# 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:** 85
**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 3, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1681 "2010-03-03T20:58:52Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I am leaning toward eating **skeezix**. If he is telling the truth or is malicious third-party, the anti-Town effect won’t hurt us that much (we’ll simply reach a tie at the beginning of a future Summer, rather than at the beginning of a future Winter; assuming we have no Doctor [not a great assumption, but not a crazy one, either] and assuming the Scum kill me rather than allow me to have an impact on the Endgame [and I think they will, once I have killed, because at that point I doubt I will be lynchable], this is not a great harm). > > My biggest fear is that **skeezix** is in fact Scum. If he is, then obviously this is a ploy and strongly suggests a Scum redirector. In such a case, I think we’re in trouble but not totally screwed. We’ll probably wake up toMorrow to a pair of dead Masons. However, one of them will have no identity revealed, which will in turn lend support to my claim - the problem then is that we’ll still have to deal with **skeezix** , but we’ll jump off that bridge when we arrive at it. Actually, if the Scum have a redirector they’ll probably use the redirector to force me to kill one of the Masons, then kill me (once again, if I’m around at the Endgame, I can stave off a Scum win with a lucky shot). > > Always possible I’ll be role-blocked, but then it’s just no harm done, ultimately. Thinking about it some more, I think the risks are acceptable. Even in the worst case (Story is town, and he gets redirected), we’d be trading a mason to confirm a (in my view) highly suspect townie, and gaining valuable information about the setup (that scum have a redirector). A scum redirector is a rare role. ---
**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 3, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1682 "2010-03-03T21:08:17Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Why do this now? Well, survivor is a boring role. I just have to play town and hope scum don’t kill me, but as the numbers continue to dwindle with no hope of a detective claim in sight, the likelihood of me getting offed gets bigger. I’m probably still safe while masons are alive and out, but we’re getting to the point of where we’ll be talking about lylo numbers soon and I don’t factor nicely into that equation. I like to be ahead of the curve, so my claim doesn’t look conveniently timed. I’m leaning towards believing Red’s claim at face value. Third party can be stifling to play, you have to appear townie enough not to be lynched while scummy enough not to be night killed. That’s part of the reason why I converted my 3rd party collector role in Screamers into a town investigator (I could afford to do this because I had good self-protection abilities, I was still playing to my win condition). The claim allowed me to play in a (mostly) pro-town manner. I did consider claiming 3rd party on Day 1 in that game. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1683 "2010-03-03T21:27:37Z")
So we got the lists: > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Here is the choice that scum was facing last night: > 4: Oredigger77 > 8: Freudian Slit > 10: Alka Seltzer Why would scum go for the unknown mason? I can think of: - They feared the public ones were protected - They hoped to hit another town power besides a possible mason - They were very sure Freudian was a mason (both **Alka Seltzer** and **Oredigger** both have pointed out they saw that Summer One/Two) Why wouldn’t they go for Freudian Slit: - It reduces the unknown pool they were hiding in - They might just get a vanilla (or third party) Based on this, I’m guessing the at least the scum don’t seem to think a town doctor unlikely, which makes it more likely they got power(s) to compensate the balance. I agree that it does not indicate Oredigger/Alka are that much more likely to be scum. And other list is the **Kelly/Mahaloth** voting > [@sachertorte](#): > > Day 3 > Mahaloth: Drain Bead, storyteller, Alka Seltzer, Natlaw, amrussell, KellyCriterion, sachertorte > KellyCriterion: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, Meeko, Mahaloth, Freudian Slit, Red Skeezix, Rysto Or the ‘scum savers’: amrussell (1173), Natlaw (1263), sachertorte (1296), Alka Seltzer (1325), storyteller (1328) And the ‘one off voters’: TexCat (1155), USCDiver (1161), DiggitCamara (1186), Oredigger77 (1214) These lists are more interesting and not just from the any random group of people will contain at least a scum - since these group aren’t random. If **Alka Seltzer** is scum it was a bold vote while it wouldn’t really hurt a scum **Storyteller**. But I agree with **sachertorte** here scum playing like he did is what I