# 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:** 83
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1641 "2010-03-02T15:28:17Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@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. I simply don’t see how this is the case (by the way, my position has never been that a conventional Vig must be 100% convinced of Scumminess in order to take a shot - just that there should be a very, very, _very_ good reason). I do not regard Vig kills as substantively the same as lynches. Vig kills by nature involve one player substituting his/her judgment for that of the rest of the Town; they generate less information than an actual lynch (even if the kill is made “for information”), because an actual lynch goes all the way, and seeing the behavior of voters in that last extremity is interesting in a way that no other behavior quite can be. My position is that lynching is good, Vig killing in situations other than very high-confidence situations is usually bad. You may disagree with this position, but it’s a perfectly consistent position. > [@](#): > > 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? The answer to this seems very plain to me, and yet I struggle to articulate it. Let me leave you out of it for a minute, if I may. I have two players, S and F. I think one is likely to be Scum and one is likely to be Town, but don’t know which. However, _both_ are behaving in what I consider to be an equally suspicious fashion. My votes on them are independent entities. I may be wrong about both or either. I may even be wrong in my initial hypothesis, and both could be Scum. I’m going to use my vote to record my suspicions and own them - aware even as I do so that I will be wrong at times. > [@](#): > > 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. I voted sach, too, eventually. I responded to things in the order that I read them. You’re trying to ding me for voting for both of them and then here, to ding me for voting for only one. > [@](#): > > 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… > > 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. Wrong. There is no implicit assumption that you are Town. See, here’s the thing. I don’t know if you’re Town or if you’re Scum. What I think is that no matter what you are, you believe that double-lysing is Anti-Town. I think you were arguing your honest position; there’s no rule that says Scum _must_ lie all the time, is there. I believe that you were arguing strenuously that double-lysing was an anti-Town idea because I think that you actually think that it is. If you’re Town, you were arguing it so fiercely because you didn’t want the Town to go down a route you considered unwise; if you’re Scum you were arguing it fiercely because (pick one) you felt you were right and were frustrated by my disagreement and/or you felt it was a topic you could use to argue openly and honestly while generating a creditable reason to be “suspicious” of someone you knew to be non-Scum. I can’t read you alignment-wise. I just can’t. Your playstyle is as baffling to me as anyone’s with whom I’ve ever played. > [@](#): > > 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. I disagree. Assessing whether a role is consistent with known facts, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Trying to apply _your_ idea of what constitutes a “role that makes sense” is a fool’s errand unless you have some reason to believe that your own preferences were taken into account in the creation of the game. The Chia Bingo Manager role was just one example of dozens of times that players have used this argument - oh, that role doesn’t make sense, no way the moderator put that in there - and been tragically wrong. Usually, the role winds up making perfect sense once the whole picture appears. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, yes. I acknowledged that. As I said, I can understand voting for me because you don’t believe I have the power at all. Voting for me in the stated belief that I _do_ have the power and am telling the truth about everything other than my alignment is… and odd position. > [@](#): > > **@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? Yes. > [@](#): > > 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? Sure. Tell me when we have even numbers 😃 More seriously, obviously if the Town is in dire straits, anything and everything goes onto the table. I don’t think we’re there right now. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1642 "2010-03-02T15:31:35Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > 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. If there’s a Detective and (s)he hasn’t claimed yet, (s)he is probably losing us the game by that decision. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1643 "2010-03-02T16:33:31Z")
One thing to consider– **Kelly** did provide **Oredigger** on the list of claimed names. Does it mean anything? Had we not lynched **Kelly** , would we now be thinking that **Oredigger** is Town? ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1644 "2010-03-02T16:37:44Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > But we clearly didn’t vote for other Masons, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Further, it ignores the drawback that masons had for this game. I think that went a LONG way in having us not vote for the other. I mean, Scum can bus, and if they do it correctly, they will give scum mates fair warning on it. … Masons who can’t strategize on the other hand will get a WTF fest. And I can’t really think of a circumstance where Masons would bus. I would bet a game state / rule set could be demonstrated, but not probable. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1645 "2010-03-02T16:37:53Z")
