# 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:** 96
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1901 "2010-03-13T22:17:19Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Oh, and feel free to PM me some spoilers. Maybe we can work on BSG. Though, honestly, I was struck with a new idea for Lewis Carroll Mafia ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1902 "2010-03-13T23:39:38Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Maybe we can work on BSG. > > Though, honestly, I was struck with a new idea for Lewis Carroll Mafia I’m actually less busy at work lately and would be completely available to help develop and co-mod either/both games. Let me know. I am familiar with both worlds. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1903 "2010-03-13T23:54:57Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > I’m actually less busy at work lately and would be completely available to help develop and co-mod either/both games. > > Let me know. I am familiar with both worlds. BSG is drain’s brainchild. I was just going to provide some supporting help. Lewis Carroll just occurred to me after the poetry unit we just finished in reading. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1904 "2010-03-14T04:33:32Z")
Should I be worried that we are talking, or rather not talking about this game, as if it was already over? ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1905 "2010-03-14T17:21:50Z")
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the ghosts. The bad news is that it really looks like we are at lylo. The good news is that just be throwing darts it looks like I have a 50-50 shot at hitting scum. and before i forget: **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 14, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1906 "2010-03-14T18:03:50Z")
Texcat, you say 50-50. I would assume you are ruling me out, do you rule anyone else out? ---
**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 14, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1907 "2010-03-14T19:59:25Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > I’m actually less busy at work lately and would be completely available to help develop and co-mod either/both games. > > Let me know. I am familiar with both worlds. This computer lost all its bookmarks, so I have to wait until tomorrow to get back on the BSG boards. But I’m totally game to power through working on it, and I’ll send you access, **Mahaloth**. ---
**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 14, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1908 "2010-03-14T20:01:46Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > **Sach:** Tell me your thoughts currently on Diver and TexCat. Sure. For USCDiver, I think I’ve been clear on my feelings about his low-profile play (I’m against it.) I believe someone else (amrussell?) also was not too happy with USCDiver’s statement that he wasn’t saying much because every time he logged in someone else already said what he is thinking, which makes me see red. USCDiver’s attitude towards the game leaves little to analyze and too much wiggle room should he be scum. It’s a bad place for us to let this kind of game play remain prevalent in this game. For that reason I opined that I wouldn’t mind if storyteller ate USCDiver (or DiggitCamara at the time for similar reasons). As much as I would have liked USCDiver to have gotten eaten to placate my frustrations with him, I also knew that at that point in the game the possibility of a hidden doc and/or a hidden detective made such a play unpalatable for us. More recently, I’m irked by USCDiver’s voting for Rysto and DiggitCamara on the previous lynch. I stated my position that I think everyone should vote for spawn and then vote for ONE player. USCDiver’s play yesterday illustrates why I feel that policy is best. Way back on Day One I got hammered by people saying that by letting everyone vote for two people we would be in a better position to find scum. To which I said bullshit. And now that we are neck deep into this game I point out that double votes are NOT helping us, they are hindering us.\* So let’s look at USCDiver’s voting for both Rysto and DiggitCamara. (1) I note that USCDiver specifically unvoted spawn to vote for DiggitCamara late in the day. In other words, USCDiver could have just as easily unvoted Rysto and voted for DiggitCamara and spawn. But he did not. (2) I have no idea whether this means USCDiver is Town or scum. We as a group had given everyone ‘permission’ to vote for two players so we can’t ‘blame’ him for doing so. However, I think voting for DiggitCamara while still voting for Rysto was a huge cop-out. It is this type of cop-out that I wanted to avoid way back on Day One. (3) If Rysto turns out to be scum what does this mean? What does it tell us? It’s hard to tease out, but my feeling is by keeping votes on both Rysto and DiggitCamara USCDiver was hedging his bet. Whether or not hedging is inherently scummy, I don’t know. I do know that I would have been happier if USCDiver had to