wouldn’t consider fair play); game wise a crippled town power with a large mason can be balance so not considering him for lynch. Both **sachertorte** and **amrussell** could be a scum and if I had to pick I would go with sacher (his speaking in absolutes is more play style I think, but I do think his repeated mention of ‘a real cop would counter’ was opportunistic. No it wasn’t a specific call for a claim, but it definitely implied it). Another thing is amrussel’s vote Summer 2: Mahaloth: amrussell, KellyCriterion, TexCat It could be two scum together, but I think they would try to spread out more. Which brings me to **TexCat** : it seems like a bold scum move, but it wasn’t that likely Story would really go ahead with her plan. All the one off votes were placed well before either **Mahaloth** or **Kelly** were in danger of a lynch. I’m gonna take a quick look at the last group and probably vote for one of them. For now, **Vote Spawn** ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1684 "2010-03-03T21:34:46Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > The claim was ‘I get a name from a group of people’ - why is the assumption that the name given is related to alignment (cop) OK, but related to a Night action (watcher) ridiculous? “Ridiculous” refers to your assertion that “watcher” was more likely than “detective.” As for the plausibility of such a role, there is a huge problem in figuring out that the name list are night actors. Figuring out alignment, not so much. Having a watcher role that doesn’t know he’s a watcher is overly complicated and confusing. > [@](#): > > Then you follow your assumption with another: a half claim that might be a detective must be counter-claimed by any real detective. Because waiting for the full claim would be ridiculous?! Again yes, at that point in the game a detective could have claimed (if he had usable results), but that is a separate issue. How was it a ‘half-claim.’ Sure some info was obscured, but it wasn’t a “half-claim.” Why do people keep equating expectations with X MUST DO Y. You already state my point. “At that point a detective could have claimed” is why I say things like “My expectation is a detective in this situation would counter-claim.” > [@](#): > > Then there is the third assumption you make: a closed game must have a detective. While I see the reasoning that a closed game benefits scum claiming possibilities, I’ve never seen it stated as a hard rule that role X must be in the game. It’s not so much a rule as a means to keep a game from being sucky. Scum are going to false claim. They are most likely to false claim something like Doctor or Detective. If you have a situation where the game doesn’t have a Detective, then scum can all too easily claim Detective and never get counter-claimed and never face a dead Detective. Not much fun. Waste of time. Unbalanced even. ---
**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 3, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1685 "2010-03-03T21:38:33Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > No it wasn’t a specific call for a claim, but it definitely implied it). You do realize that several people who are not me have explicitly called for a claim right? ---
**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 3, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1686 "2010-03-03T21:50:35Z")
If Skeezix is scum, then either a) he didn’t predict that story would be tempted to eat him or b) there is a scum redirector and this is a ploy to get an extra nightkill in. If b), it looks to me like an advantage that would disappear when Skeezix turns up alive and well next Summer. It would draw a lot of suspicion, the only defence to which would be that scum hijacked this plan, rather than instigating it. I can’t help but feel that we’d be very keen to test Skeezix’s claims of innocence. So it seems like a high risk strategy. If not b), then Skeezix is either scum who didn’t see story coming, or 3rd Party who didn’t see story coming. In either case, there’s no downside to eating him - provided story actually hits his target There may still, in this scenario, be a scum redirector. If so, we would be wide open to them. Even a scum blocker could throw doubt on story. But I’m reluctant to paralyse ourselves with what-ifs? Second-guessing our strategies on the grounds that there might be a scum role perfectly placed to counter them is a recipe for paralysis. I think it’s unlikely there’s a scum redirector, for the reasons given above, and in the absence of perfect information, you have to go with what you’ve got. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1687 "2010-03-03T22:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not so much a rule as a means to keep a game from being sucky. Scum are going to false claim. They are most likely to false claim something like Doctor or Detective. If you have a situation where the game doesn’t have a Detective, then scum can all too easily claim Detective and never get counter-claimed and never face a dead Detective. Not much fun. Waste of time. Unbalanced even. But you didn’t create the game, Chronos did. I have no idea if he even considered this (or hosted a game before). > [@sachertorte](#): > > You do realize that several people who are not me have explicitly called for a claim right? Yes, but for the reason that (three possible) results would be useful. Not because it would contradict **Kelly** ’s claim - his claim wasn’t clear at that point to even tell it would (in my eyes at least). ---
