# 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:** 63
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1241 "2008-11-20T00:18:17Z")
> [@Hal\_Briston](#): > > \…I read **Hero** ’s post and think “Hmmm…that was kinda flirting with the line between playing the game and being a bit of a jerk”, but hey, it happens. Then I click refresh, and I see **Shadow** pouring a nice, tall glass of WIFOM. Man, I [del]love[/del] [del]hate[/del] [del]love[/del] [del]hate[/del] [del]love[/del] [del]hate[/del] get a little frustrated by this game sometimes… I was sincerely hurt when **Peeker** preemptively called my comments “lame-butt.” Saying someone’s arguments are “unfuckingbeleivable” and “total crap” also seem beyond the language necessary in this game. I admit I’m new here and not fully aware of the subtleties. I have tried to keep my tone as neutral as possible, but understand that perhaps read in a different way one might interpret it differently. My sincere apologies to **ShadowFacts** if I have crossed a line. ---
**Author:** ![Kat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kat)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1242 "2008-11-20T01:51:05Z")
> [@Rapier42](#): > > One more thing, sorry - Kat, could you restate your case against Zeriel, please? Why certainly. Day 1 timeline: Post 355 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10401863&postcount=355](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10401863&postcount=355) **Total Lost** voted for **Hero** partially for advocating for a mason claim (my paraphrase of \*\*TL[/n]’s reasoning, read the post for the **TL** ’s actual words). (Included for continuity purposes, see the post quotes below from **Rapier42**.) Post 361 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10402239&postcount=361](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10402239&postcount=361) **Zeriel** voted for **Hero** for advocating _against_ a mason claim. Post 428 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407476&postcount=428](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407476&postcount=428) > [@Rapier42](#): > > On Hero: > > Unless I’m reading several posters wrong, Hero has now been voted for encouraging the masons to claim, and for discouraging the masons to claim. This feels like town-on-new guy violence. Post 433: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407657&postcount=433](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407657&postcount=433) **Zeriel** makes a post, doesn’t comment on **Rapier** ’s comment abouot **Hero**. Post 435: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407772&postcount=435](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407772&postcount=435) **Hero** makes a post asserting that **zeriel** is misrepresenting **Hero** ’s stance, and asks for a cite. Post 462: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10409727&postcount=462](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10409727&postcount=462) I vote for **zeriel** for misrepresenting **Hero** ’s stance, and for not clarifying when **Rapier** calls the issue into question. Post 472: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10411361&postcount=472](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10411361&postcount=472) > [@ok11](#): > > I think **Kat** ’s justification for voting **zeriel** is good. **Zeriel** , what do you think about [post 435](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407772&postcount=435) by **Hero From Sector 7G**? Post 474: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10411520&postcount=474](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10411520&postcount=474) **Zeriel** unvotes **Hero** , without making any reference to any of the posts between his vote and his unvote. Just because “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.” But what was it that caused him to drop on the suspicion list? Since he didn’t specify, it was entirely possible that he was just backing off because the heat was on him. Post 596 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10418023&postcount=596](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10418023&postcount=596) **amrussell** votes for **zeriel** asking for details on the unvote, along with posting other reasons for finding **zeriel** suspicious at that point. Partial quote (click the link for the whole post): > [@amrussell](#): > > Three points about this post. One- it’s generally quite wishy-washy - I’ve got suspicions, but I’m not placing a vote, I could either way on \*\*Nanook \*\*etc. Note in particular why \*\*Zeriel \*\*is unwilling to vote **Nanook**. Is this whole post just deliberate fence-sitting? > Two- the last sentence looks to be pushing for a role-claim. Does town really want more of these? > Three - no direct mention of **Kat** ’s accusation, or attempt at defence. But the vote is dropped nonetheless, for unclear reasons. Dropping a vote under pressure while being unwilling to engage in debate about one’s posts strikes me as being a touch scummy. Even more so when you’ve previously [declared](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407657&postcount=433): > > (my bolding) Day 2 timeline: Post 649 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10424983&postcount=649](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10424983&postcount=649) I vote **Zeriel** to see if he will actually address my issue of his misrepresentation of **Hero** ’s stance, since he hadn’t done so when he unvoted. Post 663 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10427103&postcount=663](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10427103&postcount=663) **amrussell** votes **zeriel** , linking to his Day 1 post, and