Do we really want to go down the road of trying to WIFOM whether Kelly would have named a Town or Scum player? ---
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1646 "2010-03-02T16:40:40Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > One thing to consider– **Kelly** did provide **Oredigger** on the list of claimed names. Does it mean anything? Had we not lynched **Kelly** , would we now be thinking that **Oredigger** is Town? On a True or False quiz, the statement is False if any of the statement is False. The statement must be 100% true to be true. Fake Fakery is Fake. … I don’t think it means anything. We should have enough data before Kelly came up with the (Great) idea to false claim Rotifer, and after. And I mean it is great because it got some people, ok me, not to vote him. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1647 "2010-03-02T16:44:32Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I can’t read you alignment-wise. I just can’t. Your playstyle is as baffling to me as anyone’s with whom I’ve ever played. Does this mean there is hope for me yet? Glad to see someone else struggles from time to time to articulate. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1648 "2010-03-02T17:03:14Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > One thing to consider– **Kelly** did provide **Oredigger** on the list of claimed names. Does it mean anything? Had we not lynched **Kelly** , would we now be thinking that **Oredigger** is Town? Can of worms, this. Also, Oredigger was in the short list of the “Mason Sudoku” that Skeezix posted. … Would a Newer player, cooking up and slipping on a false claim, have the experience needed to NOT include scum mates? o.O **Unvote all** \*\* Vote Alka\*\* **Vote Digger** ---
**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, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1649 "2010-03-02T17:07:54Z")
**Reasons for Alka : The unvote of Kelly late. Reasons for Digger : The Mason Sudoku, and the Hail Mary fail by Kelly to confirm him.** ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1650 "2010-03-02T17:38:22Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I simply don’t see how this is the case (by the way, my position has never been that a conventional Vig must be 100% convinced of Scumminess in order to take a shot - just that there should be a very, very, _very_ good reason). I do not regard Vig kills as substantively the same as lynches. Vig kills by nature involve one player substituting his/her judgment for that of the rest of the Town; they generate less information than an actual lynch (even if the kill is made “for information”), because an actual lynch goes all the way, and seeing the behavior of voters in that last extremity is interesting in a way that no other behavior quite can be. A vig of the vote runner-up can give just as much information as a lynch if the vote is close. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I voted sach, too, eventually. I responded to things in the order that I read them. You’re trying to ding me for voting for both of them and then here, to ding me for voting for only one. No, I’m flagging up some strange behavior. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Wrong. There is no implicit assumption that you are Town. If I was scum, I wouldn’t be frustrated at you arguing an anti-town position, I’d be pleased. Your argument doesn’t stack up here. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I can’t read you alignment-wise. I just can’t. Your playstyle is as baffling to me as anyone’s with whom I’ve ever played. Why? I’ve posted a lot of content, are you really saying nothing I’ve done all game has moved you off null? > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Well, yes. I acknowledged that. As I said, I can understand voting for me because you don’t believe I have the power at all. Voting for me in the stated belief that I _do_ have the power and am telling the truth about everything other than my alignment is… and odd position. Is that Diggit’s position? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Sure. Tell me when we have even numbers 😃 > > More seriously, obviously if the Town is in dire straits, anything and everything goes onto the table. I don’t think we’re there right now. Yeah, it is a bit academic atm. I was more interested in your thoughts on what circumstances your claim could be tested. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1651 "2010-03-02T17:43:59Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Anyway, I’m dubious of the “one of Alka Seltzer and Oredigger must be scum” assumption. I just want to point out this time, that I support this opinion, and I believe that everyone should take the list results that I posted with a bottle of scrutiny in hand. Also, I would have alot more faith in what list said if it were longer. A 1 in 3 chance of hitting a desired target, I think is enough for scum to take that risk. However, I don’t know whether or not scum would percieve an exposure risk if one or two scum might be exposed by taking out the mason. @USCDiver: I do not believe, do to his playstyle, that Meeko would have voted for another mason. If we were to remove Those who voted for meeko, those who voted for drain, and