# Thundercats Mafia Gameplay Thread \[Game Over\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [April 21, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228 "2011-04-21T14:28:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/61 "2011-04-22T18:04:32Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > In other words, the Unique Vanilla claim plan gives a tiny advantage if there are three scum and fewer than three UVs, and a tiny detriment if there are 4 UVs, assuming random play on all parts and that scum can’t meaningfully influence the town vote. Those are both, historically, very bad assumptions. Yes, both assumptions are necessary to calculate odds in a simple way, but also not very realistic. The math I’ve presented should be used as a guide in assessing the relative differences in target selection success for each team with and without the information on who the Vanillas are. Other factors that are missing are (a) the fact that even if the scum don’t NK the power roles, Town still loses more masons with a Vanilla claim than without and (b) the fact that the Cop’s true value is in his/her multi-Day survival: even if he/she doesn’t find any scum, they can confirm several Townspeople without having to reveal any role info to the scum team. Caveat to this is the presence of a Godfather, of course, but until we are down to one scum the Cop’s results will at least help flush out the others. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/62 "2011-04-22T18:21:09Z")
I’ve read through Day one several times now and the person who currently strikes me as the scummiest is **glowacks**. His first post seems a bit self-consciously Townie: he points out how scummy **Tom** ’s suggestion is but then virtuously notes that he doesn’t want to risk a misvote. He gets called on it by **Red Skeezix** and argues why he shouldn’t place a weak vote. However, a scum player wouldn’t want to be caught waffling and would scramble to get a vote down so he can later point out what a nice active Townie he is, so shortly thereafter he decides to come to the defense of a hapless Town semi-newbie (me) against mean old **Astral Rejection**. It all smells of trying to build a defensible vote record more than anything else. Putting a second or third vote is the cliche scum maneuver, so instead you make sure you plant the first vote on someone early. Everything he has done so far feels like how I’d act if I were scum. [vote]vote glowacks[/vote] ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/63 "2011-04-22T18:22:10Z")
Oh, nutsack. I promise I will eventually remember to use the color tags correctly, provided the game goes to at least Day Twenty. **vote glowacks** ---
**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:** [April 22, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/64 "2011-04-22T18:38:36Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > This is exactly why you come across as scummy–mechanistic, rules-based play is scummy. Period. It leaves us no method to evaluate you, since you can say “I always follow these rules, scum or town.” This makes no sense at all. Town players should do things that help the town. It doesn’t matter if it’s “mechanistic” or not–helping the the town is good for town. If scum players do the same things, things that help town, it still helps the town. It seems like you’re saying you demand players to give scum tells when they’re scum. While it’s nice when they do, it seems silly to call out players who aren’t giving scum tells. I don’t see how that’s productive for finding scum. I’m really baffled. You’re telling me “play worse, **Pleonast** ”. Why would I ever do that? > [@](#): > > You can just say “Vote X, and Y and Z are also acceptable candidates”, instead of doing a thing that is both against the rules and has the potential to make official count posts not reflective of actual events. What’s against the rules? The moderator has described how votes are counted or not. I’m simply following those (now clarified) rules. **vote Zeriel** 1. For jumping on a player who suggested an idea. Scum prefer the town talk less. Discouraging players from stating their ideas prevents the town from effectively planning. 2. For not explaining why the idea itself is blatantly scummy. All the players commenting on **Tom** ’s suggestion find some merit to it, but not enough to justify the risk. 3. For admitting to avoiding the thread. Scum don’t like to stick their necks out. An easy way to accomplish that is waiting until someone else has done so and then attack them. 4. For complaining that I’m not giving any tells. Okay, I’m not seeing much of a scum motivation for this, except for possibly trying to get players to play stupidly. 5. For attacking my play style rather than addressing the points I’m voting them for. Scum don’t want to discuss themselves or their actions, they want to turn the attention on other players. > [@Giraffe](#): > > It all smells of trying to build a defensible vote record more than anything else. Putting a second or third vote is the cliche scum maneuver, so instead you make sure you plant the first vote on someone early. Everything he has done so far feels like how I’d act if I were scum. Paraphrased: because **glowacks** is not voting like scum, they must be scum. :dubious: How are we ever going to improve our play as group when players get voted for improving their play? No wonder town always seems to flounder. ---
**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:** [April 22, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/65 "2011-04-22T18:43:13Z")
Since the rules require us to break our discussion into different posts if they contain votes, here we are: **vote Mahaloth** 1. For jumping on a player who suggested an idea. Scum prefer the town talk less. Discouraging players from stating their ideas prevents the town from effectively planning. 