commit to either Rysto or DiggitCamara. If Rysto turns out to be Town, then things are murkier. USCDiver could very well be Town or he could be Scum angling to keep Rysto in the conversation for future lynch. Finally there is USCDiver’s vote for DiggitCamara post claim. USCDiver seemed to miss the entire point that if DiggitCamara had disclosed earlier then that would eliminate he possibility of scum attempting to kill him, thus negating his power. I don’t know what to make of such nonsense. USCDiver is clearly wrong. I would go so far to say that DiggitCamara shouldn’t have claimed EVER. But I guess if he was convinced he was going down (I don’t think he necessarily was going to be the one getting lynched pre-claim). I also assume that DiggitCamara felt that my questioning was further endangering himself. Anyway, the timing of Diggit’s claim _makes sense_, and while I disagree with him enacting it, him sitting on his role was exactly what he should have done and I’m left wondering why USCDiver felt confident enough about DiggitCamara to vote for him post-claim. I’m not loving USCDiver and I don’t mind killing him, but I have a better target. More soon. (\*Sidenote: perhaps at some point in the future if two vote games became more popular we would establish a basis from which to evaluate how scum play in response to two votes, but for THIS game, we have no idea.) ---
**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 14, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1909 "2010-03-14T20:29:33Z")
Despite TexCat’s relative lack of posting, I find the TexCat case of great interest. Back when TexCat asked storyteller to eat him I opined that such a move is reckless for scum even in a gamble to establish townie cred, there is that glaring possibility that storyteller just does it anyway despite his protests out of frustration/shitsandgiggles. Many also opined about the possibility of a scum trap via blocker/redirector. Blocker we were less concern about. Redirector, much more so. This line of thinking is now moot based on the tasty meal of Red Skeezix. Anyway. In light of DiggitCamara’s role, I’m left wondering what if TexCat’s ‘gamble’ wasn’t a gamble at all! What if TexCat knew he would survive a storyteller attack? On one side we have DiggitCamara who was immune to scum nightkill. Specifically scum nightkill and only the nightkill coming from scum. The assumption (and I really wish DiggitCamara had clarified this with Chronos) is that storyteller could kill DiggitCamara. So if there is a Town power role that can’t be killed by scum, doesn’t it make sense that there is a scum power role that can’t be killed by storyteller? I’m attracted to this type of symmetry. Neither is a true ‘scotsmen’ in that lynch would still affect them. Furthermore, it makes sense to give scum some kind of power and clearly they don’t have a redirector, roleblocker, or godfather. So what’s left? My assertion is that scum have a role that can’t be eaten by storyteller. It’s a non-zero power that isn’t all that powerful on the surface, but especially makes sense in the context of DiggitCamara’s power. So who could possibly have such a power and how would that person use it? If storyteller attempted to eat TexCat, TexCat would live and the consequences would be bad for Town: - We might kill storyteller - we might assume scum have a roleblocker - All the while TexCat looks good. We certainly would not have assumed that TexCat was immune to storyteller’s kill. At least I wouldn’t have at the time. My only concern with this view of TexCat is “overfitting” – whether or not I’m fitting the data to meet a conclusion. I don’t think I’m doing this (obviously) because prior to this case I haven’t been particularly suspicious of TexCat. If anything, I had been thinking TexCat is not scum because if he is the lack of posting is a crappy way for scum to win. Anyway, at first glance I think its pretty good. I strongly believe that scum must have some sort of power, and a Vig-immunity power ‘balances’ DiggitCamara rather elegantly. Please pick apart as you see fit. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1910 "2010-03-14T22:47:26Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > Texcat, you say 50-50. > > I would assume you are ruling me out, do you rule anyone else out? I rule myself out, naturally. The other 3 pondies can rule themselves out. Meeko, it looks like you are the only pondie with less than a 50% chance of hitting scum randomly. Of course, none of us will be throwing darts randomly; we’ll have 3 scum actively trying to mislead and confuse us. > [@sachertorte](#): > > […]Anyway. In light of DiggitCamara’s role, I’m left wondering what if TexCat’s ‘gamble’ wasn’t a gamble at all! What if TexCat knew he would survive a storyteller attack?[…] > Please pick apart as you see fit. I wish I could pick this apart. Unfortunately, it seems to make some sense, but it is NOT true. I just was totally convinced that Storyteller’s claim was a pack of scummy lies and was trying to expose Story as the scum I thought he was. I am consistently disbelieving the pond’s claims. I didn’t believe Story, nor did I believe Diggit. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1911 "2010-03-15T02:21:28Z")