giving a shortlist of the reasons. Post 667 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10427462&postcount=667](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10427462&postcount=667) > [@Zeriel](#): > > 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. Could be true, could be an after-the-fact justification. The fact that he makes no effort to address **amrussell** ’s other issues leads me to suspect he’s making an after-the-fact justification, but he could have an excuse for not elaborating, so… Post 763 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430862&postcount=763](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430862&postcount=763) I ask him why he didn’t just give that reason in his unvote post, instead of the vague “he’s dropped on my suspicion list” (which **zeriel** now seems to be asserting is me demanding an apology?) Post 764, 765, 766 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430882&postcount=764](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430882&postcount=764) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430888&postcount=765](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430888&postcount=765) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430892&postcount=766](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430892&postcount=766) Three posts in a row by **zeriel** , no response to my question, but perhaps he didn’t get a chance to read it yet, as those are all within 10 minutes of my post. Post 779, 780 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10431373&postcount=779](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10431373&postcount=779) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10431377&postcount=780](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10431377&postcount=780) Still no answer to my question (or response to any of **amrussell** ’s suspicions). Post 809, 810, 821, 838, 888 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433180&postcount=809](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433180&postcount=809) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433186&postcount=810](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433186&postcount=810) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433663&postcount=821](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433663&postcount=821) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10434258&postcount=838](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10434258&postcount=838) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10435566&postcount=888](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10435566&postcount=888) Same I’m’a stop linking Day 2 posts about here, but if **zeriel** did answer my specific question, he can surely reply and link. Day 3 timeline: Post 1060: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10451504&postcount=1060](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10451504&postcount=1060) I vote for **zeriel** , in a somewhat frustrated attempt to get an answer to the question. (And really, at this point, I feel like **Mad**.) Post 1120 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10456749&postcount=1120](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10456749&postcount=1120) > [@Zeriel](#): > > Point One: Kat, lose your hard-on, okay? I re-read to catch up, and Hero’s clarified position was clarified, so I unvoted. So, really, at this point, I’m leaning so far towards “justification for backing off under pressure” that I’ve fallen over. Because I’ve already read that he unvoted because he’d misunderstood **Hero** ’s position. My question was why he didn’t make the effort to explain at the time of the unvote what made **Hero** less suspicious. And now, Post 1220 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10469876&postcount=1220](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10469876&postcount=1220) **zeriel** is misrepresenting _my_ position as (paraphrased ) “suspecting him for voting, realizing he was wrong, unvoting and not offering an apology”, when it’s really for voting using an accusation completely the opposite of the accused actual position, not responding to suspicions on himself for same, unvoting without reason under pressure, not responding to questions about his belated unvote reasoning, with a side of also not responding to at least one other person’s suspicions not related to the voting/unvoting. And the reluctance to acknowledge the questions and suspicions are what’s weighing heavily on me, not the original alleged misunderstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1243 "2008-11-20T02:07:16Z")
That’s a pretty nice house of cards you have there, Kat. Your suspicions are so pointless they don’t merit a response–I’m not the only one who misinterpreted Hero’s position. Have you contributed ANYTHING memorable except this witch hunt? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1244 "2008-11-20T02:14:23Z")
As usual, the town is wasting a lot of time on the early few days “hunting scum” based on minutiae. I don’t have any suggestions for what to do differently except to point out that it almost never works–there are a lot of early lynches based on “scummy behavior” that really isn’t, and we end up with three-four days of lynched townies before something breaks the game out of it. ---
