# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/141 "2011-04-26T16:08:50Z")
Powers don’t always immediately coincide with known Mafia terms, but I can definitely do alignment from now on. ---
**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 26, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/142 "2011-04-26T16:14:29Z")
Fair enough, thanks! 🙂 ---
**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 26, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/143 "2011-04-26T16:28:30Z")
So I thought **Wolverine** was a bit of a surprising NK target: he only made two posts. One questioning Tom’s mass claim suggestion, and then one dropping a vote on **special ed** with some fairly dubious reasoning. Maybe scum thought he was a Town power trying to lay low? Could be a scum Tom or ed trying to remove those likely to buy a case against them down the road without drawing too much attention, or it could be WIFOM against Tom and/or ed. Puzzling. ToDay I’ve got three people on my radar. **Pleonast** and **Astral Rejection** for being a bit too rah-rah “hey guys let’s all work together to get those bad scummies because I’m just so very Town you see!” And **Normal Phase** for the last minute posting frenzy – some of it felt like activity just for appearance’s sake. But part of this read may be biased by having played with her as scum before where she did the exact same thing – it may just be her posting style to put out all her thoughts on a variety of topics. Of these three, **Pleonast** definitely pinged me the hardest yesterDay, so I’m going to start with a vote and see what happens: **vote Pleonast** ---
**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 26, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/144 "2011-04-26T17:28:22Z")
I want to take a closer look at the votes on **glowacks**. First, we have, > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Furthermore, glowacks post is troubling to me: it’s half smudge and half fishing expedition. The entire post reads like a scum trying to come up with justification for a vote, but not wanting to get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Plus the whole “Tom is either a mason or a scum”. It’s a false dichotomy, based on the assumptions that he’s putting forward. Why are you so concerned if he’s a mason or not? Furthermore Glowacks’s is ignoring the most likely option, that Tom simply didn’t think about all the ramifications of his plan, and it doesn’t imply anything about the role or alignment of Tom Scud. While this is mostly a good vote, it’s interesting that **Red** is making the same fault as **glo** –ignoring the most likely option that the player simply didn’t think it through. I don’t think that is a scum tell. **Red** ’s vote is poor, but seems town-motivated. Second vote: > [@Giraffe](#): > > 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. I’ve already complained about this vote. Our discussion cumulated to this reply: > [@Giraffe](#): > > Yes, which is why I’ve in no way suggested that players not place defensible votes. Apparently, **Giraffe** has no problem with players in general placing defensible votes, only with the particular defensible vote by **glo**. Why go to the trouble of talking about defensible votes, especially when the first paragraph makes fairly pro-town argument? I’m trying to decide if this is a poorly thought argument made by a townie or a pushing over the top by a scum. Third vote: > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > 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. Except for the questionable advice of staying silent about town slips, this is a townie point. Fourth vote: > [@special\_ed](#): > > potential scum slip? > good enough for Day 1 > [@special\_ed](#): > > 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 This vote troubles me greatly. First, jumping on a slip without even checking the context. Then, after reading the context, withdraws that reason, and puts out an admittedly weak one–maybe it wasn’t a slip, but simply scum subtly influencing us. This looks like a lazy, scummy vote to me. There was no shortage of things to vote for YesterDay. This looks like scum trying to get something, anything to put a vote on. **vote special ed** 1. For a lazy reason for a vote (scum slip pointed out by someone else). 2. For simply switching the reason to a weak reason. No apparent effort at all in actually looking for scum. Final vote: > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > I think I’m leaning toward voting for glowacks over Astral, mostly on the strength of the false-dichotomy portion of that one post, backed up by reasoning for the Astral vote that strikes me as missing the point of why Astral is suspicious, and failure to follow up in any meaningful way on an early suggestion that Mahaloth and/or Zeriel might be suspicious for voting for Tom. (And the waffling on that point, too: “scum might be sitting back relaxing”.) Solid pro-town reasoning. If this were earlier in the Day, I’d be giving pro-town credit. But as the last vote in a large pile-on, it looks a lot like scum trying to safely follow the crowd. However, I don’t think it likely that 2 of 5 votes on **glo** were scum (why push hard for a mislynch on Day One?), and **ed** looks like the one to me. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ On preview (work kept interrupting me :p), I see **Giraffe** has voted for me because I pinged them hard. Not much to respond to. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/145 "2011-04-26T17:43:04Z")