I don’t find sach’s theory to be all that convincing on its own. It fits, but there’s no real evidence in favour of it that isn’t equally in favour of TexCat being Town. However, the theory prompted me to go and review TexCat’s posts in this game, and I think that there is a lot of meat here: > [@TexCat](#): > > **vote peeker** > This vote is because of his reactions to Ed. I did not like the way peeker called Ed a liar but would not explain what exactly he thought Ed was lieing about. peeker says that when he flips town, we’ll all know that Ed is scum, but has not explained. I am guessing that peeker is a scum, throwing anything possible at the fire in hopes it will cause enough smoke to distract. With anyone else, I would be convinced that this was scummy behavior. With peeker, who knows? This is TexCat’s Day One final vote. The main thing I want to point out is how much TexCat is waffling here. She’s “guessing” that peeker is scum, and if it were anyone else she’d be sure, but it’s peeker so please please please don’t blame me when this blows up in our faces. She also never really explains what peeker has done that’s scummy or what she thinks that peeker is trying to distract from, but she’s hardly the only peeker voter to do that. On to Day Two: > [@TexCat](#): > > I am not so sure about Kelly, but again, it doesn’t feel scummy to me. It feels more like a townie searching for a place for a day one vote without much to back it up. Again she’s waffling. In this case she’s giving herself some wiggle room should Kelly flip, but what I find really significant here is that this begins a trend of her either downplaying the case against Kelly or actively distracting from it. I really have to wonder why she felt that a _townie_ would need to search for a place for a Day One vote, but not scum. If anything I’d say it’s the other way around. > [@TexCat](#): > > Hmmm…the claims have started already. I tend to believe Drain Bead’s claim, particularly since it has not been counter-claimed. I’m more suspicious of Story’s claim, and in fact was getting ready to vote for Story, but I am unsure now that I’ve seen the claim. I might be willing to give Story a pass for this summer, because, as Drain pointed out, if Story is not a vig and we have a vig, Story should be killed over winter. If Story shows up alive next summer though, does that prove his claim or prove that we don’t have a vig or prove that he was protected? I do think that Story would not be counter-claimed. I agree with Drain that if there was a counter-claim it should be made with a death over winter. This begins a series of smudges on storyteller. The timing is quite signficant: Kelly is the leading vote-getter at 3, with story at 2. fluiddruid, the eventual lynch victim, hasn’t garnered a single vote yet. With 19 players alive and two more days before the deadline, Kelly isn’t in danger yet, but TexCat is positioning herself so that she can place a vote in opposition of a Kelly lynch if necessary. > [@TexCat](#): > > Quite a turn around from this earlier position, Meeko. > > Story still seems scummy to me. I disagree with his position on double-lysing, and further think that scum would try to convince us that double-lysing is a good idea. I don’t like that he won’t tell us the “drawback” with his role, especially in light of Meeko’s thought that the scum already know this info. I don’t like his late voting (Though I seem to be late voting myself this summer!). Another smudge on story. She’s pushing his lynch pretty heavily, but isn’t willing to back it with a vote. > [@TexCat](#): > > I’m still going to give Story the benefit of doubt toDay. > > I went back once again to look at the early peeker votes yesterDay. Zeriel (#204) made the first vote citing peeker’s unsupported vote on a strong player. Mahaloth (#209) was next with a me too. Then peeker starts reacting and Freudian (#282) votes for: Fluid (#296) was next voting for peekers “tone”. Then Ed stepped into the fray. > > I generally think that early day one votes don’t need _good_ reasons. They help spur discussion along. And so I was OK with peeker’s vote for Story(I think?) and I was OK with Zeriel’s vote. I really don’t like Mahaloth’s fairly immediate me too vote. It smacks of scum trying to start a bandwagon. His insistence otherwise seems strained. > > **vote Mahaloth** TexCat finishes the Day by avoiding the leading lynch wagons. Instead, she castigates Mahaloth for bandwagonning peeker – the very same bandwagon she herself joined! > [@TexCat](#): > > I have been suspicious of storyteller for his double lyse position and for his insistence on voting late. I don’t believe I ever got an answer to why he is insists on voting late; he just said that he always would. It is certainly possible to read this as a scum who wants to wait to see where his vote is needed and where it will not lead to suspicion, unless he