**Author:** ![ok11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8baadc/32.png) [@ok11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ok11)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1245 "2008-11-20T02:34:42Z")
> [@Rapier42](#): > > \*I shouldn’t have mentioned your name, ok11, because I didn’t find anything, so what I really did there was smudge you for no reason. Many apologies. (Resizing mine) It’s no problem at all, because I don’t even consider it a smudge. AFAIK, there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But if there is, I owe several people an apology as well. I just wish toDay would end already, because it looks like everyone could use a break from the game. ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1246 "2008-11-20T02:55:04Z")
The absolute latest the game can last is 2 AM friday right? ---
**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 20, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1247 "2008-11-20T03:00:28Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > The absolute latest the game can last is 2 AM friday right? 3AM, I think. We started at 3AM Saturday. I’d be in favor of an early sunset. It doesn’t feel like we’re making a lot of positive headway. ---
**Author:** ![Kat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kat)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1248 "2008-11-20T03:28:30Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > That’s a pretty nice house of cards you have there, Kat. Your suspicions are so pointless they don’t merit a response–I’m not the only one who misinterpreted Hero’s position. I did find a post by **pedescribe** that looks like he interpreted **Hero** as being anti-Mason-claim, but then again, **ped** didn’t vote for him over it. Post 357 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10402054&postcount=357](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10402054&postcount=357) > [@pedescribe](#): > > The advantage of the masons is that they can confirm themselves and each other. I’m not sure why you keep saying there’s some “endgame advantage”. If anything, it’s a disadvantage to hold out the mason claim, because you need to have two masons alive (or, in this case, particular masons alive) in order to confirm the claim. On the other hand, both **[Boozy](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10402673&postcount=369)** and **[JSexton](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10403051&postcount=372)** were anti-Mason-claim (and more explicitly so than **Hero** ) and you didn’t FOS, question or even make a comment to them about it. Hmmm…even **[pedescribe](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10403072&postcount=373)** was for holding off the claim a bit. Obviously, **ped** was a claimed Mason at the time, but why did **Boozy** and **JSexton** get a pass for the same behavior? > [@](#): > > Have you contributed ANYTHING memorable except this witch hunt? Well, _I_ remember most of what I posted. As for if any of it was memorable to other people, you’ll have to ask them. ---
**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 20, 2008, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1249 "2008-11-20T03:30:18Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Not to harp, Shadow, but you got a reason there for not re-establishing your vote? Protecting Hal, maybe? It seems scummy as \*\*peeker’\*\*s gym socks, on the surface, but I’m wondering if he’s really just freaking out, or trying to pull a **zuma**? ---
**Author:** ![Rapier42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90db22/32.png) [@Rapier42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rapier42)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1250 "2008-11-20T03:31:18Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > I know you’re busy - can you post this analysis today? Well, I mentioned above, but I didn’t find anything worth writing home about. I agree that there may be pointers there, but I don’t feel there’s enough there to act on by itself. If one of Hal or Zeriel was being protected, that’ll be apparent enough, maybe as soon as Tonight. > [@Kat](#): > > Why certainly. I appreciate that, ma’am. Things get lost in my head when stretched out over a couple weeks like this. ---
**Author:** ![Kat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kat)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1251 "2008-11-20T03:33:51Z")
> [@](#): > > (and more explicitly so than **Hero** ) Explanation: No one interpreted their posts as being pro-Mason-claim (although **Boozy** ’s wasn’t explicitly anti-Mason-claim, but more (paraphrase) “anti-Mason-claim != anti-Town”) that I saw, whereas several people interpreted **Hero** ’s as being pro-Mason-claim, and he agreed with that interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Total\_Lost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e56c9b/32.png) [@Total\_Lost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Total_Lost)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1252 "2008-11-20T13:16:36Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > but I’m wondering if he’s really just freaking out, or trying to pull a **zuma**? What is a **zuma**?? ---
**Author:** ![ok11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8baadc/32.png) [@ok11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ok11)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1253 "2008-11-20T13:35:10Z")
> [@Total\_Lost](#): > > What is a **zuma**?? I think it’s a reference to the [Top Dog thing](http://wiki.flyingcowofdoom.com/mafiaWiki/Top_Dog) (see **NAF** , I’m using the Wiki). When people figured out he’s scum, he [started voting](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8918250#post8918250) for different players. ---
