that my role and my stance are a contradiction in any understood sense of the word. I simply didn’t and don’t consider the Spawn to be much of a threat. My opinion was that the benefits of an early double-lyse outweigh the disadvantages (the disadvantages being, primarily the persistence of Spawn). That I am unable to ameliorate those disadvantages doesn’t change this opinion in any way at all. I don’t accept this. If your claim is vaid, you had information that indicated an extra risk to leaving spawn alive, that they could not be killed by the (probably sole, unless your role is a backup) vig. That is a discrepancy. I thought it likely that spawn could be vigged, yet I argued that it would be better to lyse a spawn each day (the vig could achieve the same result, with less risk, by killing the vote runner-up). > [@storyteller0910](#): > > …The points raised against double-lysing were _valid_; I just didn’t find them _convincing_. I thought that would be taken as read, but it wasn’t, I guess. Leaving aside the strategy disagreement (I really don’t want to get that started again), you posted a lot on the subject before aknowledging any of the points against double lyse. From my perspective, you appeared to be ignoring them. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I think this is covered under the blanket “sorry for being a douche” I offered earlier today. Sorry, but I’m not willing to give you a pass on this. As scum, you would have a motive for attempting to discredit me, as opposed to addressing my arguments. As town, you would have no such motive. I’ve only experienced personal attacks in mafia from scum players. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I don’t understand this argument, so I can’t address it. Yeah, I thought there was a pretty good chance that one of the three of those players is/was Scum. I still think it’s a strong possibility. Almost all votes are made considering the possibility that they are wrong; I had strong suspicions of two players, and the fact that if I was right about the one I was likely (but not definitely) wrong about the other doesn’t mean I should have avoided voting for both. Voting for both gave a clear record of the players I found scummiest. I didn’t have the power to lynch both; if i had, I probably would have voted for only one until his/her alignment were revealed. You are changing your story there, you didn’t have “strong suspicions” of two players a few posts before voting them, you thought that “there was a no better than 50% chance that one of myself, Fluid and Sach were scum”. As I previously pointed out, that’s a worse than random chance of hitting scum by voting in that group, if that was what you believed. Quoted below: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Three players have sort of spearheaded the pursuit of me: **sachertorte** , **fluiddruid** , and **Alka Seltzer**. First: I consider it wildly unlikely that all three are Scum, and extremely unlikely that more than one of them is. For two (more more!) Scum to engage in parallel pursuit like this would be a big risk. I also think it’s no better than even money that even _one_ of the three of them is Scum. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I don’t know how to respond to this, given that my vote on Fluid was _not_ a self-defense vote. I had reasons for voting as I did, I outlined them as clearly as I could. At the time I voted, I had a grand total of _two_ votes, and had just made my role claim. It’s a huge reach to characterize this as “self-defense.” I need to have another look at the game state at that point, I thought you had more votes than that. If I’m remembering correctly, even if you didn’t have votes you were under pressure (hence the claim, surely?). ---
**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 25, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1536 "2010-02-25T18:14:55Z")
Yours seemed to come at the last minute, **Alka**. It looked like **Kelly** could have gone but then it got tied and then **Maha** got more votes plus the spawn vote. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1537 "2010-02-25T18:30:17Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I don’t accept this. If your claim is vaid, you had information that indicated an extra risk to leaving spawn alive, that they could not be killed by the (probably sole, unless your role is a backup) vig. That is a discrepancy. I thought it likely that spawn could be vigged, yet I argued that it would be better to lyse a spawn each day (the vig could achieve the same result, with less risk, by killing the vote runner-up). But can’t you see that the last sentence is basically just the reverse of my position? You had a belief that mitigated (gently) toward double-lysing, and I had a piece of information that mitigated against it, and yet you held your position and I held mine. My role was a piece of evidence _against_ my position, yes, but it was not sufficient to change my opinion. Take the Bert Blyleven example from before. Say I know (secretly, somehow) that Blyleven didn’t win 300 games, and you don’t know that. So I have possession of a piece of information that argues against my conclusion. Do you not see that I could still argue, in good faith, that I think Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame? > [@](#): > > Leaving aside the strategy disagreement (I really don’t want to get that started again), you posted a lot on the subject before aknowledging any of the points against double lyse. From my perspective, you appeared to be ignoring them. I don’t know how to respond to that. I tried to argue the points that needed arguing, not the points on which I had no particular disagreement. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but I’m not willing to give you a pass on this. As scum, you would have a motive for attempting to discredit me, as opposed to addressing my arguments. As town, you would have no such motive. I’ve only experienced personal attacks in mafia from scum players. Well, you’ll never be able to say that last sentence again. Look, Mafia is not played by dispassionate robots. I got frustrated and angry and felt insulted by the way I was being addressed, and I responded intemperately. I’d go so far as to say that I have _never_ personally insulted someone as Scum, because as Scum I know I’m wrong, basically, so it’s hard to get offended when people make accusations. Obviously, you can’t know that this is true, but it has as much validity as your _own_ claims about your own anecdotal experiences. > [@](#): > > You are changing your story there, you didn’t have “strong suspicions” of two players a few posts before voting them, you thought that “there was a no better