**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 3, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1688 "2010-03-03T22:06:27Z")
In other news, my back and forth with USCDiver has made me less convinced of my case. The way he’s defended himself “rings true”, for want of a better term - under pressure, he hasn’t gone uber-defensive, or OMGUSed, or shown up with a suspiciously well-prepared list of pro-town actions, just reiterated his points calmly… **unvote USCDiver** By contrast, there are two aspects of Alka’s defense that I don’t like. One is the post where he, in fact, does list all the pro-town things he’s done (“I defended Drain before she claimed”). Who’s got a list like that to hand? The second is his “Looks like I’m done here” post. In my experience, townies (unless they’re very pissed off) usually go down swinging, cursing the rest of us for our purblind foolishness. The “oh well, nothing I can do” style of post is usually the province of scum, trying to look like they don’t care. So while I was in two minds about the original, vote-pattern based case against Alka, I think that under pressure he’s slipped a little. \*\* vote Alka\*\* ---
**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 3, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1689 "2010-03-03T22:07:23Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > But you didn’t create the game, Chronos did. I have no idea if he even considered this (or hosted a game before). Didn’t Chronos have someone look at the setup? I was under the impression that he did. > [@](#): > > Yes, but for the reason that (three possible) results would be useful. Not because it would contradict **Kelly** ’s claim - his claim wasn’t clear at that point to even tell it would (in my eyes at least). Gah! It’s all relevant. It isn’t as though I was floating in an alternate game where KellyCriterion claimed on Day One and there was greater risk of early claiming by a Detective. My expectation was, given the game state of Day 4, that a detective would counter-claim. In other words, _in addition to_ reporting the results of the previous three Nights, was the KellyCriterion claim. His claim didn’t happen in a vacuum! ---
**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 3, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1690 "2010-03-03T22:07:34Z")
Dash it all to heck, I will remember to do this: **vote spawn** ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1691 "2010-03-03T22:13:09Z")
The quick review: **TexCat** : away this week, so skipped. **DiggitCamara** : was the one how not claims to picked out Fruedian as mason Summer two not Oredigger as I said earlier. His Drainbead vote is pointed out by **Rysto** as case for scum, but I don’t argee with him there. **USCDiver** : mostly gets his ‘lurker’ status from being away Summer Two, his participation seems OK after that. I going to join Alka Seltzer for now. **Vote Oredigger77** > [@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. The vote reason didn’t make much sense (but I’m OK with the explanation given)m but it also doesn’t make much sense as a scum vote. The ‘[let’s call it a Day](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12182547&postcount=1663)’ post doesn’t feel right. I’ll review/expand my case tomorrow, bedtime now. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1692 "2010-03-03T22:22:03Z")
Wow. Another Claim, over here this time? And I was thinking I was about to drown in the other game. I thought I had a handle on this one. UGH. ---
