# 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:** 34
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/661 "2008-11-10T04:35:32Z")
> [@ok11](#): > > 1. I know my previous attempt to find scum via vote records failed (Sorry, **DiggitCamara**!), but here I go again. For a relatively long time, the following 6 people had their vote on **Nanook: BS PI, Hero from Sector 7G, Peekercpa, Oredigger77, DiggitCamara, NBC**. **Pedescribe** also voted for him for a while. If there is at least one scum among the people who voted for **Nanook** , then most likely it’s either **Boozahol Squid, P.I** or **Hero From Sector 7G** , because the rest are either confirmed town, or masons. Do you have any particular reason why at least one person voting for Nanook needs to be scum, or is this a completely baseless smudge? ---
**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 10, 2008, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/662 "2008-11-10T05:07:48Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > So we don’t get alignment info on those who are Night-killed? That’s going to make this a lot harder. They were both green. I’d assume that means they were both…uh… …just whose side are we on, anyway? ---
**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 10, 2008, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/663 "2008-11-10T08:44:08Z")
And we’re off to a flyer! One forced claim, one unforced claim, two dead town power roles\*. My friends, we’ve got them exactly where we want them. I’m going to pick up where I left off last night: **vote Zeriel** The full post with my reasoning is [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10418023&postcount=596). The short version is: [ul] [li]Pushed vote-leaders for role-claims[/li][li]Fence-sitting on voting Nanook[/li][li]Offered no defence to Kat’s vote against him but…[/li][li]Unvoted under pressure[/li][li]Broke promise of unvoting only with new vote[/li][li]Piggy-backed JSexton’s no-Nanook-vote arguments, even though they contradicted his own previously stated arguments[/li][/ul] \*On preview - this hasn’t been made 100% clear. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/664 "2008-11-10T13:37:44Z")
> [@Rapier42](#): > > **Og, does this mean that Peeker was a Watcher _and_ a SDSAB member?** Peeker Role Name: SDSAB member Power: Watcher ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/665 "2008-11-10T13:39:47Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > So we don’t get alignment info on those who are Night-killed? That’s going to make this a lot harder. All deaths thus far have been of players aligned town. ---
**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 10, 2008, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/666 "2008-11-10T13:42:01Z")
As it’s so quiet, I’m going to indulge myself by reposting my suggestions for dealing with the Random Nightfall: > [@amrussell](#): > > Solutions are hard to come by. I would suggest that, as far as possible, we try to adopt the following broad strategy: > > All votes must give clear, well-laid out reasoning. “Me too” votes, unjustified votes, and especially OMGUS votes pile up the pressure on vote-leaders without giving them opportunity to defend themselves. > > Avoid voting for the vote leader. If anyone is two votes in the lead, it will take three votes for the second place to make them safe. If you agree that the vote leader should swing, by all means FOS them. This will be as accountable as a vote. If they get overtaken, then you can vote for them to keep them in the lead. By doing this, we will give vote-leaders the opportunity to refute accusations against them without going for the nuclear option of role-claim. Conversely, if they know they have to overturn, say, five votes then they will feel the pressure to sing like canaries. > > If you are vote leader, this is your opportunity to display some fortitude. Your first defence should be refutation. If you’re accused of a slip, explain it. If you’ve contradicted yourself, explain it. Be hesitant to claim. The short-term benefits are clear (if we believe you); the long-term costs are also clear (more to you than to us, in fact). If you must claim, tell us when you can confirm yourself. We will hold you to that. > > Other than that, we should begin to ask ourselves when it’s in our best interests to mass claim. I wouldn’t say yet. But if we keep outing ourselves in dribs and drabs, we get all the costs and none of the benefits. Zsofia had problems with my suggestion about not voting for the vote leader: > [@Zsofia](#): > > I don’t really like this. I think it is rarely in Mafia a good tactic not to vote for the person you personally find most scummy. That FOS crap is a good way for scum to hide - it isn’t as easily trackable as a vote, although more trackable than a subtle smudge, and before you know it everybody knows there’s something kinda scummy about Poster A but nobody quite remembers that it’s because Poster B has been FOSing them or just smudging them. > > On the other hand, you’re certainly right that it’s hard to escape a bandwagon without the “nuclear option” of a roleclaim. Even then, what that tends to do is just kind of derail the bandwagon onto somebody else without quite as much consideration as if it had happened another way. I agree that encouraging people not to vote under certain circumstances is a sub-optimal situation - it’s merely the best compromise I can come up with to stop outing town roles. Here’s what I would suggest: [ul] [li]Do vote for the person you find scummiest unless…[/li][li]That person is already vote leader (say, 2 votes in the lead)[/li][li]In that case, publically state a colour-coded FOS of the vote-leader, giving reasons just as you would for a vote[/li][li]FOS-ing the leader is the only excuse for not having an active vote[/li][/ul] The last point is based on the point I raised earlier: unvoting the leader promotes No.2 into the danger seat. Unless you actually want them to be there, you’re putting on pressure for another role-claim needlessly. Either vote for them explicitly, or tell us who else you find scummy. If you \*really \*have no other suspects, current experience suggests that we’ll have some lurkers who could use a nudge. Hopefully the above will help us keep track of FOS’s as we would votes. Note that this is not an excuse for lurkers to materialise, say “Yeah, I agree with X about VoteLeader, here’s my FOS” and then recloak for the rest of the Day. This is no less suspicious than any other unjustified bandwagon vote, and should be treated as such. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/667 "2008-11-10T13:45:41Z")
Well, a Mafia game when I’m not immediately suspicious for playing fast and loose on Day One wouldn’t be a Mafia game. Eh. As for Kat’s vote and reasoning, I had re-read the thread and subsequent posts by Hero made me realize he wasn’t doing what I thought he was doing, then I dunno. I posted the angry defense of my vote before I re-read and realized I’d totally misread Hero. As for pushing Nanook for a role-claim, how exactly is it you can want people to talk their way out of votes without claiming and yet yell at me for saying I want someone to be “eloquent”–I think you’ll agree that it takes a lot more eloquence to refute arguments than just whip out a claim–and I didn’t call for a Nanook claim until it was clear, at least to me, that the only reason he WASN’T claiming was spite–since that’s pretty much what he said. I’m barely inclined to give the “piggyback” thing a response. When someone makes a quality statement, I refuse to see anything wrong with agreeing with it. Look, I’m playing this one exactly the same as I’ve played every other Mafia game I’ve been in. I’ve been town every game. I get these suspicions from someone every game. I get lynched for fumblefingering or fumble-braining something most games. If it looks scummy to you, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/668 "2008-11-10T13:47:57Z")
Here’s where _I_ worry–not voting for the vote leader. We already know there’s a town power claimed that can lengthen days. If there’s a scum power that can shorten days, or some other means for the scum to predict day ends with any efficacy, keeping a low differential between the leader and second-place candidates is ASKING for them to manipulate the vote at a crucial time. ---
**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 10, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/669 "2008-11-10T14:52:27Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Well, a Mafia game when I’m not immediately suspicious for playing fast and loose on Day One wouldn’t be a Mafia game. I’m not suspicious of you for playing fast and loose. I’m suspicous of you because you seem to be fence-sitting and changing your tune under pressure. [QUOTE=Zeriel] As for Kat’s vote and reasoning, I had re-read the thread and subsequent posts by Hero made me realize he wasn’t doing what I thought he was doing, then I dunno. I posted the angry defense of my vote before I re-read and realized I’d totally misread Hero. [/QUOTE] You also said you’d only unvote him if you found someone scummier - but then just unvoted him. Now it may well be that you did re-read and realise you’d completely misinterpreted his posts but you didn’t tell us that. What you said was: [QUOTE=Zeriel] I’m still reading through to catch up, but Hero’s dropped enough on my suspicion list that it’s not worth keeping a vote on him. [/QUOTE] It’s quite a _volte-face_ and even with an after-the-fact explanation, it still looks suspicious, frankly. [QUOTE=Zeriel] As for pushing Nanook for a role-claim, how exactly is it you can want people to talk their way out of votes without claiming and yet yell at me for saying I want someone to be “eloquent”–I think you’ll agree that it takes a lot more eloquence to refute arguments than just whip out a claim–and I didn’t call for a Nanook claim until it was clear, at least to me, that the only reason he WASN’T claiming was spite–since that’s pretty much what he said. [/QUOTE] I’ll agree that “geteloquent” is an ambiguous phrase - that’s what caught my attention. When you say that a player is almost certain to die unless they “get eloquent”, it looks a lot like you’re piling on the pressure. [QUOTE=Zeriel] I’m barely inclined to give the “piggyback” thing a response. When someone makes a quality statement, I refuse to see anything wrong with agreeing with it. [/QUOTE] This is what you first said about Nanook’s probable alignment: [QUOTE=Zeriel] I’m somewhat torn about Nanook right now, since on one hand the analysts are correct in that overcomplex roles tend to be scum/pfk (but see also the Chia Bingo Manager) [/QUOTE] I think it’s fair to say that this means you think he’s more likely to be anti-town than town. Here is what \*\*JSexton \*\*said: [QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] My bolding. Here is your response to that: [QUOTE=Zeriel] You raise an excellent case, and it’s pretty