those who drain voted for from the list. Things would be alot more interesting, and I’d have gobs more confidence in what the list would have to say. Although I feel that it would be disingenuous to do so since the record shows that in this game, no mason voted for any other mason. But in the interests of what if- If scum did not make the assumption that masons did not bus each other, the list looks like this: Freudian Slit Rysto DiggitCamara USCDiver amrussell Oredigger77 Alka Seltzer The leftovers: Red Skeezix sachertorte TexCat storyteller natlaw With regards to Oredigger v Alka, and my choosing. Sach has pointed out that it is less likely for a scummy Alka to back up Kelly by forcing the tie. A side point, I believe that storyteller intimated that he preferred the Mahaloth lynch, so a tie wasn’t going to happen. I do not think it unlikely for a scummy Alka to have supported Kelly in such a manner. I’ve seen it before and was the recipient of it during my first real game (Pleonast casting a shadow of doubt on idle calling me ‘obvious scum’ during space hijack), where an experienced scum player will make a risky call to help out an inexperienced player simply because an easy excuse exists. Namely, ‘It’s hard to tell newbie behavior, from scum behavior’ and the ever classic ‘I didn’t like the late swing of votes’. So in summary, I’m happy with my vote for now, but I am still examining cases. And I will take sach’s opinion about Oredigger looking townie as a scum indicator under advisement. On Preview: I think that Kelly’s mentioning of Oredigger is a null tell. The claim was weak, and perhaps intentionally so. I think that as scum, if you know there is a tremendous amount of heat on a player, You might try to trigger a lopsided lynch. A lesser of two evils from a scum perspective: If you think a player might be going down regardless, would it be a better strategy to rob the town of whatever info is not already out there, or do you try to make the best possible claim, to avert another lynch? I’m not sure, but I am sure that there was a gaping hole in that claim, and most likely that claim was reviewed in the scum thread the night before, and that hole most likely would have been seen. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1652 "2010-03-02T18:08:11Z")
Vote count: Spawn 8 Alka Seltzer 5 Storyteller0910 2 sachertorte 1 DiggitCamara 1 Natlaw 1 USCDiver 1 Oredigger77 1 [del]1: special\_ed[/del] [del]2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies[/del] 3: Drain Bead – sachertorte (1577), Alka Seltzer (1636) 4: Oredigger77 – Alka Seltzer, Spawn 5: storyteller0910 6: Meeko – [del]sachertorte[/del] (1580-1648), [del]Spawn[/del] (1580-1630), Alka Seltzer (1630), Oredigger (1648) [del]7: Mahaloth [/del] [del]8: Freudian Slit[/del] 9: USCDiver – Spawn (1634), Alka Seltzer (1634) 10: Alka Seltzer – Spawn (1632) [del]11: peekercpa[/del] 12: Natlaw [del]13: Zeriel[/del] 14: DiggitCamara – Storyteller (1596), Spawn (1596) 15: amrussell – USCDiver (1635) [del]16: KellyCriterion[/del] 17: Red Skeezix – Alka Seltzer (1629), Spawn (1629) 18: sachertorte – Natlaw (1613), Spawn (1613) [del]19: fluiddruid[/del] 20: TexCat – Spawn (1578), Storyteller (1578) 21: Rysto – DiggitCamara (1575), Spawn (1575) ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1653 "2010-03-02T19:10:03Z")
QuicK question for our masons. Why are neither of you voting for the spawn? I know I mentioned possibly leaving it alive to screw with the scum but I mainly wanted people thinking that direction for future Days. I guess it could be because you are all the confirmed town that it’s looking like we’ll have then you want to get your vote out. But since there are 24 votes available only having 8 for the spawn worries me a bit. As for Meeko’s vote and the couple of smudges as a clean noser; I really don’t have a response. I stayed away from the Sach/Story debacle because I thought it was a distraction and even voted to that extent. With the mechanisms of this game I don’t see any way to manipulate them to our advantage so I’ve stayed away from my crazy ideas. I guess I could stir shit up but I don’t think it’s helpful. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1654 "2010-03-02T19:40:20Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I guess it could be because you are all the confirmed town that it’s looking like we’ll have then you want to get your vote out. Yeah, that’s pretty much it. If it ever looks like there’s a chance the Spawn won’t be offed, I’ll switch my vote, but that hasn’t come close yet. ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1655 "2010-03-02T21:04:28Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > You were the second-last, and you did not, in fact, vote for him because you thought he was scummiest. > \ > 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. I guess I thought the spirit of my Summer 1 vote was clear. In the case where there is no apparent Pro-scum activity, the most Anti-town automatically qualifies as ‘Most Scummy’. > [@](#): > > 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. So I’m Scummy if I don’t do anything and I’m scummy if I vote early. I’m trying to be a better player here. I’m taking to heart the criticism that I’m too quiet. So I see a clearly scummy and poorly thought out fake claim and I vote. I don’t see the scumminess there. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > But we clearly didn’t vote for other Masons, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Didn’t vote is different from Can’t or Won’t. How does \*\*Red \*\*know that the Scum can ignore me as a possible Mason simply because I voted for \*\*Meeko \*\*back in Summer 3? ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1656 "2010-03-02T21:14:03Z")
