# Sdmb mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [October 30, 2008, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198 "2008-10-30T02:29:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/481 "2008-11-06T15:31:26Z")
OK, I did an exhaustive review of DiggitCamara’s game-related posts. Here it is: Um, he bandwagoned onto Nanook a bit ago. That’s it. I remember Diggit contributing more in other games. Ban DiggitCamara. I’d probably also support a NaturalBlondChap lynch today, if it came down to it. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/482 "2008-11-06T15:46:00Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > > [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > > > Kat and Hero are scum, I just feel it in my bones. I will try to articulate when I’m not inebriated. > > Hangover worn off yet? They had an exchange before I made that post that made me say WTF to myself. It could have been drunken enlightenment, it could have been drunken dyslexia. The world may never know. ☹ > [@Fretful\_Porpentine](#): > > I’m fine with being lazy. I said I was playing a hunch. It’s Day 1 and we haven’t a shred of information anyway. As of now, **peekercpa** is the only person in this game who really rubs me the wrong way. And as I said, he’s rubbing you the wrong way because of his persona, not because of his perceived alignment. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/483 "2008-11-06T15:56:06Z")
> [@](#): > > And as I said, he’s rubbing you the wrong way because of his persona, not because of his perceived alignment. No, he’s rubbing me the wrong way primarily because of the weird, unprompted, and unconfirmable pseudo-role claim. His posting style is secondary to that. I can’t think of a logical reason for scum _or_ town to make such a claim at that particular point in the game, so I think he’s probably PFK, and it would be better for town if he’s out of the game. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/484 "2008-11-06T15:57:15Z")
Correction: Ban DiggitCamara. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/485 "2008-11-06T16:01:50Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > Not to defend the guy, but it’s been pointed out repeatedly that his bizarre posting style is a lazy (at best) reason to place your vote on him. What? Who’s been pointing that out? Because it’s wrong. Townies need to work cooperatively to find scum. That means sharing ideas, suspicions, and information. It does not involve building hurdles for your teammates. **peeker** is intentionally making it harder for Townies to understand his points. That’s anti-Town. Period. If he’s Town he needs to stop it and talk clearly. I’ll keep voting for him until either he shapes up or a someone clearly scum pops up. > [@ok11](#): > > IMy attempt to decode **peekercpa** ’s posts was semi-successful, so I will not be voting for him today. In his posts, he made several observations about other players, so the fluff to content ratio isn’t as high as I initially thought. I don’t get why he made two remarks directed at **Pleonast** , but those are too obvious to be breadcrumbs. I’m guessing it’s a reference to something that happened in a previous game; some sort of inside joke. I assume his references to me are due to my similar complaints in the Marvel game. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > Look, this role is as confirmable as any I’ve ever seen in a game. If nobody votes for him in a Day, he dies. If not, he’s lying. This will happen soon enough, there’s no reason for everybody to waste their unique vote on him at this point in time, unless it’s been agreed upon in advance that he’s going to be the one chosen to be lynched Today. I thought of confirming him that way as well. The problem is it’s like proving someone is not a witch by throwing them in a pool and seeing if the float. The innocent don’t survive the test. I’m not certain about **Nanook**. It could be an elaborate bluff by a scum. But I think it’s more likely he’s a Townie or a survivor with a powerful ability. I think lynching him is a mistake at this time. 1. He’s Town. Obviously we should not lynch him in this case. 2. He’s a survivor role. He may be helpful or harmful to the Town. But, more importantly, he may be harmful to scum. He’d be as much a threat to them as us. It may be useful to delay offing him. 3. He’s a bluffing scum. He should die. But in any case we should not lynch **Nanook** Today. Those who want him to die: it’s a waste of a lynch Today. Instead, Tomorrow, no one should vote for him. (Anyone who votes for him, we lynch. And no-vote-kill **Nanook** the next Day.) He should die. If he doesn’t he’s a liar, and then we lynch him. By killing **Nanook** by not voting for him, we effectively gain a bonus lynch. If we lynch him Today, we give up the opportunity to gain additional information. ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/486 "2008-11-06T16:08:00Z")