really needs to lead a bandwagon away from a fellow scum earlier in the day. > > Regarding story’s claim and the drawback, sachertorte asked him some pretty specific questions: > > Later, after quite a bit of pressure, story reveals the drawback: > > After all of that, I understand that not getting roles or alignments is bad for pondies. I don’t understand how revealing the drawback is “a handbook on how to handle me available to the Scum.” I don’t understand how “the Pond benefits from my information remaining secret.” And I don’t understand the one situation that story might have used his power is somehow different now that the pond knows the drawback. > > This all smells like a scum claim to me. Story claimed vig and then had to provide some reason for not having his claim tested and so he invented the drawback. He did not plan on revealing the drawback and so some of the reveal seems not to have been thought out very thoroughly. The reasons for not revealing the drawback do not seem to match the actual drawback. > > **vote spawn > vote storyteller** Finally, at the beginning of Day Three, TexCat backs up her constant hounding of story with a vote. I find it very interesting that she declined to vote for story the Day before: had she done so when she voted for Mahaloth she would have put them in a tie. Instead, she holds off until she can make a safe vote that won’t attract much scrutiny. Also, TexCat’s perspective on why a scum would want to vote late is interesting, given that we now know that there was an early bandwagon on scum the Day before, and sure enough she voted less than 4 hours before the deadline that Day. TexCat spends the rest of the Day harassing story over the drawback to his role, and ends the Day with her “kill me” challenge to story that sachertorte has theorized about. TexCat started Day Four with a vote on story, but Kelly’s soft claim soon took centre stage: > [@TexCat](#): > > I am eagerly awaiting further info from Kelly, but see no reason to move my vote from Story. > > Kelly’s claim seems to make no sense at all. Random names being sent to you? And is it just a name and not other info, like you get a message with just “TexCat” in it? And, Kelly, if you’ve only received two names, when did you receive them? After winters 1 and 2, or 2 and 3, or 1 and 3? I am actually inclined to believe the claim, because no one would make up a claim this weird, would they? Yeah, they might, never say scum would never do something cause they will. All in all, though, I am still inclined to believe it. This is a weak reason to believe a claim, especially given the fact that Kelly had given so little information about his supposed role. I also find it very interesting that TexCat seemed to know in advance that Kelly was claiming to get the names at the beginning of each summer – Kelly didn’t reveal that detail until [later that night](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12150875&postcount=1417). > [@TexCat](#): > > Kelly has a list of confirmed pondies? I would say this is very useful, especially if we could confirm Kelly by some method other than lysing. > > My gut says that I still believe him. Kelly posts the role PM and TexCat posts her support. > [@TexCat](#): > > NETA: After posting, I see that the questions about whether spawns exist and can vote during winter. Ugh. I am afraid this does look like Kelly is fibbing. I wonder what this means for Oredigger? But the fatal flaw in Kelly’s claim is discovered quite quickly. TexCat backtracks right away and tries to divert attention to Oredigger. The conversation basically dies with a sure scum lynch coming, so let’s move on to Day Five. Actually, Day Six as TexCat missed pretty much all of Day Five for out-of-game reasons. > [@TexCat](#): > > My quick summary of summer voting: > Summer 1 peeker is lysed; scuba\_ben has some votes > Summer 2 fluiddruid is lysed; storyteller claims to escape the lyse; mahaloth picks up a few votes > Summer 3 mahaloth is lysed; Kelly is a very close second > Summer 4 Kelly is lysed > Summer 5 Alka is lysed; Oredigger is a distant second > > Until summer 3, all the scum had to do was sit back and watch us mislynch. Summer 3 is a key vote, and they managed to save Kelly for a year, but then we had the flawed claim and Kelly can’t be saved. Summer 5 is interesting because we managed again to find a scum. I am guessing that the scum tried to promote Oredigger as the alternate to Alka, but couldn’t quite find enough votes. > > The votes for Mahaloth Summer 3: > story, alka, natlaw, amrussel, kelly, sache > The votes for Oredigger Summer 5: > meeko, alka, natlaw, and not sache (who unvoted ore late and voted diggit) > > Natlaw and sachertorte both have suspicious votes here. Mahaloth calls out Natlaw before his lyse: > > **vote Natlaw** TexCat piggybacks on a Day 3 statement by Mahaloth to partially justify her vote on Natlaw 3 Days later. I really don’t like this. Mahaloth was Town, so we know that he was arguing honestly, but that doesn’t mean that he was necessarily correct. > [@TexCat](#): > > I