Looking at Oredigger now. The things that stand out to me the most are his weak vote on Fluid, his attack on me after the Fluid flip (he previously FOS’ed me in the post where he voted Fluid, saying I was suspicious for much the same reasons), very inconsitant position on Story and Fluid, and voting me after the Mahaloth flip but before Kelly’s alignment was known. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > All in all it’s a pretty good claim for a scum to make since it’s verifiable through use of the night kill but also an easy explanation for why there is only one kill every night. That being said I’m leaning towards believing your claim simply because of the way you’ve been playing. This was in response to Story’s claim. **@Oredigger** - Why did you have a town read on Story at this point? > [@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. This was the bad vote for Fluid, which I flagged up in my analysis of the wagon on her in this post: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12128648#post12128648](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12128648#post12128648) > [@Oredigger77](#): > > And Fluid gets in there with a rebuttal to Rysto while I was typing that. That’ll teach me to use preview. The two things that strike me from the rebuttal are basically that it’s still more about Story’s ideas then anything else and ending with > > …[Fluid response] > > Which is a pretty good defense. I’m not convinced that Story is town and I still don’t like the vig role claim but I’m hard pressed to attribute scum motivations to fluid beyond trying to hide behind a high post count and not back off a case no matter what. Either of which could be town motives. > > I’m going to keep my vote there since I’m still unhappy about Story’s lynch situation but I liked Fluid’s response. Oredigger now thinking Fluid is town but voting for her anyway. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I think Story’s claim is fishy because it is so easily covered no matter what happens. There is no practical way to test a vig claim beyond forcing them to kill a particular target and hoping that there is no block and the scum decide to kill separately. On top of that we have a reluctant vig claim so there is an easy explanation for why there aren’t two kills ever (the scum decided not to kill on the night Story’s tested or Story didn’t want to risk the downside on a night the scum killed). > > I don’t like leaving the vote close enough that it would only take one scum to jump on your wagon to push a claimed vig into a toss up lyse situation. Vigilantes are useful in the late game and we might get into a situation where we can force Story to test his claim where the lack of an additional scum kill will benefit the town. I just think you guys are putting the town in a awkward position. Which is enough for me to suspect you and with Fluid’s posting history vote for her. > > …[Me asking Oredigger to explain his FOS] > > Sure, there was your treatment of the voting for spawn I think Sach best summed it up in #546 and there was your response to Peeker using plankton as vanilla which seems to imply that you’re either scum or a power role in #470. Like I said it’s not a great case but I think you warrant a FOS when that is combined with your treatment of a claimed power role. Dubious of Story’s claim, tactical vote on Fluid, now thinks Fluid is scum again (!). Acknowledges that his FOS on me is a weak case. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’m with Story in that I don’t post much on weekends so I’m just getting caught up. > > Since we’re a couple of Days in I just want to throw out what I think the hurdle rate is for voting for spawn. With 17 players and 4 scum the spawn will vote for one of them 23.5% of the time. Since we have two power roles in the game, at least, spawn will not vote for a power role 84.6% of the time. I consider both of those pro town actions so the spawn will act in the town’s favor ~54% of the time with it’s actions split between Night and Day 50/50. I’ll use the same discount rate I did before of 50% so I think that 27% of the spawn’s actions will be pro town which means that I need to be more then 73% sure that two players are scum to not vote for spawn. That being said; > > **Vote Spawn** > > As far as scum hunting goes I really blew it with my scum holding Story one vote away theory. I need to revaluate what is going on in the game. I still don’t believe Story’s claim but at the point I’m willing to take it at face value until we can come up with a good time to test it. I’m just going to do a reread and see what jumps out at me and go from there. Now saying he doesn’t believe Story’s claim. Admits his case on Fluid was bad, and says he needs to re-evaluate. Noteable that he doesn’t change his position towards me. Bad strategy. Spawn night votes are only relevant if there is a single scum left, otherwise they will have no effect on the outcome of the NK. It’s ridiculous to assume scum would allow their kill votes to be split if spawn were in a position to mess it up. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’m with Nat, Alka’s vote made no sense. In light of his previously questionable activities and that he used a last minute vote with questionable reasoning to lynch a townie I think it’s a good place to start the Day with my vote. > > **Vote Alka Seltzer > Vote Spawn** I was pushed for time, so my vote probably didn’t make much sense. I’ll dig up my previous posts where I explained my position towards Mahaloth and Kelly. I think it’s significant that Oredigger is voting for me at this point. If he thought Kelly was scum and I was trying to save him, he could have voted Kelly. If he thought Kelly was town, I’d have had no reason to vote Mahaloth, especially since Mahaloth had claimed vanilla and Kelly was unclaimed. Doesn’t consider any of the other Mahaloth voters, and ignores the fact that Story broke the tie. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I think Alka is scum. That is why my vote has been on him all day, what moved him up from a FOS to a vote was his late Day voting yesterDay, I think there were scummy motivations behind it. I’m not sure what Kelly’s alignment is but I can see a way that Alka would have been scum motivated either way and so I am quite content with voting for Alka no matter what Kelly turns up as. This is weak, see above. **Vote Oredigger** ---
**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:** [March 2, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1657 "2010-03-02T21:36:38Z")
I’ll give it to you Alka, I have been inconsistent on Story. I go back and forth about that claim on one hand it could be town role with a huge liability or it could be a pretty perfect third party role whose use would force us to look for third parties, or it could be the perfect scum made up role since it’s essentially untestable. I think my position changes based on Story’s latest posts and how I feel about them. As for my treatment of Fluid I think that Fluid wasn’t acting pro-town in keeping Story so close to being lynched. While Story’s claim is untestable I thought it was premature to keep a claimed power role in a position where it would only take a single scum to jump on the wagon to push her over the edge or as we have all seen a couple of scum build a case and wait for a townie to jump on to a wagon and push it over the edge. In either case it’s a bad play to hold a power role in that position. My FOS of you was weak that’s why it was only an FOS but as you continue to act scummy the case against you has grown and I think it’s pretty strong now. I thought it was pretty strong yesterDay independent of Kelly but now that we know for certain you were saving a scum buddy I will dance on your grave toDay. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1658 "2010-03-02T21:54:01Z")
I’ve collected together my relevant posts on Mahaloth vs Kelly. These are from Day 2: > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I’m not really liking the single data-point cases flying around toDay. > > … > > …[To Kelly] > > Your vote was unjustified because it said nothing about your own suspicions. If we all played the game like this the game would never move forward, we’d never have any basis on which to decide which players are scum. > > ..[To Mahaloth] > > You justified your vote against peeker with policy, which tells us nothing about your own suspicions. Looking through your Day 1 posts, I’m not seeing a great deal of content. You plonked an early vote down on peeker and then repeatedly justified it with the same reasoning. I don’t think your vote was any better than Kelly’s. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@Mahaloth** - How exactly can this be considered a good vote? You never made a case for peeker as scum. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > OK, you didn’t say it was a good vote, you just said ‘not lame’. I think it was a bad vote because you never made a case that peeker was scum. Unfortunately, a lot of anti-town play is not scum motivated. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I’m not really sold on the Mahaloth case. I don’t like his early policy vote for peeker, but once he’d made it I can see why he didn’t remove it. It is consistant with the advice he gave to Kelly on Day 1 (vote for the most anti-town actions), and his vote for Kelly toDay. I’m a bit concerned that he isn’t interacting much beyond his case on Kelly, and self-defence. > > **@Mahaloth** - Where do you stand on the Drain and Story claims? > > If Kelly is town, Mahaloth might be scum gunning for a couple easy targets. > > Kelly’s play is odd. He seems to be reacting more than anything, which is is something I’ve seen from newbie players of both alignments. The only possible scum motive I can see for the vote on Scuba is that he was trying to provoke a claim. But if that was the case, why not give at least some justification for the vote? I’ve underlined the relevant bit, I thought there was a decent chance Mahaloth was scum if Kelly was town. Moving onto Day 3: > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > That’s awfully dismissive of a substantial (and time-consuming) piece of analysis, something you’ve failed to provide all game. The point about #1255 is I’m looking specifically at the Fluid wagon, and flagging up what I see as the most suspicious votes. I showed my reasoning, and drew some conclusions. I’m not prepared to Say Cookies, Oredigger or Diggit are scum right now (one bad vote does not equal scum), I need to look at the rest of their play, which is something I’ll do when I have time. If I flip, hopefully #1255 will be something useful for town to look at. > > If you have a problem with my analysis of the Fluid wagon I suggest you provide your own. > > Over