# 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:** 82
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1621 "2010-03-01T21:01:44Z")
On **DiggitCamara** & **Storyteller** : I don’t think **Rysto** ’s argument about Diggit’s **Drainbead** vote is a good one, in that I agree that her vote reason with the mention of that someone voted someone now-known-as-town was odd. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > 1. I can’t envision any game design that gives a Vig that’s hobbled this badly. Even worse, since our Vig can’t even kill Spawn! > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > Therein lies the rub, don’t it? I’m not characterizing your behavior in this game as scummy. I’m characterizing your role as scummy. > > What I’m also saying is: You gave us (almostly) your exact PM, because it’s consistent with your basic philosophy as a player. Your role, as you stated it, simply doesn’t make sense as a townie role to me. I agree with **Storyteller** that you seem to believe both his claim is (partly) true, so it can be a town role. But if it’s partly true a scummy Storyteller would killed Winter Two since he might have been lynched the next Summer. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > (2) I’m Scum with an extra kill that would hide the alignment of the dead player (!!!) and have decided not to use that ability. Neither of these things is particularly reasonable, really. > > My role has only one practical application - I can kill someone who has been definitively outed as Scum, whether by confirmed Detective or disproven role claim or what have you. From that perspective, it makes more sense and is far more balanced as a Town role than as any other. Another would be at a mislynch at lynch or lose resulting in even numbers of town and scum, since the need a strict majority the Winter action result in another Summer of lynch or lose. Of course requires estimating the correct number of scum correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1622 "2010-03-01T21:05:11Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > This isn’t really helpful if you want to make a convincing case. > > It’s LOLCAT speak, not peekerese 😛 I’m not sure how many ways I can say “massive ping”, gut feeling, or intuition. I know “I can has X” is lol cat. I was trying to get at, that I felt the post entire was more peeker than not. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1623 "2010-03-01T21:08:23Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > I don’t think **Rysto** ’s argument about Diggit’s **Drainbead** vote is a good one, in that I agree that her vote reason with the mention of that someone voted someone now-known-as-town was odd. I think that you misunderstand my argument. I agree that Drain’s original vote was strange and worthy of attention. However, Diggit’s stated perspective on the whole thing was that he thought that Drain was exhibiting PIS. My argument was that if Drain was exhibiting PIS then no one could reasonably conclude that Drain was scum. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1624 "2010-03-01T21:22:42Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Essentially it goes like this: I recall Natlaw going after KellyCriterion for some reason or another and my going “really?” (I know, I feel stupid now, but…) so I look at the vote record and I see that Natlaw voted for KellyCriterion on Day 2 (which is what I thought I remembered). I voted him for an inconsistence about voting **Mahaloth** (not wanting to discuss how to scum hunt but asking earlier how to do it). That seemed in conflict with her newbie status. > [@](#): > > But on Day 3, he doesn’t vote for KellyCriterion, he votes for Mahaloth, which I suppose could be fine, but it does make me wonder. Typically, if anything, I’m _too slow_ to let up on someone. As far as I could tell, on Day 3 there wasn’t really anything to make Natlaw less suspicious of KellyCriterion. Now I’m all for looking at a variety of people, but when it boiled down to Mahaloth versus KellyCriterion. I find it odd that someone going after KellyCriterion on Day 2 was essentially voting to save KellyCriterion. I find this situation unusual. Not only does he drop his case against KellyCriterion, but he joins KellyCriterion in voting for Mahaloth. Furthermore, Natlaw asks KellyCriterion some questions that as far as I can tell do not get answered (post 1263 where Natlaw votes for Mahaloth), which I find suspicious as well since if Natlaw was Town, I would have expected more follow-up/annoyance at being ignored. Summer Three I did ask him again to clarify, but she referred back to his previous post without much extra explanation. I did let that slide, mostly because I decided it was newbie laziness. Because I read **Mahaloth** ’s and Kelly’s interaction I was familiar with Mahaloth posts and they seemed to lack actual scum hunting and he was placing easy votes. So I voted Mahaloth for that scummy behavior and since I didn’t think he would be voting a fellow newbie scum that moved Kelly more in the not-scum camp. Also note that when I voted it wasn’t between Kelly and Mahaloth, but if I remember correctly Storyteller, you and Mahaloth. I didn’t think either of the first two cases were much good, so I voted Mahaloth for reasons above. I was around during the vote changes at the end of the Summer (first to Kelly and then back to Mahaloth). I did consider changing to my vote at that point, but I didn’t like the swing to Kelly in the first place and he hadn’t claimed either so I left my vote where it was. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1625 "2010-03-01T21:33:29Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > I think that you misunderstand my argument. I agree that Drain’s original vote was strange and worthy of attention. However, Diggit’s stated perspective on the whole thing was that he thought that Drain was exhibiting PIS. My argument was that if Drain was exhibiting PIS then no one could reasonably conclude that Drain was scum. You’re making the reverse of claim of when you voted **special ed** for defending **Scuba\_Ben/Redskeezix**. You voted him because he seemed to know Scuba\_Ben was town - here PIS is scummy. But now you say exhibiting PIS is not scummy? On reread I do see that Diggit claimed PIS after but not when he voted (and **ed** being a town power role wasn’t PIS anymore at that point). I didn’t check if **Drainbead** defended ed Summer One when it would have been PIS and/or if Diggit mentioned it then. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1626 "2010-03-01T21:39:58Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > On reread I do see that Diggit claimed PIS after but not when he voted (and **ed** being a town power role wasn’t PIS anymore at that point). I didn’t check if **Drainbead** defended ed Summer One when it would have been PIS and/or if Diggit mentioned it then. On re-reread: > [@](#): > > It smells like a subtle smear (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor). You’re voting for him whilst subtly accusing him of knowledge he couldn’t have had. And that seems scummy to me. He is voting **Drainbead** because she voted **Rysto** because somehow he should have known **ed** was a town power role (PIS). ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1627 "2010-03-01T21:43:21Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > You voted him because he seemed to know Scuba\_Ben was town - here PIS is scummy. But now you say exhibiting PIS is not scummy? Sometimes PIS is scummy; sometimes it’s not. I voted for ed because, in my experience, scum are more likely to slip and say that an unconfirmed player is Town than a townie is to make an unjustified assumption. In the case of Drain the only PIS that she possibly could have been exhibiting was mason PIS. ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1628 "2010-03-01T23:25:03Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > Your play is definitely anti-town. Is it pro-scum? Certainly, leaving no trail has big advantages for scum in a) avoiding attention and b) reducing the info town gains from role reveal. Your voting pattern looks somewhat odd: a bandwagon vote on peeker (the last one, if I’m counting right), no vote on Summer 2 (although you announced in advance you’d have little online access that week) and a one-off vote on Meeko for Summer 3. Discounting the Summer 2 absence, I find the move from a town-lyse bandwagon to a one-off vote somewhat suspicious - possibly a conscious attempt to withdraw from the attention that comes with being on a townie bandwagon. I’m not sure what case is being made here exactly, I voted for the player I thought was most Scummy in those Days. Also I wasn’t the last voter for **peekercpa** , \*\*AlkaSeltzer \*\*was. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1629 "2010-03-02T01:19:42Z")
I said I’d come back with my list, and I was able to think of a couple more eliminations. I started with the full list of players and eliminated them based on category, players already eliminated were not considered for later categories. People who were dead before freudian: special Ed, cookies, mahaloth,peeker,zeriel,fluid,Kelly People who said they weren’t masons already: Red Skeezix, storyteller, texcat people who said they were masons as of meeko’s claim: drain, meeko people who meeko voted for: Natlaw,sachertorte people who drain voted for: Rysto people who voted drain: Diggit,amrussel people who voted meeko: USCDiver Here is the choice that scum was facing last night: 4: Oredigger77 8: Freudian Slit 10: Alka Seltzer If Oredigger or Alka are scum it’s a 50-50 shot of hitting guaranteed unprotected mason, if they both are it’s 100%. That puts us into 3 groups (masons, not mason, possible mason guesses for last night). 3: Drain Bead 6: Meeko 5: storyteller0910 9: USCDiver 12: Natlaw 14: DiggitCamara 15: amrussell 17: Red Skeezix 18: sachertorte 20: TexCat 21: Rysto 4: Oredigger77 10: Alka Seltzer It’s not particularly damning. It’s just more data. At this point I’m leaning towards Alka. The late voting tie on day 3 was pretty scummy, esp since if Alka was scum he’d know maha was town and story had broadcasted that he preferred the maha lynch, and would break a tie. To be honest, with a short think and not much research, it seems like Oredigger has voted for everyone surrounding the storyteller double lyse + claim mess. Oredigger was also named by Kelly, but that could just be coincidence. so for now, for what appears to be vote manipulation and some weak circumstantial analysis based on who was a mason possibility: **vote Alka Seltzer vote Spawn** ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1630 "2010-03-02T04:03:54Z")