than 50% chance that one of myself, Fluid and Sach were scum”. As I previously pointed out, that’s a worse than random chance of hitting scum by voting in that group, if that was what you believed. Again, I think we’re talking past each other here. Yes, if you take the 50% figure and treat it as a rigidly researched bit of probability, then you can compare these probabilities with those probabilities and try to find inconsistency where there really isn’t any, but I think my meaning was clear: I thought there was a good chance that one of you was Scum, and felt that my vote was best used to express that belief. > [@](#): > > I need to have another look at the game state at that point, I thought you had more votes than that. If I’m remembering correctly, even if you didn’t have votes you were under pressure (hence the claim, surely?). Two. I had two. And to the extent that I was “under pressure” (remember, I claimed when I wasn’t under real pressure, because I knew I’d be away for a big chunk of the Day and didn’t want to have to claim at the last minute), a vote for **fluid** still wouldn’t have qualified as a “defensive vote.” I think you’re twisting, here. Again, I struggle to read you, because your play-style and mine do not mesh at all. I can’t tell if you are twisting because you’re Town and you’ve already decided I’m Scum and are viewing everything through a clouded lens, or because you’re Scum and you’re still hoping you can get me lynched. Magic 8 Ball says: we’re lynching Kelly toDay, and you and I both know we’ll probably both be here tomorrow; I’ll worry about it then. ---
**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 25, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1538 "2010-02-25T19:56:39Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Yours seemed to come at the last minute, **Alka**. It looked like **Kelly** could have gone but then it got tied and then **Maha** got more votes plus the spawn vote. I’m on GMT, the game end is about 8:00PM here. I logged in while I was eating, and found there had been a last minute switch in the vote leader, and decided I prefered the case on Mahaloth to the one on Kelly. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > But can’t you see that the last sentence is basically just the reverse of my position? You had a belief that mitigated (gently) toward double-lysing, and I had a piece of information that mitigated against it, and yet you held your position and I held mine. No, it’s not quite the same, because I explained why a lyse of spawn would still be safer even if the vig could kill spawn (the vig still had the opportunity to generate the same info for town by killing the vote runner up, but could make a more informed decision on whether that was a good idea). > [@storyteller0910](#): > > My role was a piece of evidence _against_ my position, yes, but it was not sufficient to change my opinion. Take the Bert Blyleven example from before. Say I know (secretly, somehow) that Blyleven didn’t win 300 games, and you don’t know that. So I have possession of a piece of information that argues against my conclusion. Do you not see that I could still argue, in good faith, that I think Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame? I’m from the UK, and know nothing about baseball. 😉 I’m not trying to make out that this is a slam-dunk (I’ve heard of basketball) case, my position is a player with your information would be more likely to oppose a double-player lyse than one without it, so it’s possible the claim was invented after you took a position on it. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Look, Mafia is not played by dispassionate robots. I got frustrated and angry and felt insulted by the way I was being addressed, and I responded intemperately. Sure, I appreciate that, but frustration tells me nothing about your alignment. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Two. I had two. And to the extent that I was “under pressure” (remember, I claimed when I wasn’t under real pressure, because I knew I’d be away for a big chunk of the Day and didn’t want to have to claim at the last minute), a vote for **fluid** still wouldn’t have qualified as a “defensive vote.” I’ll take another look at this if we’re both still around toMorrow. ---
**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 25, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1539 "2010-02-25T20:14:34Z")
Is it winter? I feel weird breaking out the bubbly till we get the word from above. ---
**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 25, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1540 "2010-02-25T20:18:15Z")
The Spawn votes for Alka Seltzer and Natlaw. Vote count: Spawn 12 KellyCriterion 12 sachertorte 2 Alka Seltzer 2 Rysto 1 Natlaw [del]1: special\_ed[/del] [del]2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies[/del] 3: Drain Bead – KellyCriterion (1343), [del]Spawn[/del] (1343-1441), sachertorte (1441) 4: Oredigger77 – Alka Seltzer (1371), Spawn (1371) 5: storyteller0910 – Rysto (1356), KellyCriterion (1472) 6: Meeko – -[del]KellyCriterion[/del] (1342-1377), Spawn (1342-1361, 1377), [del]Storyteller[/del] (1361-1450), sachertorte (1450) [del]7: Mahaloth [/del] 8: Freudian Slit – KellyCriterion (1345-1400, 1489), Spawn (1345) 9: USCDiver – Spawn (1403), KellyCriterion (1471) 10: Alka Seltzer – Spawn (1496), KellyCriterion (1534) [del]11: peekercpa[/del] 12: Natlaw – KellyCriterion (1503) [del]13: Zeriel[/del] 14: DiggitCamara – KellyCriterion (1525), Spawn (1525) 15: amrussell – [del]USCDiver[/del] (1457-1520), KellyCriterion (1488), Spawn (1520) 16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (1350) 17: Red Skeezix – KellyCriterion (1344-1363, 1504), Spawn (1344), [del]TexCat[/del] (1363-1504) 18: sachertorte – [del]USCDiver[/del] (1440-1527), Spawn (1440), KellyCriterion (1527) [del]19: fluiddruid[/del] 20: TexCat – [del]Storyteller[/del] (1360-1511), Spawn (1360), KellyCriterion (1511) 21: Rysto – [del]DiggitCamara[/del] (1341-1474), Spawn (1341), KellyCriterion (1474) As had become their custom, the Town ripped the annual Spawn of the scum to shreds. **A Spawn is dead** Meanwhile, **KellyCriterion** had tried to fit in by arranging his cilia in a wheel-like shape, but most of the denizens of the Pond saw through this disguise, and tore the cilia completely off, taking most of his cell membrane with them and revealing his organelles for all to see. **KellyCriterion, a Scum, is dead** It is now Winter 4. There are no Spawn in the pond. Strategy discussion should be put on hold at this time. Summer 5 will begin this Saturday at 1:00 MST. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=76) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=78)