much why I’m NOT voting on Nanook. [/QUOTE] You didn’t think the odds were good that he was town. You thought the odds were good that he was not. Yet you say that this sums up your reasons for not voting. There isn’t anything wrong with agreeing with good points; doing so when you appear to have earlier disagreed with them looks like you’re trying to find cover. I’m not minded to change my vote yet. ---
**Author:** ![ok11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8baadc/32.png) [@ok11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ok11)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/670 "2008-11-10T14:53:54Z")
> [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > Do you have any particular reason why at least one person voting for Nanook needs to be scum, or is this a completely baseless smudge? I didn’t say that one of them _needs_ to be scum. What I said was, _if_ at least one scum voted for **Nanook** , then (by process of elimination) that scum is _likely_ to be either you or **Hero From Sector 7G**. But feel free to ignore conditional words, such as _if_ and _likely_, and set up false dichotomies. Why do I think at least one person voting for **Nanook** _might_ be scum? We started the game with 23 players. Some of them didn’t vote at all. Others didn’t cast a vote for a long time. 3 people didn’t have a vote on the Day-end vote count. (I’m not going to list those people, because apparently [doing so](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10412538&postcount=506) is [considered bullying](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10413627&postcount=531)) Anyway, 7 people voting for the same person is one third of the total number of players (because not all 23 voted). Why is it so unlikely that at least one of them might be scum? Is it wrong to think that scum will try to vote for different people, and hide their vote among town votes, so that their vote doesn’t stand out? Also, someone up-thread mentioned that scum might want to vote for **Nanook** , so that during later Days they wouldn’t be able to save him from a Mod kill. Incidentally, now that I’ve re-read the order of the votes, I see that the two of you were the first to vote for **Nanook**. It means that at the time you voted, hiding among town wouldn’t have been your motivation. Take my observation for what it was: I found something interesting in the vote counts and wanted to share it. ---
**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 10, 2008, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/671 "2008-11-10T15:29:44Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Here’s where _I_ worry–not voting for the vote leader. We already know there’s a town power claimed that can lengthen days. If there’s a scum power that can shorten days, or some other means for the scum to predict day ends with any efficacy, keeping a low differential between the leader and second-place candidates is ASKING for them to manipulate the vote at a crucial time. On a completely separate note… As I said, it will take three votes/unvotes to promote No.2 to vote-leader, assuming our threshold for voting is set at 2 votes. If we see just such a pattern of voting immediately before day ends, that should stand out and we’ll want to hear from the suspects the next Day. If it’s not immediately before day ends, that leaves room for anyone with an FOS to turn it into a real vote, thus re-establishing the original vote-leader as town’s lynch candidate. I agree that this is more difficult for LyLo; perhaps we could make an exception for this instance. Incidentally, I am very reluctant to base any analysis on \*\*Santo’s \*\*claim. We’ve got no confirmation at all and for all we know it was pulled _ex ano_. In fact, one of the thing’s I’d like to see toDay is some justification from \*\*Santo \*\*about why we should trust him. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/672 "2008-11-10T15:32:40Z")
**vote ok11** So today you’ve been basically spinning a suspicion out of candyfloss–“IF there was a scum voting for Nanook, it was either BOOZY or HERO…not that there HAD to have been a scum voting for him, but since everyone else who voted for him is confirmed, then IF there was a scum it was BOOZY OR HERO.” That’s crap. And hey, thanks for reminding me that yesterday you were just throwing out a list of names of people who WERE NOT VOTING RIGHT NOW. Despite the fact that at least one of those people had voted and was between votes, and in point of fact we had no idea how close we were to the deadline. Some people may remember that I have _views_ on lists upon which I appear for no acceptable reason. =P ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/673 "2008-11-10T15:36:17Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > If it’s not immediately before day ends, that leaves room for anyone with an FOS to turn it into a real vote, thus re-establishing the original vote-leader as town’s lynch candidate. I agree that this is more difficult for LyLo; perhaps we could make an exception for this instance. It’s the LyLo use of this tactic that bothers me most–it only has to work once. Furthermore, since it’s a closed setup, we also have no good idea of WHEN we’re at lynch or lose, so making an exception is going to require some amount of clairvoyance on the part of whoever’s calling the shots. I don’t believe in clairvoyance. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, I am very reluctant to base any analysis on \*\*Santo’s \*\*claim. We’ve got no confirmation at all and for all we know it was pulled _ex ano_. In fact, one of the thing’s I’d like to see toDay is some justification from \*\*Santo \*\*about why we should trust him. I am only allowing for the possibility that someone or someones may be able to alter the day ending time. I have no opinion on Santo’s claim except inasmuch as it opens the possibility for discussion. ---
**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 10, 2008, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/674 "2008-11-10T16:01:07Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > It’s the LyLo use of this tactic that bothers me most–it only has to work once. Furthermore, since it’s a closed setup, we also have no good idea of WHEN we’re at lynch or lose, so making an exception is going to require some amount of clairvoyance on the part of whoever’s calling the shots. I don’t believe in clairvoyance. We don’t know when we’ll hit LyLo, but I’m prepared to bet quite a lot of money that it won’t be toDay, toMorrow or the Day after. If we can get that far without provoking, say, half-a-dozen role-claims then I’ll be more than happy to review. ---
**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 10, 2008, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/675 "2008-11-10T16:03:51Z")
Well, balls first three kills go to the scum. We need to look at a way around these role claims because scum are obviously targeting people with claims on the table, even if they are soft claims. I’m not sure how to prevent people from claiming, if we go with am’s FOS idea it will end up the same because people will still have to claim to avoid the lynch and if we wait to put votes on someone then which ever person is switched to will have to immediately due to the random day end. This will put us in the same situation as yesterDay. I think the best way to handle this is similar to the approach that Santo has taken, a soft claim by people with testable powers. If we get just enough information to test them then we can evaluate the claims and move on. I think this is different from a mass claim because we will still have places for our power roles to hide, the unverifiable roles, but we will still shrink the pool we are hunting scum in. The biggest difference between this and Santo’s is I’m not sure his claim is verifiable. I really have no opinion right now about who to vote for since ether top three from yesterDay are off the table so I’m probably going to start out with a lynch the lurker, once I figure out who the biggest lurkers were. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/676 "2008-11-10T16:36:11Z")
So, Oredigger. Care to talk about your activities last night? ---
**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 10, 2008, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/677 "2008-11-10T16:47:46Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > Incidentally, I am very reluctant to base any analysis on \*\*Santo’s \*\*claim. We’ve got no confirmation at all and for all we know it was pulled _ex ano_. In fact, one of the thing’s I’d like to see toDay is some justification from \*\*Santo \*\*about why we should trust him. I’ve said my piece. If it’s not good enough for you, I don’t know what else to tell you. ---
**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 10, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/678 "2008-11-10T16:52:37Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Here’s where _I_ worry–not voting for the vote leader. We already know\*\* there’s a town power claimed that can lengthen days\*\*. If there’s a scum power that can shorten days, or some other means for the scum to predict day ends with any efficacy, keeping a low differential between the leader and second-place candidates is ASKING for them to manipulate the vote at a crucial time. > [@amrussell](#): > > Incidentally, I am very reluctant to base any analysis on \*\*Santo’s \*\*claim. We’ve got no confirmation at all and for all we know it was pulled _ex ano_. In fact, one of the thing’s I’d like to see toDay is some justification from \*\*Santo \*\*about why we should trust him. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I am only allowing for the possibility that someone or someones may be able to alter the day ending time. I have no opinion on Santo’s claim except inasmuch as it opens the possibility for discussion. But, Zeriel, that’s not what you _said_ you _said_ I was a town power [that] claimed. At least, that’s how I parsed it. How do you know I’m town? ---
**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 10, 2008, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/679 "2008-11-10T16:53:42Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > They were both green. I’d assume that means they were both…uh… > > …just whose side are we on, anyway? Are you kidding me? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/680 "2008-11-10T17:00:01Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > But, Zeriel, that’s not what you _said_ you _said_ I was a town power [that] claimed. At least, that’s how I parsed it. How do you know I’m town? [QUOTE=me] We already know there’s a town power claimed that can lengthen days [/QUOTE] Er, you claimed to be a townie with that power. Really, you can move “claimed” to the front of the phrase to make it “claimed town power” if it makes you feel better. I don’t think my meaning is changed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198.md?page=35)