Skeezix, are you doing a bit of Mason Sudoku up there? \*\* Unvote Spawn\*\* \*\* Vote Alka\*\* Again, I’m less than I was with all Mafia now, than I was when I started THIS game, no thanks to another game currently. No thanks to missing a vote on Kelly. I would like to make more comments on my reasons for claiming. But I get a sense that, that may not help town. Please advise. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1631 "2010-03-02T06:50:51Z")
I know I already advertsided but I just wanted to say that we need a sub for the game that I am currently hosting [here](http://psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=aggressivenegotiations) so anyone who died or otherwise wanted to start playing in the meantime or was hesitant the first time can get in there if you want anyone? ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1632 "2010-03-02T09:44:32Z")
I’m looking at Story, Oredigger and DiggitCamara right now, I’ll try and get my thoughts down today. **Vote Spawn** ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1633 "2010-03-02T10:14:17Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Here is the choice that scum was facing last night: > 4: Oredigger77 > 8: Freudian Slit > 10: Alka Seltzer > > If Oredigger or Alka are scum it’s a 50-50 shot of hitting guaranteed unprotected mason, if they both are it’s 100%. > > That puts us into 3 groups (masons, not mason, possible mason guesses for last night). > > 3: Drain Bead > 6: Meeko > > 5: storyteller0910 > 9: USCDiver > 12: Natlaw > 14: DiggitCamara > 15: amrussell > 17: Red Skeezix > 18: sachertorte > 20: TexCat > 21: Rysto > > 4: Oredigger77 > 10: Alka Seltzer This is interesting, but Drain, Meeko and Freudian exposed themselves as possible non-vanillas on Day 1. It came after peeker accused me of of a slip, something I interpreted as possible role-fishing. Drain, Meeko and Freudian all took an interest, reveling that they thought vanilla = plankton. This wasn’t clear from a public perspective, town power roles could have been types of plankton, or other things living in a pond. I didn’t want to spell that out on Day 1, as I didn’t want to help the scum fish. I tried to close the whole thing down as quick as possible, before other players started giving hints about their roles. There was no slip on my part, I’m very careful about this kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1634 "2010-03-02T11:29:06Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > It’s not particularly damning. It’s just more data. At this point I’m leaning towards Alka. The late voting tie on day 3 was pretty scummy, esp since if Alka was scum he’d know maha was town and story had broadcasted that he preferred the maha lynch, and would break a tie. To be honest, with a short think and not much research, it seems like Oredigger has voted for everyone surrounding the storyteller double lyse + claim mess. Oredigger was also named by Kelly, but that could just be coincidence. > > so for now, for what appears to be vote manipulation and some weak circumstantial analysis based on who was a mason possibility: > **vote Alka Seltzer > vote Spawn** I think your list is crap because for some reason it assumes Masons won’t ever vote for other Masons which is just as dangerous as assuming the same of Scum. However, I share your suspicions of \*\*AlkaSeltzer \*\*with regards to the non-lynch of \*\*KellyCriterion \*\*on Summer 3. For now, I’ll **Vote Spawn Vote AlkaSeltzer** ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1635 "2010-03-02T11:51:18Z")
> [@USCDiver](#): > > I’m not sure what case is being made here exactly, I voted for the player I thought was most Scummy in those Days. Also I wasn’t the last voter for **peekercpa** , \*\*AlkaSeltzer \*\*was. Well, the basis of the case is “the curious incident of the dog in the night”. You’ve done very little, and by your own admission this is because you’ve been following the thread but not contributing - instead, if anyone posts something you agree with, you decide that absolves you of the responsibility to contribute your own thoughts. As a result, you are an information black hole. This is an excellent position for scum to find themselves in, and a poor position for town. You’re right that Alka was the last to vote for peeker - my mistake. You were the second-last, and you did not, in fact, vote for him because you thought he was scummiest: > [@USCDiver](#): > > **I’m not convinced that peeker’s play has been pro-scum** which is always my primary goal in making my votes. But in the absence of a player making pro-scum posts, **my voting falls back to those with anti-pond behavior**. At this point, I’m concerned about some of the aspects of **peeker** ’s posts with regards to his reactions to getting voted and see them as **Anti-Pond even if not blatantly pro-Scum**. So for now I will > > vote peekercpa You explicitly disavowed the idea that peeker was being scummy in his play. Three times. On Day One, weak cases are expected. But now you’re re-writing your voting history, which is by no means par for the course. And if you were voting for someone you knew was town, being able to go back and point out that you never actually thought he was scum is tremendously helpful. Re-reading