have wondered more than once about DiggitCamara’s sudden reversal on double-lysing. I certainly was in the camp that thought double-lysing was advantageous to scum – which, of course, was part of my suspicions of storyteller. It would make sense that scum who thought that it was originally a good position to take, saw the heat that story was taking and decided to back off and let story lead the charge on double-lysing. I had not considered that Alka’s questioning was a message to Diggit, but that also makes sense. It certainly seems more reasonable than Diggit’s explanation that Meeko’s argument was what changed his mind. > > I am still not feeling the Rysto lyse at all, but would certainly consider moving my vote to Diggit or Sache, who both are looking suspicious to me. That first sentence jumped out at me. I’ve just reviewed every single post and I’m not sure if TexCat has even mentioned Diggit once before this point. She certainly never commented on Diggit’s double-lynch position. On it’s own this doesn’t mean much, but I do find it odd that she never commented on it or looked at Diggit previously if Diggit’s double-lynch position bothered her so much. > [@TexCat](#): > > I must say that this seems like an unlikely power. I thought that a Scotsman was immune from only the first nightkill. Diggit’s role seems to be that he is immune from all night kills. It just seems way too unbalanced to be true. > > **unvote: Natlaw > vote: DiggitCamara** > [@TexCat](#): > > I don’t believe Diggit. The only power role from the town that we’ve seen is storyteller’s handicapped vig role. And the masons who are also handicapped to some degree by not being able to communicate. It just seems that this very strong role without any handicap is out of place in this game. > > Too much wine in the “lynch me” sign for me to get a read on. I wouldn’t put it past scum, but that does seem to be the weak link. > > My vote is going to stay on Diggit – I really have too many problems with the claim. Diggit soft-claims and then is prompted to post his PM, and TexCat pounces. I think that Meeko might be on to something here. A lynch would be the only way that the scum could get rid of Diggit, and with the voting being so tight this was the scum’s best chance to get it. I find TexCat’s reasoning about “handicapped” roles to be specious: I certainly wouldn’t consider a masons who can’t communicate to be handicapped. Masons being able to communicate is a nice little extra, but nothing big, and I’d say that allowing masons to communicate off-board is the execption, not the rule. > [@TexCat](#): > > Meeko, does this mean that you think Sach is pond??? Because he was working against the case to lynch Diggit?? Didn’t you vote Sach? > > Sach, I, too, am looking forward to hearing your opinion, though perhaps for different reasons 🙂 Two points to make here. First, note how TexCat is subtly trying to get Meeko to consider voting for sachertorte again. There’s no overt accusation here, but TexCat sure seems to want to get Meeko thinking in that direction. Second, I find it a bit suspicious that TexCat really wants to hear sach’s opinion of her. My experience has been that townies don’t tend to care that much about other people’s opinions of them, because they know that they’re town. Scum, on the other hand, can be very sensitive to any kind of pressure. In light of all this, **Vote TexCat Vote spawn** ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1912 "2010-03-15T04:09:32Z")
Ack. Rysto, are you a pondie who sincerely thinks that I’m scum? Or are you a scum who thought he saw an easy bandwagon forming from Sache’s post? I had no idea I waffled so much! Geez, how many times can you use waffle in one post? My game from my point of view: Summer 1: peeker goes crazy, accusing Ed of lieing, etc. I vote peeker. Summer 2: Story claims vig with a drawback. I hate the claim, but am willing to give a real vig the opportunity to kill overnight, and make a weak vote for Mahaloth. Summer 3: Story was not kill over winter by a real vig, but I am still totally convinced that he is scum. I vote story and try to make a case for others to vote him. When he’s not lysed, I suggest that he vig me. I know that he is not a vig and hope this will show the pond that he is lieing. Summer 4: Story refuses to vig me, but the pond is not convinced that he’s lieing. I remain totally focused on his lame drawback claim. Kelly claims. Oddly enough, this is the one claim that looks reasonable to me at the outset. Perhaps because he just claimed and didn’t redact most of his claim. This is quickly shown to be a crock of pond sludge and I vote Kelly. Summer 5: I am still voting Story! And then missed the rest of the week. ☹ Summer 6: After a long re-read and re-examination of the voting records, it looks to me like Natlaw and Sache are the most suspicious. I vote Natlaw. The other votes mostly are divided between Diggit, Rysto, and Sache. Diggit gets nervous and makes a claim to be bulletproof. I think that the claim is totally out of whack with the game so far; it doesn’t