**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 3, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1693 "2010-03-03T22:23:13Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > In other news, my back and forth with USCDiver has made me less convinced of my case. The way he’s defended himself “rings true”, for want of a better term - under pressure, he hasn’t gone uber-defensive, or OMGUSed, or shown up with a suspiciously well-prepared list of pro-town actions, just reiterated his points calmly.. I’m not sure I’ve seen that happen the way you say. I think Townies love to get uber-defensive. > [@](#): > > By contrast, there are two aspects of Alka’s defense that I don’t like. One is the post where he, in fact, does list all the pro-town things he’s done (“I defended Drain before she claimed”). Who’s got a list like that to hand? > > The second is his “Looks like I’m done here” post. In my experience, townies (unless they’re very pissed off) usually go down swinging, cursing the rest of us for our purblind foolishness. The “oh well, nothing I can do” style of post is usually the province of scum, trying to look like they don’t care. This is a case I can accept. Though, I find it at odds with your views of USCDiver. But maybe that’s just me. I’m still not keen on the Alka Vote. Mainly because I think it is largely fueled by a mistaken “where’s the mason” shell game. But since amrussell is abandoning USCDiver, I see little reason for pushing for USCDiver to die at this point. That leaves me with DiggitCamara, who I also want dead for lack of participation reasons. I know this bothers Drain Bead, but I don’t care. If it screws up this game, I can live with that. For the sake of future games, I feel it important to occasionally lynch non-participating players. Otherwise we will be mired in this situation forever more. Not to mention, if we don’t have a detective, then I fail to see how we will ever learn enough about DiggitCamara (or USCDiver) to make a judgement. **vote DiggitCamara** ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1694 "2010-03-03T22:38:47Z")
\*\*I don’t understand the timing of Skeezix’s Claim \*\* There is no vote here. I think my brain melted as I typed the next paragraph. Can someone PLEASE give it the once over and shoot it down? [[I’m serious, if I can figure out what went wrong with it, it would go a long way in helping my play.]] I think Skeezix is Scum. I believe he saw what Kelly did, and figured he can do it one better. On top of this, WIFOM, he would be perfectly fine with a Storyteller Vig. Story would Vig A Scummy Skeezix, and we would not complain about the missing information, because we were told it by Skeezix in the first place. Even though it was a lie. This seems way too easy. I fear for the implications if this goes off. Is scum at a place now, where they figure they can sacrifice one of their own to keep us in the dark? What does scum gain from Red getting Vigged, than from Red Getting lynched? Wouldn’t it mean that Story is the NK if he vigs, in either case? \*\* To say nothing of the Red Herring / Smoke and Mirrors Skeezix just gave us. To say nothing of the fact that Skeezix’s species doesn’t have a Name. \*\* ---
**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 3, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1695 "2010-03-03T22:45:45Z")
Looking at Diggit now, not a great deal of content. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > Right now, I’d be in favor of a double PC-lysing. We (presumably) still hold the advantage in numbers and disadvantage in information. These early deaths give us what we need: information (even if it costs us a bit of our advantage in numbers). This was a bit odd, as Diggit was against early vig kills in the last game. I challenged Diggit on this. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > For now? Well, it depends. > > 1. If (s)he has the ability to take out spawn, why of course! Indeed, it might be good not to lyse it toDay just to see whether or not (s)he can kill spawn. > 2. If not, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I said so during “Colorless” and I repeat it: the Vig is more likely than not to hit Town during the first few Nights. Doing so will reduce Town’s advantage which right now lies in numbers. Later on his/her ability might be useful, since there might be a Detective and/or we might have observed, via interaction, who’s more likely to be scum. > > Again: I’m in favor of double PC-lysing because the votes we emit yield information. A Night kill by the vigilante renders no information, that’s why I’m against it, as of now. This was Diggit’s response. Gave some justification, but ignored the risks. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > You make a very compelling case to > > **vote Spawn** > > The point that really convinced me is that we have a chance to stop spawn early on so we don’t have to sweat it out later on. That, to me, is more important than any information we would get from lysing PC’s right now. This was in response to Meeko. At the time I thought this was a strange reversal of his position, but I mis-read it. He was saying that killing spawn was the right thing to do at that stage, but he was keeping it as an option for the future. The above isn’t very interesting really. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > Actually, that stuff flies as long as you’ve never met the dude before. I’ve been guilty of the same sin (voting for bizarro **peeker** even though I’ve seen him act like that before) but by now I accept him at face worth: he is what he is. > > Which makes it damn hard to read him, by the way. > > Nonetheless: you have played against him, both more times and longer than I ever have. So, for trying to indict **peeker** on a flimsy reason: > > **vote Freudian Slit** Makes a valid point about peeker’s playstyle, but this is a pretty weak vote on Freudian. peeker wasn’t playing in a pro-town manner. Not clear why Diggit chose Freudian over any of the other peeker voters. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > I can understand voting for a late, one-off vote. But how does the fact that it was a Town power role mean anything? Who could have known that he had that role prior to his lysing? > > For a suspicious vote: > > **vote Drain Bead** Not a very good vote for Drain, which I flagged up at the time. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > See? PIS. > > I told you, people. > > Unvote **Drain Bead** > > Sadly, there’s plenty information out there which tells pretty neatly who else is a _Communal Organism_ by now. More’s the pity. This doesn’t make much sense. Ed’s role was public at this point she placed her vote, so Drain was not exhibiting PIS. > [@DiggitCamara](#): > > Really? You have never seen this action? > > I can see a very strong motivation for this line of action: > > Let’s suppose, for a moment, that neither **storyteller** nor \*\*sachertorte \*\*are scum. Their discussion seems to be headed to the lynch of one of both of them. > > 1. Arguing (strongly) for the “winning” cause gets you on the good side of a strong Town player > 2. Arguing (strongly) for the “losing” cause shows you were supporting the cause of a Town player. If you play your cards right you can even get the other player lynched during the next Day > 3. Both cases allow you to hide behind the “ringleader” > > Anyhow, I do remember your actions during the one game where you were scum and I was mason. I think your actions now resemble those back then. Too closely for my own confort > > So: > > Lyse **fluiddruid** > Lyse spawn Reasons that Fluid vote on Story was a scum tactical vote. Again, this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. This is what I said when I looked at the Fluid wagon: “Diggit places a vote on Fluid, based on the assumption that neither Story nor Sach are scum (I don’t see why he would make that assumption), and that it would be a good scum strategy. The strategy argument is somewhat flawed, if Fluid was scum and a town Story flipped, she’d be pretty exposed. A Sach-town flip would have worked well for a scum-Fluid.” Not sure what to make for his vote on Story and the reasoning behind it. ---
**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 3, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1696 "2010-03-03T23:05:26Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > By contrast, there are two aspects of Alka’s defense that I don’t like. One is the post where he, in fact, does list all the pro-town things he’s done (“I defended Drain before she claimed”). Who’s got a list like that to hand? > > The second is his “Looks like I’m done here” post. In my experience, townies (unless they’re very pissed off) usually go down swinging, cursing the rest of us for our purblind foolishness. The “oh well, nothing I can do” style of post is usually the province of scum, trying to look like they don’t care. > > So while I was in two minds about the original, vote-pattern based case against Alka, I think that under pressure he’s slipped a little. > **vote Alka** This is hypocritical, attacking me for both defending myself and for giving up on defending myself. If I have some points to make in my defence, why the hell shouldn’t I make them? It’s garbage points like this that make me fed-up with this game, as I said in that post it isn’t being played well. I’m being realistic here, I’m well in the vote lead, both confirmed town are voting for me, and not much in the way of alternative cases are being presented. If scum aren’t already on my wagon they have easy excuses for joining it. It’s almost certain I’m going to be lynched at this point. I haven’t given up on the game yet, but it’s pretty clear any points I make will only be taken seriously after I flip. In case it isn’t clear, I am a **plankton**. If I was a power role I’d have claimed much earlier. ---
**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 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1697 "2010-03-03T23:30:30Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > \*\*I don’t understand the timing of Skeezix’s Claim > \*\* The timing of the claim doesn’t really make any sense. > [@Meeko](#): > > I think Skeezix is Scum. I believe he saw what Kelly did, and figured he can do it one better. On top of this, WIFOM, he would be perfectly fine with a Storyteller Vig. Story would Vig A Scummy Skeezix, and