**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 20, 2008, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1254 "2008-11-20T13:36:36Z")
In the early-morning lull, I’m going to take a look at **Fretful Porpentine**. The first point, and a large factor in choosing her, is that she’s got only a few posts to review. She has mentioned that RL family stuff is intruding (on Day One). **Day One** Voted for peeker, giving the following reasons and response to challenges: > [@Fretful\_Porpentine](#): > > Sorry. I meant to get a vote in, but between the election and some RL family stuff, I haven’t had much time or mental energy to devote to Mafia. > > Playing a hunch, because the bizarre posting style and unprompted, unconfirmable roll claim are rubbing me the wrong way, I shall > > **vote peekercpa** > > … although I suspect this will change if I get any better ideas before Nightfall. > [@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. > [@Fretful\_Porpentine](#): > > 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. As an admitted weak Day One vote, there’s not much to look at here. The justification of the vote does seem to shift in favour of peeker’s roleclaim under challenging, but I see that as a null tell. (I.e., a town player irked by peeker would have just as much reason to emphasise the more rational part of the case) More dog in the night stuff - these were the last posts in Day One, so no comment on the main suspects. **Day Two** [Votes \*\*Blam \*\*](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10431343#post10431343)on the grounds that he’s in danger of getting mod-killed for absence and it’d be better not to risk losing info. In the same post, defends JSexton as probably town, because his gambit is too attention-grabbing for scum. [Unvotes **Blam**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10434987#post10434987), with no new vote. Admits she has no idea who to vote for. This could be signficiant. We’ve made a lot of play about who voted for who yesterDay: leaving a vote off the table at at crucial time (votes between Zeriel and JSexton were tied at this point) can have just as great an influence on the outcome/ Obviously we can’t read anything into this now, but it may become worth looking at. Other Day 2 posts mainly concerned Nanook: Fretful was in favour of keeping him alive, as she thought town would be more likely to out themselves than scum or PFK. Again, I’m mildly suspicous of posters who talked more about Nanook than they did about voting, because it strikes me as a safer conversation for scum to get involved in. **Day Three** [Reviews \*\*JSextons \*\*posts](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10451947#post10451947); [mentions](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10451987#post10451987)that she finds Hal and Pleonast’s votes suspicious. Later votes [Pleo](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10456740#post10456740), then unvotes in favour of [Hal](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10461766#post10461766), in order to make her vote effective. If we disregard the fact that there’s very little to go on, there’s very little to go on. However, I’m not sure how far we can disregard that. Day Two showed some definite anti-town behaviour as a direct consequence of low posting levels. By contrast Day 3’s contributions are more on point, with votes and reasons. FWIW, I’m leaning slightly town, mainly based on Day Three, but eyebrows raised maybe half a notch by Day Two. ---
**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 20, 2008, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1255 "2008-11-20T13:42:25Z")
> [@Total\_Lost](#): > > What is a **zuma**?? It’s that guy that did that thing in that game that time. IIRC, he was left high and dry as exposed scum after a gambit didn’t come off. So he started throwing votes out everywhere mainly for fun but partly to spread confusion. I’m not sure what the exact parallel Santo sees is though - ShadowFacts is not busted, nor even vote-leader, and quite conceivably not scum. Santo? ---
**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 20, 2008, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1256 "2008-11-20T15:09:03Z")
Something I was looking for toDay, which may have been too obvious was another attempt to save one of our candidates. I really haven’t seen one. While there are several people who have jumped from the **Jsexton** lynch over to **Z** I don’t see them as trying to save **Hal**. This could be because we noticed it yerterDay and they don’t want to out more or it could be because they are happy with the two candidates. I don’t understand all of the attention **Shadow** is getting while he may not have included every possible candidate into his analysis I mainly view it as looking at a small part trying to see a pattern. As he continues to garner suspicion I’m starting to wonder about the people hounding him but I don’t think that it will matter until toMarrow. ---
**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 20, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1257 "2008-11-20T15:28:19Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > It’s that guy that did that thing in that game that time. > > IIRC, he was left high and dry as exposed scum after a gambit didn’t come off. So he started throwing votes out everywhere mainly for fun but partly to spread confusion. I’m not sure what the exact parallel Santo sees is though - ShadowFacts is not busted, nor even vote-leader, and quite conceivably not scum. Santo? Well, now I see your point about people not answering for others. I was simply referring to, how when he was being voted for in Batman, he freaked out and we haven’t seen him since. **ShadowFacts** seems to be going a bit over the top with his replies, in a way that seems more extreme than I would generally expect from him. ---
**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 20, 2008, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1258 "2008-11-20T16:47:12Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > Well, now