> [@ok11](#): > > Moving on. **NaturalBlondChap** , is that a role claim? Also, since you bring up screen names, who wants to talk about those? Or is that anti-town in some way? On the subject of screen names, I originally went into more detail in my post but became a little concerned over sailing very close to the wind on the ‘no quoting PM’ rule so edited a fair bit back out. I can see why what was left might be seen as a role claim, but it wasn’t. I am just looking at similarities between what I know, what OG posted and what others have revealed, and how out of place, from a town and flavor point of view, Nanooks post is on his ‘powers’ (sorry can’t think of a better word for it) That said, Nanook is in the unfortunate position of having a made partial claim that has made people suspicious which has caused a ‘pile on’ if I may use that term. The only way out is, he either has to reveal more info about his role, that (if he is town) has the unfortunate side effect of benefiting scum. Or he can bluff and say ’ my info is to powerful and I am better off carrying it to the grave’. Any other ways out if he is town, other than we go with is defense that we are pathetic. Anyone got any ideas on test/ways out for Nanook? So, no doubt , that all sounds like role fishing, but I see no other way out for Nanook, if he is town other than a full (well fuller) reveal or at least some indication of a way to test. JSexton, I would say that we have to look at vanilla win condition that OG posted , which is that all disruptive elements are gone. A non town WC is more than likely disruptive to town, and at best no real benefit, and is probably better of gone. What ‘role’ did he claim, as far as I have seen, all he has claimed is his ‘role name’ was not on the list, and he has to have new people vote for him every day or get mod killed. Nanook, you say you felt you had to lay out a partial claim, for the dull wittted amongst us (well me really) why did you feel you had to lay out a partial claim at that point? ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/487 "2008-11-06T16:22:26Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > Not to defend the guy, but it’s been pointed out repeatedly that his bizarre posting style is a lazy (at best) reason to place your vote on him. > [@Pleonast](#): > > What? Who’s been pointing that out? Because it’s wrong. Sorry, that parsed wrong. It should have read: Not to defend the guy, but it’s been pointed out repeatedly that he has a bizarre posting style. Voting for him on that basis is lazy (at best). It’s been clarified that the claim is another reason he’s being voted for, however, I can’t chastise the man for that one. 😛 ---
**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:** [November 6, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/488 "2008-11-06T16:34:49Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > They had an exchange before I made that post that made me say WTF to myself. It could have been drunken enlightenment, it could have been drunken dyslexia. The world may never know. ☹ So you no longer think they’re scum? Is it worth a re-read? ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/489 "2008-11-06T16:37:45Z")
> [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > Others are voting because they think I might be scum/PFK. Scum? Really? You think a scum player would get stuck with that sort of restriction? Actually, yes, I do think that could happen. As for why you would blab of it, why should we assume you would have thought to skirt around it? Perhaps you haven’t talked to your scumbuddies yet and you felt it too urgent to wait? > [@Nanook of the North Shore](#): > > PFK makes a little more sense, but the same issues comes up. Why say anything Today when I already had a vote and had met my requirement? If I wait until Tomorrow to say anything, I’m in a much stronger position to change people’s minds by arguing in a positive fashion, pointing at a different target rather than the desperation defense I’m forced into now. If you had waited until tommorow, your claim would have fallen in a much harsher light. Usually, various day one stuff falls through the cracks, while players are adjusting to the game format and discussing mundanities. Presumably, you had thought no one would question your partial role-claim too much. > [@Nanook of the North Shore](#): > > There was a discussion on the spoiler board for the Skrull game that’s relevent right here. It has nothing to do with that game itself, and will not spoil anything for anyone so don’t worry. There was a lot of talk about how people in these games always seem to jump on anyone that opens their mouth and shares info. Look at how close Idle came to getting lynched. Or how close I came to it as well. And what was our sin? Not acting scummy. Not voting terribly. No, our sin was opening our mouths and claiming, for whatever reasons we may have had. And what’s happening here? I feel that I have no real choice but to lay out a partial claim, and I get jumped all over for it. Pathetic. Idle claimed doctor, a role that we’ve never ever seen in a pro-scum position. And I don’t recall you getting terribly close to being lynched. This situation reminds me more of Roosh in Apocolypse. Early on, he made a bizarre claim that was different from anything seen before. It was so strange people just accepted it. And he was a demon lord. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/490 "2008-11-06T16:43:29Z")
> [@JSexton](#): > > I feel very strongly that Nanook is not mafia. He may have a non-town WC, but I think the odds are good that he is town. The role that he claimed, and the manner in which he claimed it, are absolutely not the words of scum. Trouble is, I don’t have a better lynch target to suggest right now, which makes it difficult for people to unvote. Working on it.. You raise an excellent case, and it’s pretty much why I’m NOT voting on Nanook. > [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > They had an exchange before I made that post that made me say WTF to myself. It could have been drunken enlightenment, it could have been drunken dyslexia. The world may never know. ☹ This makes me somewhat suspicious–drunk-smudging and then retracting it is not something I want to condone any more than I want to condone peeker’s rambling semi-coherency. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/491 "2008-11-06T16:43:57Z")