Summer 4, I’m struck by the fact that, contrary to your avowed practice of waiting to see what other people say, you were very quick to vote for Kelly. To be specific: there were four votes for Kelly at the very beginning of the Summer, brought over from the previous Summer. Three of these unvoted when Kelly first claimed (Drain being the holdout.) There then followed a “satellite delayed” interrogation and some general discussion of the claim. Some were more believing than others but gradually the discrepancies became more glaring. Nevertheless, even the most suspcious players were hesitant about voting. At that point, you came in and threw the first post-claim vote down. At which point things quickly snow-balled. Given your admitted wait-and-see attitude, this is something of a change of pace. It struck me at the time that in the event of a claim unravelling, Kelly’s fellow scum would want to distance themselves from him pretty rapidly, and the best way to do that is to be quick off the mark with a vote. **vote USCDiver** ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1636 "2010-03-02T13:59:18Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > This is interesting, but Drain, Meeko and Freudian exposed themselves as possible non-vanillas on Day 1. It came after peeker accused me of of a slip, something I interpreted as possible role-fishing. Drain, Meeko and Freudian all took an interest, reveling that they thought vanilla = plankton. This wasn’t clear from a public perspective, town power roles could have been types of plankton, or other things living in a pond. I didn’t want to spell that out on Day 1, as I didn’t want to help the scum fish. I tried to close the whole thing down as quick as possible, before other players started giving hints about their roles. > > There was no slip on my part, I’m very careful about this kind of thing. And what’s funny is that I didn’t think it was unclear at all, from the game rules post. And the fact that you did probably means that YOU aren’t plankton, either. Obviously if you had that role, you’d know for sure. Based on that and **Skeezik** ’s analysis above, I’m comfortable voting for you. **vote AlkaSeltzer** ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1637 "2010-03-02T14:01:28Z")
> [@USCDiver](#): > > I think your list is crap because for some reason it assumes Masons won’t ever vote for other Masons which is just as dangerous as assuming the same of Scum. But we clearly didn’t vote for other Masons, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1638 "2010-03-02T14:01:36Z")
Looking at Story, he is at least engaging with me now, making it possible to make a better judgement on him. I think he is making some reasonable points in his defence, but overall I’m not convinced. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > 1. He has stated (in previous games) that a Vig shouldn’t kill unless he’s 100% sure about scumminess. **@Town** - Can anyone else confirm this please? If this is true, Story’s position on double-lyse makes even less sense. A vig always has the option of killing for information, going for a player with a voting record, so it’s a safer and better option than a double player lyse in this game. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 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 don’t have a big problem with your vote of Fluid, although it was a reversal of your Day 1 analysis on her, but voting for Fluid and Sach was a clear contradiciton of your analysis. Why vote for both of them when you thought that no more than one of them was scum? > [@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 don’t have an issue with the timing of the claim, but you were certainly under pressure, and anticipating more votes, as is clear from your claim post below: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > \ > > OK, here’s the thing. I’m going to be gone for almost the entire (real-life) day tomorrow (Wednesday). I’m going to try to make a few decent posts early in the day and on Thursday, but my participation will be limited for a big chunk of what’s left of the day. > > It’s funny. People pay lip service to the idea that “disagreement on strategy isn’t Scummy,” but ultimately, they don’t believe it. Disagree with someone on strategy and you will usually earn their vote. They will twist themselves into knots convincing themselves that it’s really about something other than the strategy disagreement, but in the end, that’s all **Alka Seltzer** has and all **fluiddruid** has, and here I am with two votes, and I know **sach** is always happy to see me dead, and if none of the aforementioned folks are Scum then I can bet good money that soon there will be some votes from Scum. > > And frankly, I’ve felt I should role claim since basically the beginning of the game. > > So. > > **I am a Vigilante.** In color terms, I am an **Amoeba**. I kill in the Winter. I cannot kill Spawn. I did not attempt a kill last Winter, and it is highly likely that I will _never_ attempt a kill, as the use of my power involves a very significant drawback that I would prefer not to disclose. > > So good job, **Alka** and **fluid**. Over a difference in strategy you have outed a Town power role. > > * * * > > And **fluid** , I would very much appreciate a response of either “true” or “false” to my last post. Looking at the timing of your vote on Fluid, it placed her in a tie with yourself at 3 votes each, so I can’t rule out self-defence as a motive. I find it significant that you voted Fluid, who presented a comprehensive case against you, instead of Sach, who mostly argued with you on strategy. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I think you’re twisting, here. Again, I struggle to read you, because your play-style and mine do not mesh at all. I find it very strange you say you can’t read me based on playstyle, I’ve posted a lot of game-relevant content. That’s about the third time you’ve repeated this, and it contradicts your position here: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > **Alka Seltzer** : I disagree with you. You are going to have to get it through your head that sometimes, people have strategic ideas that differ from yours. There is not one correct way to play this or any game. I disagree with you on the correct way to play this one. I don’t apologize for my position on this nor do I back down from it one bit. However, I do decline to continue to discuss it, because it’s a line of discussion leading nowhere. I get the feeling that this drives you crazy, that you _need_ everyone to agree with your strategic opinions and if they don’t, they must be Scum, but you’re not getting the first or the second, at least as far as I’m concerned. Sorry. > > Your vote for me is silly and baseless. And it’s comical - _comical_ - that you actually unvoted Spawn in order to place it. There is a strong implicit assumption that I am town here. If Story thought I was scum, I would have a strong motive for attacking him over double lyse. Either Story had a town read on me (which he is denying), or he slipped here and knew I was town. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 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. At that point in the game, a large proportion of your posting concerned double player-lyse. You made a substantial analysis post late on Day 1 where you voted Freudian (subsequently not followed up at all), but didn’t do any scum hunting Day 2 until your vote for Fluid. I don’t remember you making many comments on other players, is this accurate? > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 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. OK, I can see the argument there. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 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. Yeah, I don’t like these kind of attacks either. It does support your vote for Fluid. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 1. Analyzing a role to decide if it makes sense, especially from a position of partial ignorance about the setup as a whole, is bound to be fruitless. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Chia Bingo Manager? Also: Don’t like this. Town needs to peform the best analysis we can with the information we have. A crazy role from x games ago isn’t really relevant. Trying to assess whether a role makes sense is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Obviously, there is a degree of risk, but that is true of any case made in mafia. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > 1. If your theory is that I am telling (most of) the truth about my role, then you are theorizing that either: (1) I’m a Serial Killer or third-party role who has decided never to kill; or (2) I’m Scum with an extra kill that would hide the alignment of the dead player (!!!) and have decided not to use that ability. Neither of these things is particularly reasonable, really. The other possibility is that you chose the claim knowing you’d almost certainly never have to prove it, and that you don’t have a black-hole kill ability. **@Story** - Do you agree with me that a black-hole kill would be a very powerful role for scum to have, and it would severly change the game balance unless town had a role to counter it? > [@storyteller0910](#): > > My role has only one practical application - I can kill someone who has been definitively outed as Scum, whether by confirmed Detective or disproven role claim or what have you. From that perspective, it makes more sense and is far more balanced as a Town role than as any other. Earlier I floated the idea of testing your ability late in the game if we end up with even numbers. I expected you to show some interest in this if you are town. What are your thoughts on this? ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1639 "2010-03-02T14:29:37Z")
