Scum mafia: On Cecil pond [Game Over]

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Are you implying that there is a role/rule mechanism that somehow forbids false counterclaims?

[Drain_Bead]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

Are you implying that there is a role/rule mechanism that somehow forbids false counterclaims?

No, of course not. Please apply Occam’s Razor quite liberally.

[Drain_Bead]

Also, if I am counterclaimed, lynch whoever says I’m not what I am. I doubt there are two groups of Communal Organisms in this game.

[Freudian_Slit]

At this point there would be no real point in scum counterclaiming. If they did counterclaim and say that Drain Bead was not one of them, we could lynch Drain Bead, and if she speaks the truth, we would know she was a communal org and that any counterclaimers were scum. Then we’d know who all the scum were.

[storyteller0910]

@Drain_Bead

No, of course not. Please apply Occam’s Razor quite liberally.

Drain Bead, how do you feel about shoes?

[Natlaw]

I do think Kelly’s vote Yesterday was poor (but also part of my reason for Yesterday’s vote) but I don’t see scum trying to stick out like that. Of course then there is the argument that we would enable scum to do just that is it goes unpunished.

I was going to cut him some slack for it being new and all (here is the Flash with various mafia roles by the way) but we got an OMGUS vote Today:

@KellyCriterion

If you think a reckless, careless vote at some random player based on flimsy, farcical evidence would have made me look more “pro-Town” on Day 1, then all the power to you and heaven help the rest of us that are making genuine efforts to root out the scum. Similarly, if you cast your lynch votes at the players whose methods you don’t agree with rather than at those players you suspect to be scum, then I hope for town’s sake that you are a scum.

If you want to discuss the best way to root out the scum, Mahaloth, I’ll happily start another thread in The Game Room and we can discuss it to our hearts’ content.

But in this thread, for appearing to be driven to vote based more on whose playing style you most disagree with instead of who you suspect of being scum (which would be a lot more helpful to the town), I:

vote Mahaloth

Starts with a ‘scum wouldn’t do that’ but as said that gets a pass. Next is discussing ‘how to best root out of scum’ has no place in this thread but earlier Today he asked this:

@KellyCriterion

Alright, I need some help here. What should we be looking for to help identify scum? I know I’m a n00b but even I could see that the “evidence” that was used to cast suspicion at peeker made absolutely no sense. Does this mean we should now turn up the heat on everyone who voted for peeker? My instincts would say no, because I doubt the scum would be so inept as to all (or even mostly) vote for the same townie on Day 1.

Without having to read up on all the past Mafia games I can find, what are some common tell-tale signs of scummy behaviour? What’s the precedent? I can’t see how we can glean anything out of Day 1 now - as I suspect that the scum didn’t actually have to do anything.

Oh actually you do want to talk about it!

Vote KellyCriterion

For placing a vote with an argument he doesn’t actually support. Also he asked this Summer ‘is there ever a good reason that we wouldn’t lynch a spawn every single day?’ - didn’t we talk about most of Summer One? It’s playing the ‘I’m new’ card a bit too often.

[Drain_Bead]

@Freudian_Slit

At this point there would be no real point in scum counterclaiming. If they did counterclaim and say that Drain Bead was not one of them, we could lynch Drain Bead, and if she speaks the truth, we would know she was a communal org and that any counterclaimers were scum. Then we’d know who all the scum were.

That’s more like what I was wanting people to get out of that.

[Natlaw]

@Drain_Bead

Also, if I am counterclaimed, lynch whoever says I’m not what I am. I doubt there are two groups of Communal Organisms in this game.

Actually… ah no wait, this isn’t Marvel Civil War - I’m sane here, I promise ;).

Still seems like a bit earlier claim; only one vote leads and the Summer end is two days away at Thursday right?

[Drain_Bead]

@storyteller0910

Drain Bead, how do you feel about shoes?

[Drain_Bead]

I could have waited, but I didn’t want everyone scrambling for someone else to vote for in the last 24 hours. Plus, the discussion that comes from this claim is valuable.

[Natlaw]

I forgot to link to the wiki: http://wiki.flyingcowofdoom.com/mafiaWiki/Shoes. Basically asking if you are trying to avoid a post restriction instead of the simpler trying not to out any other masons.

[Drain_Bead]

Nope, no post restriction.

[sachertorte]

I said it once before, but I will say it again. I do not think that KellyCriterion’s “bad vote” was all that bad. I have voted in the past partially for the same reasoning. It’s not something that I advertise since I know that everyone else would throw a hissy fit, but I do understand the desire to ‘engineer’ a closer vote to create data. The problem, of course, is in creating data, one is injecting noise. But the point boils down to this: KellyCriterion made a vote that people are upset with, but where is the evidence of his being scum? I don’t see it.

WHY was a scummy KellyCriterion hanging a vote on Scuba_Ben? I don’t get it at all! peekercpa was leading and peeker is TOWN.

Which is more likely, that KellyCriterion is scum and decided to press the Town towards lynching Scuba_Ben or is it more likely that KellyCriterion is town and decided that pushing the second vote leader up was sensible because he didn’t like the peeker train? Does Kelly have some sort of vendetta against Scuba_Ben that I don’t know about? What is the reasoning?

I openly admit that I was tempted to vote for Scuba_Ben for the same reason. I didn’t, because I could not convince myself that Scuba_Ben deserved to be lynched, but I was tempted to!

[DiggitCamara]

@Drain_Bead

Just because you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

I am a Communal Organism. Just like ed. The complete lack of counterclaim at this point will confirm me. That should let you know a number of things, actually. I will not confirm or deny Scuba Ben at this point. That issue can be dealt with later.

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.