> [@NaturalBlondChap](#): > > On the subject of screen names, I originally went into more detail in my post but became a little concerned over sailing very close to the wind on the ‘no quoting PM’ rule so edited a fair bit back out. I can see why what was left might be seen as a role claim, but it wasn’t. I am just looking at similarities between what I know, what OG posted and what others have revealed, and how out of place, from a town and flavor point of view, Nanooks post is on his ‘powers’ (sorry can’t think of a better word for it My guess is that screen names don’t matter. They’re bits of fluff provided like the background info. > [@Pleonast](#): > > By killing **Nanook** by not voting for him, we effectively gain a bonus lynch. If we lynch him Today, we give up the opportunity to gain additional information. As I have repeatedly said, if we let him get modkilled, we probably won’t get his alignment information. This is critical. Remember, in T2, when everyone jumped on Flyfisheron because she was about to get modkilled and no-one wanted to risk losing the info? And there have been similar instances. Point being, if we leave Nanook to the jaws of his restriction, we’ll be in a state of ambiguity for the rest of the game. Was he town? Or scum? or other? What was his role name? etc. etc. etc. > [@JSexton](#): > > OK, I did an exhaustive review of DiggitCamara’s game-related posts. Here it is: > > Um, he bandwagoned onto Nanook a bit ago. > > That’s it. I remember Diggit contributing more in other games. > > Ban DiggitCamara. I’d probably also support a NaturalBlondChap lynch today, if it came down to it. I’m willing to believe that he’s caught up in the Marvel game. Generally, it takes players by suprise when they’re resurrected from the dead. ---
**Author:** ![ok11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8baadc/32.png) [@ok11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ok11)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/492 "2008-11-06T16:44:44Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Actually, yes, I do think that could happen. As for why you would blab of it, why should we assume you would have thought to skirt around it? Perhaps you haven’t talked to your scumbuddies yet and you felt it too urgent to wait? Didn’t the game start with a Night phase? If so, then this is unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/493 "2008-11-06T16:49:08Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > As I have repeatedly said, if we let him get modkilled, we probably won’t get his alignment information. This is critical. Remember, in T2, when everyone jumped on Flyfisheron because she was about to get modkilled and no-one wanted to risk losing the info? And there have been similar instances. Point being, if we leave Nanook to the jaws of his restriction, we’ll be in a state of ambiguity for the rest of the game. Was he town? Or scum? or other? What was his role name? etc. etc. etc. Why assume we won’t get info about **Nanook** if he’s dies from a lack of votes? That’s not a mod-kill in the usual sense: a player being removed from the game for breaking rules or being non-participatory. He’d be killed because of the specifics of his role. I think it’s unwarranted to assume we’ll get no information. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/494 "2008-11-06T16:51:25Z")
> [@ok11](#): > > Didn’t the game start with a Night phase? If so, then this is unlikely. Did it? Night 0 is ambiguous. Different Mods handle it differently. It could have just been the: check in and wait for the clock to make even numbers time. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Why assume we won’t get info about **Nanook** if he’s dies from a lack of votes? That’s not a mod-kill in the usual sense: a player being removed from the game for breaking rules or being non-participatory. He’d be killed because of the specifics of his role. I think it’s unwarranted to assume we’ll get no information. But we don’t know for sure. And therein lies the rub: I’m not willing to risk it, since it could prove disastrous. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/495 "2008-11-06T16:56:52Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Townies need to work cooperatively to find scum. That means sharing ideas, suspicions, and information. It does not involve building hurdles for your teammates. **peeker** is intentionally making it harder for Townies to understand his points. That’s anti-Town. Period. If he’s Town he needs to stop it and talk clearly. I’ll keep voting for him until either he shapes up or a someone clearly scum pops up. If Peeker ALWAYS posts like this, it’s a null tell for him. It may not be helpful, but voting to punish players is generally a bad strategy for any given game. > [@](#): > > But in any case we should not lynch **Nanook** Today. Those who want him to die: it’s a waste of a lynch Today. Instead, Tomorrow, no one should vote for him. (Anyone who votes for him, we lynch. And no-vote-kill **Nanook** the next Day.) He should die. If he doesn’t he’s a liar, and then we lynch him. > > By killing **Nanook** by not voting for him, we effectively gain a bonus lynch. If we lynch him Today, we give up the opportunity to gain additional information. This is a good strategy, should we choose to lynch Nanook. > [@NaturalBlondChap](#): > > JSexton, I would say that we have to look at vanilla win condition that OG posted , which is that all disruptive elements are gone. A non town WC is more than likely disruptive to town, and at best no real benefit, and is probably better of gone. I am generally of the opinion that anyone who claims non-town should be lynched. Note, though, than Nanook has not done so. > [@pedescribe](#): > > As I have repeatedly said, if we let him get modkilled, we probably won’t get his alignment information. What makes you say that? I think there’s a big difference between a modkill for inactivity, and a modkill that’s built into a role restriction. One is a punishment for breaking a game rule, and one is a game mechanic. > [@](#): > > I’m willing to believe that he’s caught up in the Marvel game. Generally, it takes players by suprise when they’re resurrected from the dead. I’m not following that game, and was unaware. Still, there’s plenty going on for comment, and if he’s active in another game (and thus active on the board) I consider that even more suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/496 "2008-11-06T16:58:18Z")