2. For not explaining why the idea itself is scummy. All the players commenting on **Tom** ’s suggestion find some merit to it, but not enough to justify the risk. Calling something “obvious” is avoiding explanation, an easy way for scum to reduce scrutiny. **Zeriel** has jumped ahead in my suspicion list, so that vote gets priority, but **Mahaloth** ’s vote with minimal explanation is still worthy of attention. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/66 "2011-04-22T18:45:00Z")
Current vote tallies (with voter(s), in chronological order): **glowacks: 2 (Red Skeezix, Giraffe) Tom Scud: 2 (Mahaloth, Zeriel)** Astral Rejection: 1 (glowacks) Giraffe: 1 (Astral Rejection) Zeriel: 1 (Pleonast) Votes will be final when Night 1 begins on Monday at 10am CST. Votes cast today, by player (in post number): 1. Astral Rejection - Giraffe (39) 2. glowacks - Astral Rejection (55) 3. Pleonast - Zeriel (64) 4. Zeriel - Tom Scud (37) 5. Mahaloth - Tom Scud (34) 6. Normal Phase 7. special ed - [del]Pleonast[/del] (33) 8. Red Skeezix - glowacks (41) 9. Giraffe - glowacks (63) 10. pedescribe 11. fubbleskag 12. Tom Scud 13. Sir T-Cups 14. Wolverine ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/67 "2011-04-22T18:54:26Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Paraphrased: because **glowacks** is not voting like scum, they must be scum. :dubious: Did you read my post? I’m not voting for him because he didn’t vote like scum, I’m voting for him because his posts and votes so far have pinged me more than anyone else’s as being scum-like. Scumminess is about more than how one votes, it’s about how one argues for or against a vote and what induces one to vote. It’s obviously not an air tight case, but in my opinion it’s the best vote I can make at this time. > [@](#): > > How are we ever going to improve our play as group when players get voted for improving their play? No wonder town always seems to flounder. Speaking of cliched scum actions, hoo boy. In my first game ever, I did a lot of “hey guys, I just want us to come together and the best possible decision as a group” speech-making and almost got lynched for it before claiming Cop. I was (of course) scum. Everyone’s antennas immediately went up, and with good reason. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/68 "2011-04-22T19:10:28Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Oh, nutsack. I promise I will eventually remember to use the color tags correctly, provided the game goes to at least Day Twenty. > > **vote glowacks** It took me at least three Days to get this right in my first game (LOTR mafia), so you’re in good company! 😃 > [@Mahaloth](#): > > Astral: > > 1. Tom later adds that he is now re-thinking his plan, which sounded like a back off(or downplaying anyway). > > 2. He also throws in “moving on” and tries to change the subject a bit later. > > I’m leaving my vote on Tom for the time being. You’re ignoring the crux of my problem with your vote. I ask you to clarify why it’s “obviously stupid” and “pro-scum.” I don’t believe his suggestion was either of those things. > [@glowacks](#): > > It’s true that it’s possible that he’s a vanilla or something and didn’t consider the ramifications of his plan. > [@glowacks](#): > > I see Tom as either one of 3 scum, or a member of a Masonry that wants to potentially leverage their numbers by increasing the number of confirmed Town. It’s good that you’re acknowledging your certainty that you’d found scum or mason maybe isn’t as solid as it seemed, but you’re not addressing why you were _so certain_ he was a scum or mason. If he’s, say, Wilykat or Wilykit, you’ve just killed not only him but his partner, too. Seems to me if you were so certain he’s a mason, the smart **town** move would be to _stay silent on that matter._ Good job fishing, buddy. **Unvote Giraffe.** **Vote Glowacks.** > [@glowacks](#): > > Why should the moderator have bothered with cover roles when there are generic vanillas for scum to claim? Since cover roles were not addressed in the rules, I find their existence rather unlikely. If scum were told which roles were not being used, that seems to be a bit of an unfair extension of their information advantage. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, so perhaps the fact that he didn’t address this point could be seen as a mistake in some sense, but I don’t see it as a particularly egregious one. He could have just assumed the above argument was obvious and didn’t need to be stated. Weren’t you just scum in a game where cover roles were issued, but not mentioned in the game rules? > [@Giraffe](#): > > Well, then just lynch me now, because I’m never going to confine myself to posting nothing but perfectly-worded and extensively thought out posts. I do a lot of thinking aloud, which you seemed in favor of at the start of your post. I think it’s stifling to call that scummy. I’m not asking you to word everything perfectly. However, I’ve found a reliable (though by no means foolproof) indicator of scumminess is an interest in discussing game mechanics rather than other players. Last game, I prodded Guiri for doing exactly that, and Guiri **overreacted,** spending the rest of the game trying to get me lynched. Guiri was scum. The vote was a prod, and Guiri took the bait and ran with it. You can claim that you were just “thinking aloud,” and accusing me of trying to stifle you, but what exactly are you saying in your first post? You hate day 1, it sucks, it’s hard, we never know what to do, and your vote will suck. It struck me as hedging your vote before you’ve even made one. It earned a silly day 1 vote that likely wasn’t even going to stay around (note how I’ve already unvoted you and moved on to glowacks?), but you **overreacted.** And that’s put you firmly on my radar. > [@Giraffe](#): > > Instead of smuding me for making a case you disagree with You miss the point again. I _agree_ with your case, I just disagree with your conclusion. The math, when I read it, seemed right. I know you’ve corrected a flaw that changes the numbers somewhat, but 40% on a sound plan didn’t seem half bad. My suggestion, above the part where I’m talking about you, suggests we do exactly what you say, except on Day 2 instead of now (depending, of course, on the game state toMorrow). > [@glowacks](#): > > I don’t get this. In what way does making a an argument about the trade-offs involved in the plan indicate a scum leaning? Just because it might be something that a scum might do? Are we only “allowed” to make extremely firm arguments as town, even if we don’t believe them? Can we not say exactly what’s on our minds, along with the thought process that led to them? > > I’m not saying that the analysis was 100% complete, but it wasn’t like he did pages worth but forgot one point that made it all moot. The calculation needed to figure out a naive estimate of the change in win percentage given a claim is quite involved, particularly because we don’t have a clue what the role distribution is or even have any idea about their probability distribution. The calculation was pretty quick and simple, and showed exactly what the problem with the vanilla claim was. Making the argument was fine. The maths were fine. I even liked the idea. I had an issue with his conclusion. 40% is so fantastically amazing for a Day 1 chance that it’s absolutely worth discussing further. I’d expect to see a town player say something like “Given this, is this something we might want to pursue? What have I missed? Can we leverage anything else to give us a stronger chance at finding scum?” I’d expect positivity, because 40% is **good odds.** Instead, I got this: > [@Giraffe](#): > > It’s not without benefit for Town, but it doesn’t seem like those benefits are worth the risk to the power players. Negativity. It’s phrased in an unconsciously negative way. It’s not without benefits =/= It has benefits. There’s never a smoking gun in this game. Especially on Day 1, I’m looking for tiny clues. You’re telling me you don’t find it a _tiny_ bit suspicious that someone posits a plan with a supposed 40% chance of success, where not following the plan offers at best a 28% chance of success, and then summarily dismisses said plan? > [@glowacks](#): > > I’m with **pedescribe** that I think 4 scum in 14 players would be heavily in the scum’s favor and necessitate a large number of power roles that would be hard to balance around a mass claim, especially given the lack of scum power roles besides godfather. I’m inclined to believe a minimum of power roles for Town and 3 scum Believe what you want, but what is the town benefit to assuming a smaller pool of scum? > [@glowacks](#): > > Finally, Astral was all about supporting Tom’s supposedly bad plan because of how much talk helped Town Your words, not mine. I built my own case on how it might help us. I supported Zeriel’s vote on him, because it was reasonable. Disliking Mahaloth’s vote =/= supporting Tom Scud’s idea. You’re misrepresenting me. > [@Zeriel](#): > > In other words, the Unique Vanilla claim plan gives a tiny advantage if there are three scum and fewer than three UVs, and a tiny detriment if there are 4 UVs, assuming random play on all parts and that scum can’t meaningfully influence the town vote. Those are both, historically, very bad assumptions. > > I also don’t think we can assume that we have 3 scum. I have seen games with worse balance than 4/14 scum, and that doesn’t even count the idea that we have no idea what power roles might be out there. In my opinion, any strategy that implicitly or explicitly depends on having 3 scum, prior to our definitive knowledge of how many scum there actually are, is prima fascie an anti-town plan. Zeriel has said exactly what I would have said. Thanks for doing my work for me, Zeriel! 😃 Sorry my posts are so enormous all the time. I have to play this game in chunks because of my schedule. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/69 "2011-04-22T19:14:08Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > “Please unvote prior to placing a new vote or the new vote will be ignored”, only comes into play if you make a valid vote then later vote again. In that case, the second attempted vote (and any subsequent) is ignored entirely as invalid; it is as if they did not occur. This is intended to encourage people to properly and unambiguously unvote and to keep track of their votes. > Invalid votes will not be counted on the official tallies. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Since the rules require us to break our discussion into different posts if they contain votes, here we are: > **vote Mahaloth** Stop doing things that are game-mechanically invalid. It is a distraction, and distractions are (as you’ve asserted) scummy. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/70 "2011-04-22T19:15:56Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > How are we ever going to improve our play as group when players get voted for improving their play? No wonder town always seems to flounder. Your play is not universally understood to be an improvement. Several aspects of your play (mechanistic votes, deliberately ignoring voting conventions and rules in service of your idiosyncratic ideas about accountability) are distracting and (in the former case) actively anti-town. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/71 "2011-04-22T19:18:20Z")
I was rereading my big-ass post in case I made a mistake, and something jumped out at me: > [@glowacks](#): > > I see Tom as either one of 3 scum Prior to this post, Giraffe has posited 3 or 4 scum. Pedescribe suggests 3 unless we have a lot of power roles. And then glowacks posts it as if it’s certainty. Scum slip? Maybe. Since I’m voting for him already, I’ll just add this to the pile. ---
**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:** [April 22, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/72 "2011-04-22T19:50:31Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Did you read my post? I’m not voting for him because he didn’t vote like scum, I’m voting for him because his posts and votes so far have pinged me more than anyone else’s as being scum-like. Scumminess is about more than how one votes, it’s about how one argues for or against a vote and what induces one to vote. Yes, but your issue “trying to build a defensible vote record more than anything else” does not support **glowacks** being scum. We want players to have a defensible vote record. Doing so forces scum to vote like town, rather than like scum. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Stop doing things that are game-mechanically invalid. Your brush is too broad: anything in this thread that is not a valid vote is game-mechanically invalid. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Your play is not universally understood to be an improvement. Several aspects of your play (mechanistic votes, deliberately ignoring voting conventions and rules in service of your idiosyncratic ideas about accountability) are distracting and (in the former case) actively anti-town. Well, everything is up for debate and we obviously disagree. At least I am discussing the issues, unlike you who has still not addressed any of the points I’m voting you for. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I was rereading my big-ass post in case I made a mistake, and something jumped out at me: > > > [@glowacks](#): > > > > I see Tom as either one of 3 scum > > Prior to this post, Giraffe has posited 3 or 4 scum. Pedescribe suggests 3 unless we have a lot of power roles. > > And then glowacks posts it as if it’s certainty. Scum slip? Maybe. Since I’m voting for him already, I’ll just add this to the pile. I thought you might have a catch, but if you read the context: > [@glowacks](#): > > I think it’s not a particularly great idea that could easily have come from scum, particularly if there are 3 and very few town powers, but don’t see it necessarily as such. I see Tom as either one of 3 scum, or a member of a Masonry that wants to potentially leverage their numbers by increasing the number of confirmed Town. I really don’t have a clue which. I view the early voters with a slight amount of suspicion, but recognize that folks are looking at whatever they can for Day 1 votes and that the scum could just be sitting back and relaxing for now. Their statement is following the hypothetical “if there are 3”, so I don’t see anything unusual in the part you quoted. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/73 "2011-04-22T19:58:33Z")
**Pleonast** , as a newer player I’d like to make a personal request that you don’t purposely cast multiple votes. I understand the reasoning behind your desire to do so, and that it’s technically within the rules, etc. but if you could find it in your heart to stop, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance! ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/74 "2011-04-22T20:00:54Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > You can claim that you were just “thinking aloud,” and accusing me of trying to stifle you, but what exactly are you saying in your first post? You hate day 1, it sucks, it’s hard, we never know what to do, and your vote will suck. It struck me as hedging your vote before you’ve even made one. It earned a silly day 1 vote that likely wasn’t even going to stay around (note how I’ve already unvoted you and moved on to glowacks?), but you **overreacted.