[DiggitCamara]

@Drain_Bead

Reference to a game where just about everyone was scum. Someone (Roosh?) pretty much gave his position away because he was scum himself.

[Rysto]

@DiggitCamara

Reference to a game where just about everyone was scum. Someone (Roosh?) pretty much gave his position away because he was scum himself.

I’m not sure which game you’re talking about here. Natlaw’s explanation is the correct one.

[Freudian_Slit]

@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.

But the accusations were that Rysto had PIS, not Drain Bead. And the only info Drain has is who else is a communal org.

[DiggitCamara]

@Freudian_Slit

But the accusations were that Rysto had PIS, not Drain Bead. And the only info Drain has is who else is a communal org.

Actually, knowing who else is a mason is part of PIS. PIS, as I know it (and, as far as I know, I defined the term but not the acronym) means knowledge that no one else could have.

There have been instances before where masons have been outed because they try to defend, ever so subtly, other masons. You can mask your reaction or even exacerbate votes against your fellow teammates if you have enough experience, but quite often the problem lies in your instinct to mute your reaction to hide your allegiance.

This holds true especially when one of your “special” teammates makes a subtle mistake which you hope you recognize but which no one else should.

Sometimes (Hal Briston, I’m looking at you) cocky teammates might very well hide subtle messages in their posts as well. But that’s another subject matter. Speaking of which: Rysto’s right about the “shoes” reference. I was misremembering that game.

[DiggitCamara]

@Freudian_Slit

But the accusations were that Rysto had PIS, not Drain Bead. And the only info Drain has is who else is a communal org.

To complement my answer: Drain Bead gave extra weight to her vote because it was a vote against her “special” teammate. Her phrasing gave her away, and that’s why I voted against her in the first place, though I believed she had actually betrayed her “scummy” knowledge, not her “masony” knowledge.

[Alka_Seltzer]

If Drain’s claim is fake, I think the right move is to counter-claim. We’d lynch scum toDay, and then the scum would have to worry about possible doctor protection for the outed mason.

I tend to believe the claim. The only danger I see is if it’s a masonry of 2 with Ed and Ben, and Ben does not check in before he is killed. But scum couldn’t know the size of the masonry, so that would be a big risk to take.

I’m going to:

Vote Storyteller

Going back to this post again:

@storyteller0910

Alka Seltzer: I disagree with you. You are going to have to get it through your head that sometimes, people have strategic ideas that differ from yours. There is not one correct way to play this or any game. I disagree with you on the correct way to play this one. I don’t apologize for my position on this nor do I back down from it one bit. However, I do decline to continue to discuss it, because it’s a line of discussion leading nowhere. I get the feeling that this drives you crazy, that you need everyone to agree with your strategic opinions and if they don’t, they must be Scum, but you’re not getting the first or the second, at least as far as I’m concerned. Sorry.

This is an ad hominem attack, instead of addressing my arguments he is attacking me. Attacking the poster rather than the argument is scummy as hell. I repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Story’s position, but he evaded them or ignored them. I’d like town to take a look at my posts on the issue, and ask yourself if it merits this response:

@storyteller0910

I don’t agree with you. I am never going to agree with you. Whether you wish to continue to argue about it is your call, but I will not continue to engage you on this subject.

I do not agree with you.

I refused to drop the issue because I wasn’t satisfied with the response. It’s not like I was ignoring everything else happening in the game.

The problem is, the lack of engagement started well before here. I pointed out things like the problems of assuming a vig, even if we have one, might have eliminating spawn, and that a vig had the same options for information generation as a double-player lyse. Story never acknowledged any of this.

@storyteller0910

Your vote for me is silly and baseless. And it’s comical - comical - that you actually unvoted Spawn in order to place it.

This is hypocritical. Earlier, Story said this about double player voting:

@storyteller0910

I mean, are people worried that there is a risk that Spawn won’t be lynched if Zeriel doesn’t vote for it? At this point? With however many votes the Spawn’s already garnered?

So clearly, he understood that my unvote of spawn wouldn’t lead to a double player lyse.

It took him until #578, and pressure from other players, for him to post this:

@storyteller0910

Most importantly by far, it somewhat increases the chance that we will actually kill Scum. I have found that the biggest pro-Town moment in any game is the first lynch of Scum. Without a lynched Scum, the “storylines,” as it were, aren’t ever particularly clear (no matter how much information has been generated by other means). As soon as one Scum is dead, you can start to see the shape of things much more distinctly, and develop more intelligent hypothesis as to the missing pieces. If there are Scum power roles, then eliminating one of them early is a bonus, but even if there aren’t, I still view lynching at least one Scum as early in the game as possible very critical. I don’t think even my critics will deny that lynching two players instead of one increases our absolute percentage chance of accomplishing this goal toDay, right? As I don’t see the downside of a double-lyse (the persistence of a single Spawn) as a problem worthy of consideration at this point, I am thus in favor of the double-lyse. I would prefer to be extremely aggressive in pursuit of that first Scum lynch. Others would not. I’m OK with this. Let’s just keep going.

That’s a position I can understand, even if I don’t agree with it. The problem is that he is still ignoring the fact that spawn won’t magically disappear, and increased risk of outing town power roles.

I’m seeing the same pattern of evasions in response to Fluid. For example:

@storyteller0910

Do a search on my posts in this game. It shouldn’t take long; I haven’t been posting much outside of Mafia so you won’t have a lot of unrelated posts to manage. Take a look at the number of posts I’ve made that you - according to whatever your definition might be - consider to be substantive, Scum-hunting posts.

Then conduct the same experiment with fluiddruid.

Then tell me if you agree that she has any business calling my substantive participation “extremely minimal.”

This has nothing to do with Fluid or Story’s alignment, and ignores the fact that Fluid has just made two very long posts.