Also, I’d like to point out that it’s not the end of the world if Nanook died and we got no info. I mean, I’d much rather learn that, but it’s not like we auto-lose if his death is a mystery. You’re making far too big a deal out of that, pedescribe. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/497 "2008-11-06T16:58:50Z")
**Hawkeyeop: As a general policy, will you reveal role and alignment information of all players removed from the game? Some mods have simply “disappeared” mod-killed players. Others (like me) have given information about mod-killed players just as any other dead players.** ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/498 "2008-11-06T17:01:26Z")
74 hours have passed. Nanook o/t North Shore : 7 (BS PI, Hero from Sector 7G, Peekercpa, Pedescribe, Oredigger, Diggit, NaturalBlondChap) NaturalBlondChap : 3 (Santo Rugger, Nanook o/t North Shore, Rapier42) DiggitCamara : 3 (amrussell, Ok11, Jsexton) Hero from Sector 7G : 2 (OaOW, Total Lost) Peekercpa : 2 (Pleonast, Fretful) Rapier42 : 1 (ShadowFacts) Kat : 1 (Zsofia) Zerial : 1 (Kat) Onwards into hour 75 ---
**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:** [November 6, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/499 "2008-11-06T17:01:55Z")
> [@Rapier42](#): > > Your numbers are slightly off, I think, Oredigger (paging BLAM…). Did you account for the lynch or NK taking out a player that already voted for him? And assuming random distribution, what are the odds? > > I think that’s the question that needs answered - given one lynch, one NK, and one player voting for **Nanook** per Day, what are the odds that there will still be players around that haven’t voted for him in, say, 8 Days? I’ll try to work through this in my post. First off I don’t think that the scum are going to kill randomly they have basically two choices the first of which is that **Nanook** is town or PFK in which case they want him dead secondly he is scum in which case they want him alive. The second case is a little easier so I’ll start there. There are 23 players in the game and I’m assuming that **Nanook** cannot vote for himself so that leaves 22 unique votes. Each day we will lynch someone, scum will kill someone, and someone will vote for **Nanook**. We can lynch the person who voted for him and also the scum could kill them. If scum were trying to keep **Nanook** alive they would try to expand the pool so assume they either get town to lynch the new voter for **Nanook** or night kill them. This would mean that two people are eliminated from the unique pool every Day and the pool would be exhausted in 11 Days. If the scum want to eliminate **Nanook** because he is not on their team then they can focus their kills on townies that haven’t voted for him. If we assume 20% scum (5) we end up at 17 unique votes (assuming scum wont vote for him) and three being eliminated each day he only has 6 Days. The third case the one you asked for I made a couple of assumptions if the odds of a voter being selected randomly out of the remaining pool were greater then 50% then one voter died and if the odds were greater then 75% then two voters died. To calculate the odds I added the number of voters divided by the pool plus either the number of voters -1 divided by the pool or number of voters divided by the pool -1, depending on whether the first set of odds was greater then 50%. I can post my excel code if anyone wants to see it. Using this method there were no unique voters left by Day 12. Of course there will only be one person remaining on day 12, **Nanook**. Using the random assumptions I also figured **Nanook’s** life expectancy and it doesn’t change because of the greater number of kills from the voter group. So there has been no harm done in a truly random situation. This doesn’t sound like a limitation if **Nanook** is scum because he can easily make the endgame. If he is town or PFK then it is a huge limitation. The next questions to ask is if a town player would have a power that would need that kind of balancing, I tend to think no which leave PFK so I’m happy with my vote. Sorry this is so long. ---
**Author:** ![Rapier42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90db22/32.png) [@Rapier42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rapier42)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/500 "2008-11-06T17:06:48Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > Back up. You said that the term was, and I quote, “established”. How can it be established if you can’t point to a single time that the phrase has ever been used as you assert? I said: > [@](#): > > “Town on Town violence” is an established term for silliness in voting, is it not? This is a question, not a statement. I thought it meant one thing, Shadow responded in a way that caused me to question my interpretation, hence the above quote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198.md?page=26)