we would not complain about the missing information, because we were told it by Skeezix in the first place. Even though it was a lie. I think it’s unlikely that Red is scum. If Red is scum and Story is town, he’d know that a Story vig would be likely. The gambit only really works if scum have a redirector, but then that would confirm Story and leave Red’s claim looking very suspicious. Not a net gain for scum. If they are scum together, Story’s inability to black-hole vig him exposes Story. > [@Meeko](#): > > This seems way too easy. I fear for the implications if this goes off. Is scum at a place now, where they figure they can sacrifice one of their own to keep us in the dark? That wouldn’t be a smart trade for scum to make. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1698 "2010-03-04T02:23:41Z")
Out of the main contenders toDay, I still find Diggit to be the most suspicious, followed by Alka and then Oredigger. I’ve gone on about Diggit already, and I don’t have much more to say on the topic right now(he hasn’t really given me anything new to talk about since, although he has at least responded to me). I’ll admit, I don’t really get the case against Oredigger. The biggest point against him seems to be the accusation that he’s been keeping his nose clean. Personally, though, I don’t see clean-nosing as being inherently scummy. Instead, I take it more of an indication that a player merits close attention. But absent actual evidence of vote manipulation or other pro-scum behaviour, I wouldn’t be willing to vote for a player solely based on clean nosing. In Alka’s case, the vote against Mahaloth in favour of Kelly is a huge black mark against him. But that seems like the only solid point against. I don’t buy Red’s list at all. It makes two gigantic assumptions: first, that we have any idea what the scum are thinking(in my experience, Town is always clueless about this) and second, **that the non-Masons who didn’t draw votes from Masons are scum**. That’s a completely unjustified assumption, so I reject the argument entirely. I’m going back-and-forth over the plankton thing. I mean, the vanilla PM is right there in Chronos’ opening post. Wouldn’t you expect scum to read it over very carefully so as not to make exactly the kind of slip that Alka is accused of making? But then wouldn’t you expect a player to read their own PM? Like I said, I keep going back and forth on this. At this juncture I’m unwilling to switch my vote, but I will be watching the thread closely tomorrow(I do have a meeting from 2-3pm, so I won’t be around in the last hour, though). I’m also going to take a closer look at USCDiver. Pending the result of that, I may be willing to switch to him over Alka. ---
**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 4, 2010, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1699 "2010-03-04T11:36:49Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > I’m going back-and-forth over the plankton thing. I mean, the vanilla PM is right there in Chronos’ opening post. Wouldn’t you expect scum to read it over very carefully so as not to make exactly the kind of slip that Alka is accused of making? But then wouldn’t you expect a player to read their own PM? Like I said, I keep going back and forth on this. I’m probably wasting my breath here, but I’ll spell this out more explicitly now I’ve claimed. I read my PM, but I wasn’t sure if town roles would be types of plankton (there are tons of varieties, and it wouldn’t be that hard to find matches for most town roles), or other things living in the pond trying to avoid being out-competed by the scum. Algae in a pond can eventually kill even large creatures by depriving them of oxygen. For example, a cop or role cop could have been a plankton with big antenna, used to “taste” other organisms. A vig or SK could have been a predatory plankton, or even something like a tadpole. Therefore, plankton was ambiguous, it could have meant town, or it could have meant vanilla. I was careful to post from that perspective, as I didn’t want to help the scum to role fish. For all I knew, a protective role could have been a discarded sentient condom. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1700 "2010-03-04T12:43:55Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > I’m going back-and-forth over the plankton thing. I mean, the vanilla PM is right there in Chronos’ opening post. Wouldn’t you expect scum to read it over very carefully so as not to make exactly the kind of slip that Alka is accused of making? But then wouldn’t you expect a player to read their own PM? Like I said, I keep going back and forth on this. I have something to say. This is WIFOM. Now, if all the other times were as obvious, I would be doing a lot a better at Mafia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=84) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=86)