seem like it could possibly be true and I switch my vote to Diggit. It has sure turned out awful, but I am not sure that I would change anything that I did, if I had to do it over again. Perhaps on summer 2, I might have left my vote on Story, instead of my weak vote on Mahaloth. Of course, in hindsight, that might have even been worse for pond. My other votes, I was totally convinced were going to catch scum. Rysto sure makes it sound like I was waffling and unsure of myself, but in my own head, I was sure of my votes. A few minor corrections to Rysto’s posts: He talks about me “smudging” Story. This is a little picky, but I don’t think that I ever “smudged” Story. I out and out called him a scummy liar. Again and again and again. I don’t think I ever waffled on him. Rysto implies that I have some special knowledge of Kelly’s posts coming at the end of winter, but Kelly’s original claim was: > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > […]I have searched the mafia wiki and can find no trace of what this role is, but each summer I am getting PM’d the name of a player (this is happening in relation to my role), but I don’t know what the significance of the names are. > […] It’s true that Kelly said summer and not end of winter, but those seem equivalent to me. ---
**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 15, 2010, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1913 "2010-03-15T13:01:15Z")
I don’t like the case against Tex. It may just be because she is a low volume poster and I don’t have much of a read but i really don’t like Sach’s case and I think Rysto is barking up the wrong tree. Basically, Sach’s case is looking at the lack of Scum power roles we’ve seen in the two we’ve caught and extrapolating that to there needs to be a power for the scum team which needs to be roughly equivalent to a known townie power. It just seems too far of a stretch to me. Rysto at least tried to do a post and vote analysis of Tex but I think the explanation given makes perfect sense. I’m trying to think charitably of Sach coming out swinging toDay as trying to get us to talk and hopefully uncover on of the remaining scum since we’ve got to be close to LYLO. It reads more like a scum who got scared by being in a tie for second yesterDay and is hunting for any case to take the pressure off. I’m sure my vote will change as the Day moves along but after being a last minute voter yesterDay i’m going to start off with my vote where I ended it. **Vote Sach 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 15, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1914 "2010-03-15T13:57:08Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I wish I could pick this apart. Unfortunately, it seems to make some sense, but it is NOT true. Thanks. I was pretty happy with it. Whether it turns out right will be interesting. > [@TexCat](#): > > My other votes, I was totally convinced were going to catch scum. I find this attitude strange from a Townie. I don’t see how you could be “totally convinced” about any of the votes or lynches. Even with Kelly Criterion, who made statements in direct contradiction to the game rules, I had some level of uncertainty. In other words, I wasn’t “totally convinced” with Kelly Criterion. I have trouble seeing how TexCat could be “totally convinced” about anyone else. From my view reaching a point where I can say I’m voting for “who I think is most likely to be scum” is tough enough to attain in this game, but getting to “totally convinced” that I’m voting for scum hardly ever happens without hard evidence (Investigations, counter-claims, etc). > [@Rysto](#): > > I don’t find sach’s theory to be all that convincing on its own. It fits, but there’s no real evidence in favour of it that isn’t equally in favour of TexCat being Town. Please explain. I acknowledge that my ‘case’ is largely supposition, but I don’t see how it “equally favors” TexCat being Town. ---
**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 15, 2010, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1915 "2010-03-15T14:00:40Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I don’t like the case against Tex. It may just be because she is a low volume poster and I don’t have much of a read but i really don’t like Sach’s case and I think Rysto is barking up the wrong tree. > > Basically, Sach’s case is looking at the lack of Scum power roles we’ve seen in the two we’ve caught and extrapolating that to there needs to be a power for the scum team which needs to be roughly equivalent to a known townie power. It just seems too far of a stretch to me. Rysto at least tried to do a post and vote analysis of Tex but I think the explanation given makes perfect sense. > > I’m trying to think charitably of Sach coming out swinging toDay as trying to get us to talk and hopefully uncover on of the remaining scum since we’ve got to be close to LYLO. It reads more like a scum who got scared by being in a tie for second yesterDay and is hunting for any case to take the pressure off. I’m sure my vote will change as the Day moves along but after being a last minute voter yesterDay i’m going to start off with my vote where I ended it. I’m not saying that it needs to be equivalent to a Town power (am I really that unclear?), but that I surmise that there is a high likelihood of there being something. We can eliminate godfather, we can eliminate roleblocker and redirector. So what remains? My point is that such a role fits in a symmetric way. Does it have to exist? No. But I provide _reasons_ why I think it does. I don’t think there is anything I can do that you won’t consider scummy. If I do A you will think A is scummy. If I do B you will think B is scummy. And what you call ‘coming out swinging’ I call ‘responding to Meeko’s query.’ > [@Meeko](#): > > **Sach:** Tell me your thoughts currently on Diver and TexCat. BTW, I agree that TexCat’s response to Rysto seems on the level. I’m only bothered by his statement of being “totally convinced” that he was voting for scum. Short of hard evidence, does anyone ever feel that way? Is it just me, or isn’t it more common that serious doubts bubble up when voting for someone? ---
**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 15, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1916 "2010-03-15T14:24:43Z")
I hope I’m not falling into that trap of seeing everything thing you’re doing as scummy or at least I’m trying not to. I think that looking for symmetry is the same thing as saying it needs to be there, which is probably just a communication difference. Some roles need balance but I don’t think a psudo-scotsman is one of them. I don’t know about being totally convinced being scummy thing. I was sure Alka was scum the last two Days before his death. I think we occasionally get reads on people that may or may not be correct but at the time it feels like they can’t be wrong. One thing I’ll point out in Tex’s defense is that while he was totally convinced about Story she was still voting for other people to insure that her votes were still relevant so ‘totally convinced’ did not translate into single minded pursuit which, in my opinion, is where it becomes a potentially scummy thing. Of course Rysto reads it differently than I do so opinions do differ. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1917 "2010-03-15T14:26:41Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Please explain. I acknowledge that my ‘case’ is largely supposition, but I don’t see how it “equally favors” TexCat being Town. What I mean is, of the hard evidence we have in favour of your theory, that evidence is equally in favour of TexCat being Town. ---
**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 15, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1918 "2010-03-15T14:27:14Z")
I’ve taken a walk (before I voted this time). I don’t see any glaring mistakes in my thinking. I realize that many don’t like this type of gaming, but seriously, its not any worse than the crap reasons we vote to kill someone else. One could argue (and I will if pressed) that this type of analysis has some concrete foundations by building on the game structure. Of course it could be totally wrong, but so can voting for someone for ‘acting scummy.’ The main caveat that I encountered in re-thinking TexCat is that a vanilla Town volunteering to be killed in order to confirm storyteller is a plausible play. It certainly can be argued (and was) but it is sufficiently appealing that I can see a townie doing so. But TexCat did not volunteer to confirm storyteller, he volunteered to prove storyteller was wrong (which is a different thing in my opinion). In other words, TexCat wasn’t sacrificing himself to create a confirmed townie, but TexCat asserts he was so confident that storyteller was lying that he demanded storyteller prove him wrong. **vote TexCat vote Spawn** (1) TexCat’s request to be eaten by storyteller makes more sense from the perspective of if he knew he would not die. (2) TexCat’s level of certainty is too high for a Townie. He should not have such confidence that he is ‘totally convinced’ that he is voting for scum. Townies don’t have sufficient information to feel this way. This point relates back to (1) as well. TexCat should not have had such confidence that he was right about storyteller to the point of volunteering to die for it. Am I “totally convinced?” Not even close, which ironically is kind of the point. ---
**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 15, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1919 "2010-03-15T14:28:20Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > What I mean is, of the hard evidence we have in favour of your theory, that evidence is equally in favour of TexCat being Town. Uh. That’s a restatement, not an explanation. Please explain how that evidence favors TexCat being town please. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/1920 "2010-03-15T15:11:47Z")
Ok, I’ll detail my thinking after work tonight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=95) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=97)