I see your point about people not answering for others. Ha! That’s what I was aiming for _all along_. Honest. > [@](#): > > I was simply referring to, how when he was being voted for in Batman, he freaked out and we haven’t seen him since. **ShadowFacts** seems to be going a bit over the top with his replies, in a way that seems more extreme than I would generally expect from him. Batman, eh? I don’t know if he’s going that OTT - I’m sure I’ve seen a few other players stamp their feet with a self-vote. Once again, conversation seems to have stalled. Voting certainly has. I suppose in some ways it’s good that we’ve reached a consensus, although I do WIFOM on why scum are letting the status quo be. Picking up from Oredigger: toDay’s voting and conversation have been largely driven by an analysis of yesterDay’s vote patterns. Whether this analysis is good or bad, we can expect scum to be cautious about voting now that we’ve drawn attention to it. That is, if we have accurately fingered scum (unpleasant though that sounds) , those self-same scum will respond to that toDay. So they are maybe a touch more likely to try to appear different. In this case, that would mean bussing scum rather than protecting them, or making throw-away votes. I am putting this hypothesis forwards as a) only a slight tendency, not a guarantee and b) predicated on our analysis being right. If we’re wrong, scum will be still be alerted to the fact that we’re looking hard at votes (rather than, say, post analysis) and it will still affect their behaviour, but it’s harder to guess how. There’s probably a slightly greater incentive not to make stand out votes e.g. “tie-breaking” or lead-widening. Whether this helps us or not, I can’t say. Lastly, it seemed very obvious to a lot of players that scum were in fact manipulating the vote yesterDay. Being that obvious clearly involves a risk - what made it worth it? ---
**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 20, 2008, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1259 "2008-11-20T18:01:58Z")
While Scum may try to keep a low a profile when voting, if the Town is doing anything close to a reasonable\* job at hunting, Scum cannot simply vote as the Town would. That will lead to their loss. This is why I like to concentrate on the voting record. It’s what matters at the end of the Day. But like any other approach, we should not be overly reliant on it. We need to keep diverse methods of seeking Scum. I enjoy doing a vote analysis, so I do it. Other players should do their own analyses, of votes, or posts, or whatever else. And I hope we have disagreements, because that’s more grist for the mills of analysis. Oh, thank you **amrussel** for posting your thoughts, since it seems likely you or **Oredigger** are most likely to be targeted ToNight. I hope **Ore** can post something substantial before the Dusk, too. \*If Town is not doing a reasonable job, it hardly matters how Scum vote–we’re going to lose anyway. ---
**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 20, 2008, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198/1260 "2008-11-20T21:46:55Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > Picking up from Oredigger: toDay’s voting and conversation have been largely driven by an analysis of yesterDay’s vote patterns. Whether this analysis is good or bad, we can expect scum to be cautious about voting now that we’ve drawn attention to it. That is, if we have accurately fingered scum (unpleasant though that sounds) , those self-same scum will respond to that toDay. So they are maybe a touch more likely to try to appear different. In this case, that would mean bussing scum rather than protecting them, or making throw-away votes. I am putting this hypothesis forwards as a) only a slight tendency, not a guarantee and b) predicated on our analysis being right. > > If we’re wrong, scum will be still be alerted to the fact that we’re looking hard at votes (rather than, say, post analysis) and it will still affect their behaviour, but it’s harder to guess how. There’s probably a slightly greater incentive not to make stand out votes e.g. “tie-breaking” or lead-widening. Whether this helps us or not, I can’t say. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Oh, thank you **amrussel** for posting your thoughts, since it seems likely you or **Oredigger** are most likely to be targeted ToNight. I hope **Ore** can post something substantial before the Dusk, too. Now that everyone has voted we seem set on our course so there is less talk. I do wonder why there aren’t any last minute vote changes but it is probably due to fear of vote analysis. I think that there is a good chance that the scum are happy with the way things are looking; Zeriel : 5 (Kat, Boozahol Squid P.I., Pleonast, Amrussell, Blaster Master) Hal Briston : 4 (ShadowFacts, Zsofia, Oredigger77, Fretful Porpentine) ShadowFacts : 3 (Hero from Sector 7G, Hal Briston, Rapier42) Boozahol Squid P.I. : 1 (Santo Rugger) Hero from Sector 7G : 1 (Total Lost) ok11 : 1 (One and Only Wanderers) Blaster Master : 1 (Zeriel) OAOW : 1 (Ok11) After going back and looking over the voting I have to wonder why **Santo** is still voting for Boozy it was originally a vote due to the misconstruing of his role but seriously at this point I think there has been enough to at least see that nothing is going to be accomplished with that vote. But considering that **Z** can save himself by voting for **Hal** I think we need every vote on one of the leaders to ensure that the consensus candidate is lynched. Along with the fact that **Z** is not voting to save himself should be a question of why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-mafia/470198.md?page=64)