the course of a game, town will vote town frequently. Rysto’s vote doesn’t stand out to me. > > Someone needs an anti-capslock pill. Drain is almost certain to be town, because she hasn’t been counter-claimed. You should understand this, you were asking questions about the mason claim. There is no such thing as a masonry of one. > > This is nonsense, I’ve pointed out problems I’ve had with Meeko’s play. > > As I said above, #1255 is commentary. I have a substantial case against Story down, which again, is something you’ve failed to provide all game. > > It says exactly what I want it to say, that I don’t consider it to be a good reason for a vote, and I’ve explained why. > > Do you have an actual point to make here? This is mafia, a game based on logic, not Street Fighter. > > If you can’t get your facts right your arguments are worthless. I quoted Fluid there, not Story. I criticised consistent late voting in a later post where I quoted Story. > > I couldn’t be more indifferent to what you think of my playstyle, and I’m not going to take advice from a player of unknown alignment. > > **@Kelly** - Some questions for you. Do you actually think I am scum, and if so why? Also, what do you think of Meeko’s play in this game? Do you have a read on him? > > **@Meeko** - You should vote for your top suspect. There were two points I was trying make earlier. Voting for 5 players in a day is not pro-town, it’s impossible for the other players to follow your train of thought. And unvotes can be just as significant as votes, they can be used to manipulate the vote lead. > > … > > I’m a bit baffled that no-one is discussing the points I made about Story, his play makes little sense to me if he is town. Looks like we are probably going to lynch Mahaloth or Kelly toDay. I’ll have a think about whether I want to move my vote. This probably gave the impression I was thinking of voting Kelly. I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do at that point, I wasn’t at all happy with Kelly’s response to my analysis, but wasn’t sure if it was scummy. That’s also the post where I encourage Meeko to vote for his top suspect. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Wonderful, another last minute lynch. > > I don’t see why a scum Kelly would go off on one with a probable mislynch in the bag. I don’t rate cross-bussing to be particularly likely, it’s not a good move for scum early in the game. > > **Unvote Storyteller** > **Vote Mahaloth** Hopefully this makes a bit more sense in the light of my previous posts. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > The case on Mahaloth makes more sense if Kelly is town. In that case, he could have been gunning for a couple of easy targets. Day 4, after the Mahaloth flip: > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > 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. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > …[To Natlaw] > > Sorry if this wasn’t very clear, it relates to what I said earlier in the game about the cases against Mahaloth and Kelly. At the time Kelly went on the offensive, I think Mahaloth was about 3 votes up. I couldn’t see a reason for a scum-Kelly to suddenly attack me, and he quickly picked up votes after this. I mentioned cross-bussing as that would have been a possible motivation for Kelly’s strange attack, to get himself lynched ahead of Mahaloth, but I didn’t rate it as likely. I thought the case for Mahaloth was stronger if Kelly was town, and that he might have been going after easy targets. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1659 "2010-03-02T21:54:33Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I thought it was pretty strong yesterDay independent of Kelly but now that we know for certain you were saving a scum buddy I will dance on your grave toDay. I really don’t like Oredigger’s reasoning here. Actually, I don’t think I’ve enjoyed a good part of Oredigger’s reasoning (especially all the nonsense about keeping Spawn alive for some bizarre and incomprehensible reason). Anyway. What?! Oredigger explicitly stated that if KellyCriterion turned up Town, then Alka Seltzer would be ‘scummy’ for voting to keep a weak newbie player around and if KellyCriterion turned up scum Alka Seltzer would be ‘scummy’ for protecting fellow scum. I really really didn’t like that. I can possibly accept Oredigger’s response that he thinks Alka Seltzer was scum regardless of the alignment of KellyCriterion, but even that is a rather myopic view of the world. But here he points out that KellyCriterion’s alignment is additional evidence that Alka Seltzer is scum. Argh. The lack of logic here is driving me nuts. (1) If you’re going to take KC’s alignment as proof of scumness regardless of what it turns up to be… that isn’t proof. Or even evidence… or anything. (2) How does scummy Alka Seltzer voting for Mahaloth (BTW, someone stated that Alka Seltzer unvoted KC, that isn’t true. Alka unvoted storyteller to vote for Mahaloth) make significantly more sense than townie Alka Seltzer voting for Mahaloth? You can’t make a case like this. Sure it’s POSSIBLE that Alka Seltzer is scum and voted to save KC. But it is also POSSIBLE that Alka Seltzer is town who just happened to vote for Mahaloth. How can you distinguish between the two? Plausibility is not proof. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1660 "2010-03-02T21:59:07Z")
**unvote Natlaw vote Oredigger** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=82) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=84)