Since I’m picking up a some votes here, I’ll make a few points in self-defence. On Day 2 I defended Drain before her mason claim, when she was the vote leader and Kelly also had some votes. That would not have been a smart move if I was scum. On Day 3 I encouraged Meeko to vote for his top candidate, when he was complaining about “not being able to unvote”. At the time, he was showing suspicion of Kelly. Obviously, I made a bad call on Kelly vs Mahaloth. I’ll dig up the relevant posts that show what I was thinking. > [@Meeko](#): > > **Vote Alka** Can I have some actual reasons for the vote please? > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > And what’s funny is that I didn’t think it was unclear at all, from the game rules post. And the fact that you did probably means that YOU aren’t plankton, either. Obviously if you had that role, you’d know for sure. > > Based on that and **Skeezik** ’s analysis above, I’m comfortable voting for you. > > **vote AlkaSeltzer** It was clear that the vanilla town were plankton from the posted PM. What wasn’t clear was if town power roles were special types of plankton or some other type of creature. I was being careful to post from that perspective. That question probably didn’t occur to you because you had extra information (PIS). You should remember that I know how to protect roles from the last game Drain. After I blocked you, I was careful to remain neutral towards you. Scum would probably have guessed I was the blocker if I had blocked the kill and I’d started a case against you the next day. > [@Meeko](#): > > I would like to make more comments on my reasons for claiming. But I get a sense that, that may not help town. Please advise. You’ve claimed now Meeko, so it’s not really relevant, and it wouldn’t help us find scum. I’ll try and look at Oredigger this afternoon. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1640 "2010-03-02T14:45:32Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Here is the choice that scum was facing last night: > 4: Oredigger77 > 8: Freudian Slit > 10: Alka Seltzer This is consistent with what I saw. However, I disagree with the idea that we can assume that at least one of Oredigger and Alka Seltzer are scum. In order to feel this way, we must accept that scum would be more inclined to take a shot in this pool if one of Oredigger and Alka Seltzer were scum. I do not believe this is the case. Let’s assume that all three are Town: Scum would feel that one or more of these players is a Mason, most likely unprotected. Even if they choose wrong, it doesn’t _actively_ hurt scum. So there isn’t exactly a deterrent from choosing from this grouping. For this reason I think it is dangerous to assume that one of Oredigger and Alka Seltzer are scum. Let’s assume that one of them is scum: Red Skeezix concludes that the scummy one is alka seltzer. I disagree. If we were to go down the Oredigger versus Alka Seltzer path, I would think Oredigger is the scummy one. Scum are not revealed by what they do, but by what they Don’t Do. Alka Seltzer is getting votes because he is the ‘scummy’ one, that is, he has done ‘suspicious things.’ This “apparent scumminess” is precisely why I would (if the choice was between Oredigger and Alka) choose Oredigger for lynching. Everything Alka Seltzer has done (as far as I can tell so far) that people are pointing to as “scummy” are precisely the things that Town would do and should do in pursuit of scum. So Alka Seltzer voted for Mahaloth. Big deal. I voted for Mahaloth, as did many others. So Alka Seltzer voted for Mahaloth LATE. This is where things get interesting. Alka Seltzer created a TIE. A Tie is a risky place for scum. The risk is that KellyCriterion dies by random result AND Alka Seltzer gets heat for the vote. Bad place to be. I don’t see it as a scum move. Furthermore, Alka Seltzer was voting after another pair of late votes switched the count from Mahaloth to KellyCriterion LATE. I can see Town reacting badly to that. The main point against Alka Seltzer isn’t nearly as “scummy” as people say it is. Furthermore, I find Alka Seltzer engaging. He certainly is pursuing his thoughts and storyteller. Does that look ‘scummy?’ It doesn’t to me. Everyone else (including myself) has given up on the storyteller angle. Why would a scummy Alka Seltzer bother? Even if Alka Seltzer is scum and storyteller is Town it is a waste of effort. As for why I would choose Oredigger over Alka Seltzer is precisely because he is so “not scummy” if that makes sense. I know. I get myself into trouble for these thoughts, but time and time again, scum play safe, scum stay out of the fray, and the only thing that makes scum visible is their lack of “apparent scummines.” I guess that is the best way to put it. It goes back to my “clean noser” theory of mafia. Look at peekercpa: he was lynched for “acting scummy” Look at fluiddruid: she was lynched for what exactly? Something in there had to have been “scummy” but really all she did was _actively play the game_. Mahaloth was the closest we got to lynching someone for lack of committment, so yeah, it’s not a perfect system. KellyCriterion was lynched based on an inconsistency in his story. Frankly, if he had claimed cleanly (standard cop) he probably would not have been lynched. Anyway, I’m dubious of the “one of Alka Seltzer and Oredigger must be scum” assumption. As for detectives, I’ve been pondering detectives a bit more this morning. I’m torn between thinking we don’t have one (mainly because one hasn’t spoken up) and the fact that we are incredibly screwed if there isn’t one. Not so much for the lack of investigations, but that scum can easily claim detective from here to the end of the game. It is bad enough if we don’t have a detective, but it is far worse because we won’t know that we don’t have a detective. So I keep vacillating on whether or not I expect there to be a detective. In game evidence points to there not being a detective. Game design balance mandates that there be one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=81) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=83)