** And that’s put you firmly on my radar. Go back and reread the first paragraph you wrote about my first post – you may not have intended it as such, but it seemed like a pretty big smudge for an unremarkable fluff post. It was the strength of your language (“instantly jumped out at me” and “all kinds of scummy”) that made me describe your comment as stifling, not the fact that you were probing my posts or putting a vote on me. > [@](#): > > You miss the point again. I _agree_ with your case, I just disagree with your conclusion. The math, when I read it, seemed right. I know you’ve corrected a flaw that changes the numbers somewhat, but 40% on a sound plan didn’t seem half bad. My suggestion, above the part where I’m talking about you, suggests we do exactly what you say, except on Day 2 instead of now (depending, of course, on the game state toMorrow). If you agree with the case, it’s helpful to note that somewhere. Again, reread your post – to me, it looked like you jumped on the 40% number to the exclusion of everything else I posted, and then wagged a finger at me for arguing against such a patently wonderful case before dropping a vote on me. That’s not a pro-Town style of arguing, in my opinion. > [@](#): > > Making the argument was fine. The maths were fine. I even liked the idea. I had an issue with his conclusion. 40% is so fantastically amazing for a Day 1 chance that it’s absolutely worth discussing further. I’d expect to see a town player say something like “Given this, is this something we might want to pursue? What have I missed? Can we leverage anything else to give us a stronger chance at finding scum?” I’d expect positivity, because 40% is **good odds.** The 40% number was not given in isolation – the 40% number was given in comparison to the no-claim 30% number. So it’s not like I discovered a plan with a 40% success rate and then poo-pooed it, I asked if an increase in our Day 1 success rate was worth the corresponding increase in scum power-killing success rate. Your language suggested that the increase from 30% to 40% was such an obvious win for Town that it was unusual for me not to immediately point it out, but it didn’t/doesn’t seem obvious to me, especially when you consider cumulative effects. Which is why I suggested you should make the case I was missing. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/75 "2011-04-22T20:07:45Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes, but your issue “trying to build a defensible vote record more than anything else” does not support **glowacks** being scum. We want players to have a defensible vote record. Doing so forces scum to vote like town, rather than like scum. Yes, which is why I’ve in no way suggested that players not place defensible votes. Analogy time: if I’m the Highway Patrol trying to catch a fleeing bank robber, should I ignore the guy driving below the speed limit with their hands at 10 and 2? Obviously, I don’t want to discourage regular civilians from driving safely… ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/76 "2011-04-22T20:12:29Z")
So, **Tom** comes in early to suggest a vanilla claim, assuming certain responses to his moderator query, then backs off the idea when he (a) doesn’t get the expected response and (b) gets attacked for his “stupid and/or scummy” idea. Either Tom’s scum, trying to lead town towards a pro-scum idea, or he’s a town with an idea that wasn’t fully fleshed out. If the former, it seems a bit of a risky move for any scum with a power role, so he’s vanilla scum at worst. I was initially suspicious of **glowack’s** support of **Tom’s** plan, if indeed **Tom’s** plan turns out to be anti-town (I haven’t wrapped my head around the number debate going on downthread enough to make that decision). But I think, ultimately, I’m the most bothered at this point by **Mahaloth’s** vote on **Tom**. I’m on my way out the door, and will make an effort to check in several times each day, but for the time being: vote Mahaloth ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/77 "2011-04-22T20:13:30Z")
damnit, sorry: **vote Mahaloth** ---
**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:** [April 22, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/78 "2011-04-22T20:51:25Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Yes, which is why I’ve in no way suggested that players not place defensible votes. But why mention it all then? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I’m about to head out. I doubt I’ll be able to post until Monday, but hopefully before Dusk, although it’s rather early in the day. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/79 "2011-04-22T22:30:58Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > {snip} > > I see Tom as either one of 3 scum, or… > > {snip} **Vote: glowacks** potential scum slip? good enough for Day 1 ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/80 "2011-04-22T22:33:39Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > **Vote: glowacks** > potential scum slip? > > good enough for Day 1 hmm, now I’ve read Pleonast’s clarification of glowack’s post. However, that said, my vote will stand for an equally weak reason. It seems possible that a Scum player might attempr to get us to think there are only 3 Scum. To be honest, 4 Scum seems more likely to me, especially since they will be primarily Vanilla, and it’s quite possible that Town has some power on its side [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228.md?page=5)