On Normal’s late-day filibuster plus vote, I’m inclined to cut her some slack because (1) it WAS a holiday weekend and (2) she mentioned before her absence that she wasn’t going to be available over the weekend. More later; have to do work they pay me for now. ---
**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 26, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/146 "2011-04-26T17:57:18Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I’ve already complained about this vote. Our discussion cumulated to this reply: > > Apparently, **Giraffe** has no problem with players in general placing defensible votes, only with the particular defensible vote by **glo**. Why go to the trouble of talking about defensible votes, especially when the first paragraph makes fairly pro-town argument? I’m trying to decide if this is a poorly thought argument made by a townie or a pushing over the top by a scum. I think you’ll be able to make a better decision about whether it’s a poorly thought out argument if you actually read the argument I made instead of building a strawman. You’ve latched onto my complaint of **glowacks** ’ vote seeming to me to be self-consciously defensible as a complaint of it being defensible at all, which is complete nonsense. My case against him was largely based on insubstantial clues that I thought pointed to a scummy demeanor. I was well aware at the time that these clues were not conclusive, and that **glowacks** could be Town just trying to be Town – I never implied otherwise. Given the limited information, I simply went with the player I thought had the highest probability of flipping scum. I also find it interesting that you’ve started out focusing on the mislynch voters: there’s no reason to assume a Day one mislynch was scum-driven. There could be a scum player among the voters, of course, but even then they can easily be shielded by their scumbuddies focusing attention onto one of the Town mislynch voters. ---
**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 26, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/147 "2011-04-26T18:18:00Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I think you’ll be able to make a better decision about whether it’s a poorly thought out argument if you actually read the argument I made instead of building a strawman. You’ve latched onto my complaint of **glowacks** ’ vote seeming to me to be self-consciously defensible as a complaint of it being defensible at all, which is complete nonsense. You seem to be misreading me. I’m not complaining about the first part of your reasoning. Note my comment “the first paragraph makes [a] fairly pro-town argument”. My complaint about your reasoning is why you even bothered to point out that **glo** ’s vote was defensible. Why didn’t you simply stop with the explanation of why their vote seemed to have a scummy motivation? It looked like you were grasping for additional reasons to vote, but since you’re saying now that defensibility of the vote was not a factor at all, why bother mention it? > [@](#): > > My case against him was largely based on insubstantial clues that I thought pointed to a scummy demeanor. I was well aware at the time that these clues were not conclusive, and that **glowacks** could be Town just trying to be Town – I never implied otherwise. Given the limited information, I simply went with the player I thought had the highest probability of flipping scum. Yes, that’s fine and pro-town, which is why I’m not complaining about that. It makes your second paragraph about **glo** look like scum pushing too hard. > [@](#): > > I also find it interesting that you’ve started out focusing on the mislynch voters: there’s no reason to assume a Day one mislynch was scum-driven. There could be a scum player among the voters, of course, but even then they can easily be shielded by their scumbuddies focusing attention onto one of the Town mislynch voters. Did you miss the part where I said “I don’t think it likely that 2 of 5 votes on **glo** were scum”? I’m working from the premise that the mislynch was not scum driven (I also said “why push hard for a mislynch on Day One?”), but likely to have at least one scum on it. We have two solid pieces of information: **glowacks** ’ and **Wolverine** ’s alignments. I’m making use of the first, by looking at the reasons for the votes on **glo** , given that we now know they were town. Less certain about **Wolv** , since there’s fewer interactions with them. They did vote for **special ed** , and despite some saying it was a scummy vote, we now know the motivation was not. ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/148 "2011-04-26T18:26:00Z")
You should maybe witness how I play as town once or twice, Giraffe, before drawing comparisons to how I play as scum. I don’t think you ever have. In the meantime I’d like you to specify: what of that felt like posting “for appearances’ sake” to you? You’re casting doubt on me for superficial reasons (oh my goodness she posts a lot, that MUST be scum-motivated). Hyperbole out of irritation, I’ve been getting too much of this crap lately, and it gets old. Pleonast, you should know better than this: > [@](#): > > Solid pro-town reasoning. If this were earlier in the Day, I’d be giving pro-town credit. But as the last vote in a large pile-on, it looks a lot like scum trying to safely follow the crowd. However, I don’t think it likely that 2 of 5 votes on glo were scum (why push hard for a mislynch on Day One?), and ed looks like the one to me. Who someone votes for at the end of the day in a situation like this (no chance to influence the outcome, only to comment on it) can in no way be considered a scum tell. There are plausible scum motivations for voting for the vote leader as well as for choosing someone else. For your part, you’re trying to have it both ways on me, there’s no real analysis here, just words. ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/149 "2011-04-26T18:27:48Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Less certain about **Wolv** , since there’s fewer interactions with them. They did vote for **special ed** , and despite some saying it was a scummy vote, we now know the motivation was not. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, here. ---
**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 26, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/150 "2011-04-26T19:05:11Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > You should maybe witness how I play as town once or twice, Giraffe, before drawing comparisons to how I play as scum. I don’t think you ever have. In the meantime I’d like you to specify: what of that felt like posting “for appearances’ sake” to you? You’re casting doubt on me for superficial reasons (oh my goodness she posts a lot, that MUST be scum-motivated). Hyperbole out of irritation, I’ve been getting too much of this crap lately, and it gets old. Fair enough, I should have given at least some specifics. The part that pinged me about your posts was the content that felt a bit like filler. For example, post #109: it doesn’t read as a substantial contribution, but mostly just quibbling with **Red Skeezix** over phrasing and details. Same with the first parts of post #111: lots of quoting of early-in-the-Day statements with corrections to assumptions that don’t have any impact on the resulting votes. Had much of this happened throughout the Day, I probably wouldn’t have even noticed it. But piling it all on at the end looks a bit like trying to make sure you get Town credit for all the pro-Town analysis you’d done. I think of players with limited time to post as having a greater incentive to be seen to be working hard for Town when they’re scum. In my experience, busy Town players tend to focus on reading and then placing a good vote with a quick explanation, not logging a Day’s worth of discussion at the end. But as you say, though, part of this may come from having played with you twice where you were both busy and scum. ---
**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 26, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/151 "2011-04-26T19:20:39Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Who someone votes for at the end of the day in a situation like this (no chance to influence the outcome, only to comment on it) can in no way be considered a scum tell. There are plausible scum motivations for voting for the vote leader as well as for choosing someone else. That was kind of my point. A solid pro-town analysis mid-Day or earlier is especially pro-town because it has time to influence votes. One put in at the very end of the Day, when the lynch is already set is not as helpful. It’s safe. It’s especially safe when it’s on the uncontested vote leader–then it’s following a large group of other players. The very essence of a band-wagon vote. So while the reasoning of your vote was pro-town, the timing of it means I don’t give you any town credit for it. > [@](#): > > > [@Pleonast](#): > > > > Solid pro-town reasoning. If this were earlier in the Day, I’d be giving pro-town credit. But as the last vote in a large pile-on, it looks a lot like scum trying to safely follow the crowd. However, I don’t think it likely that 2 of 5 votes on **glo** were scum (why push hard for a mislynch on Day One?), and **ed** looks like the one to me. > > For your part, you’re trying to have it both ways on me, there’s no real analysis here, just words. I state my reasoning for discounting the towniness of your vote. I state my opinion on how scum-motivated the mislynch was. I state the one player I think stands out as a scummy voter. Nope, nothing to see there. :rolleyes: > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > > [@Pleonast](#): > > > > Less certain about **Wolv** , since there’s fewer interactions with them. They did vote for **special ed** , and despite some saying it was a scummy vote, we now know the motivation was not. > > I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, here. Let me elaborate. **Wolverine** placed one vote and had no votes on them, so there’s not much to analyze, in terms of votes. Their vote was on **special ed**. I haven’t checked who all commented on the vote, but this one sticks in my mind: > [@Zeriel](#): > > That may be the single worst voting rationale that I’ve ever seen posted in a live mafia game. The only reason it’s not a scum tell is that it’s too blatant. We now know for a fact it wasn’t a scum tell. ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/152 "2011-04-26T19:59:26Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Fair enough, I should have given at least some specifics. The part that pinged me about your posts was the content that felt a bit like filler. For example, post #109: it doesn’t read as a substantial contribution, but mostly just quibbling with **Red Skeezix** over phrasing and details. Same with the first parts of post #111: lots of quoting of early-in-the-Day statements with corrections to assumptions that don’t have any impact on the resulting votes. Had much of this happened throughout the Day, I probably wouldn’t have even noticed it. But piling it all on at the end looks a bit like trying to make sure you get Town credit for all the pro-Town analysis you’d done. > > I think of players with limited time to post as having a greater incentive to be seen to be working hard for Town when they’re scum. In my experience, busy Town players tend to focus on reading and then placing a good vote with a quick explanation, not logging a Day’s worth of discussion at the end. But as you say, though, part of this may come from having played with you twice where you were both busy and scum. I didn’t act remotely like Monday morning in either of those games. In one, I was too busy and distracted on a consistent basis to post remotely as I’d have liked to (whether town or scum). In the second, I got hammered on day one due to an ill-advised post that was supposed to come off as a quick-and-easy day one gut instinct vote and completely failed to. You’re setting up this picture of what scum might do and showing how I fit into that picture, but it’s unsupported by my past actions and superficial as regards this one. ---
**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 26, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/153 "2011-04-26T20:07:22Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > IYou’re setting up this picture of what scum might do and showing how I fit into that picture, but it’s unsupported by my past actions and superficial as regards this one. I never said I was any good at this game. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/154 "2011-04-26T20:20:15Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > That was kind of my point. A solid pro-town analysis mid-Day or earlier is especially pro-town because it has time to influence votes. One put in at the very end of the Day, when the lynch is already set is not as helpful. It’s safe. It’s especially safe when it’s on the uncontested vote leader–then it’s following a large group of other players. The very essence of a band-wagon vote. > > So while the reasoning of your vote was pro-town, the timing of it means I don’t give you any town credit for it. Well that much I have no problem with. The problem is that’s not what you said. You said there was a specific scum motivation for voting for glowacks in that situation (following the crowd, blending in). Never mind that there’s just as specific a motivation for _not_ voting glowacks, even irrespective of where the hypothetical other scum might be hiding out. But you’re sure to mention I might really, seriously, be a scummy scum, here. So to sum up your reasoning as regards me: – pro-town – but I won’t give her any credit due to the timing – actually it might have been scum motivated due to the timing Which brings me right back to where I started. You have me as looking townie, neutral and scummy all in the space of a couple of sentences. If that’s not trying to have it both ways/saying nothing with many words, I don’t know what is. That you happen to be voting Ed at the time is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I state my reasoning for discounting the towniness of your vote. I state my opinion on how scum-motivated the mislynch was. I state the one player I think stands out as a scummy voter. > > Nope, nothing to see there. :rolleyes: I have no specific issue with your vote on Ed at this point (that may or may not chance as I get a better handle on things). > [@](#): > > Let me elaborate. > > **Wolverine** placed one vote and had no votes on them, so there’s not much to analyze, in terms of votes. > > Their vote was on **special ed**. I haven’t checked who all commented on the vote, but this one sticks in my mind: > > We now know for a fact it wasn’t a scum tell. Yeah I got that, I’m just unclear why you bothered to mention it at all. Never mind, it’s not an important point. ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/155 "2011-04-26T20:21:20Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I never said I was any good at this game. 😛 Gah. ---
**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 26, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/156 "2011-04-26T20:52:20Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > So to sum up your reasoning as regards me: > – pro-town > – but I won’t give her any credit due to the timing > – actually it might have been scum motivated due to the timing > > Which brings me right back to where I started. You have me as looking townie, neutral and scummy all in the space of a couple of sentences. If that’s not trying to have it both ways/saying nothing with many words, I don’t know what is. That you happen to be voting Ed at the time is irrelevant. Yes, that is my analysis of your vote for **glowacks**. You’re giving mixed signals. Is it better that I ignore the scummy motivations you may have, or is it better that I ignore your pro-town argument? **Giraffe** complains that I’m too selective in my analysis and now you’re complaining that I’m too comprehensive. :shrug: ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/157 "2011-04-26T21:37:02Z")
I’m caught up now and I hope you all won’t mind my weighing in on what’s happened so far. I didn’t think **Tom** ’s suggestion was particularly worrisome. The first thing I really hated was **Giraffe** ’s post 18. Not much to say about it, really, I just agree with **Astral Rejection** that the tone of the post came off as violently suspicious. “So hard to catch the bad guys in this game we’re playing where we have to catch the bad guys.” I wasn’t paying much attention to the game before subbing, but even on a quick breeze through the game at that point it stood out to me. I thought **Mahaloth** ’s vote for **Tom** was terrible, not because he voted for **Tom** but because he more or less fabricated the circumstances upon which he based the vote. **Astral Rejection** addressed that, too, and I agree with that part of that post as well. I’d also note that after that speciously reasoned post with the vote (#34), the entirety of **Mahaloth** ’s contribution for the rest of the day (notwithstanding the aforementioned challenge of it) was to say first that it was “weird reasoning,” then that it seemed like he was backing off and encouraging people to move on, and that **Mahaloth** was leaving his vote for the moment, and then later then to say: > [@](#): > > Hey, I explained my vote. I think Tom is trying to pull out claims from people and I think that is bad. Therefore, the vote. Which, contrary to what he says, and to the extent it even qualifies as a meaningful explanation, is the first time it’s been offered. Nothing else from **Mahaloth** on any other subject. So we got a quick-draw conclusory vote early on, a couple lukewarm affirmations of that vote, and curtain. I don’t like it at all, and I think his failure to weigh in on anything else at all tends to argue against the notion that he was playing a fast and open day 1 kind of style where a silly over-aggressive vote might make more sense. Next, **Pleonast**. This is the first game I’ve been in where I’ve had the opportunity to say so, so I’ll just note in as few words as possible that I think intentionally casting votes some of which will absolutely not count is completely contrary to Town’s interests, and frankly contrary to _everyone’s interests but **Pleonast** _ in the long run. There’s no justification for making things more complicated and introducing noise into the proceedings, and I’m not going to hesitate to lynch for it, and honestly that’s going to just have to be on you, **Pleonast**. Decide who to vote for, and cast as many legitimate votes as you’ve been granted, or you’re interfering with gameplay, not participating in it. End of day one, I’m thinking that **Giraffe** , **Pleonast** , and **Mahaloth** look bad, and so does **Astral Rejection** ’s switching from **Giraffe** to **glowacks** for reasons that don’t seem to me as weighty as the reasons he proffered against the others he mentioned in that big long post that I mostly agreed with. I also think today’s criticisms of **Normal Phase** ’s late analysis is really unfair and doesn’t seem very likely to be a winner in the long run. People post late in the day all the time. I think it’s much more important that the analysis was reasoned and transparent, which it was, than that it happened late in the day. In fact, on this particular day, I don’t see how it made any difference at all when it was posted. So why is it a problem, exactly? More specifically, **Pleonast** , why bother noting that you’re “discounting town credit” for **Normal Phase** based on her time of posting, if you weren’t trying to advance the argument that it was anti-town? Do you always mention things that you _aren’t_ giving town credit for? Most recently: [QUOTE=Pleonast] You’re giving mixed signals. Is it better that I ignore the scummy motivations you may have, or is it better that I ignore your pro-town argument? [/QUOTE] This is not a reasonable defense of what your original post actually said – it actually obscures what your point was further. You said > [@](#): > > Solid pro-town reasoning. If this were earlier in the Day, I’d be giving pro-town credit. But as the last vote in a large pile-on, it looks a lot like scum trying to safely follow the crowd. However, I don’t think it likely that 2 of 5 votes on glo were scum (why push hard for a mislynch on Day One?), and ed looks like the one to me. So, were there scum motivations there or not? Is there a pro-town argument or not? What you actually did in that post was say that neither was true, possibly because both could be true, which actually is pretty cool… it just isn’t helpful. It’s a little like reading Derrida. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/158 "2011-04-26T23:00:55Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I thought **Mahaloth** ’s vote for **Tom** was terrible, not because he voted for **Tom** but because he more or less fabricated the circumstances upon which he based the vote. . No I didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/159 "2011-04-26T23:09:54Z")
Here is a post that bothers me. I’ve snipped it to the part that bugs me. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > 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 do not know how you can just eliminate the idea that he could be a scum with power role just because it’s “too risky” for him to do. Vanilla scum at worst? Dude, in a game this small, vanilla scum is bad enough. Heck, in any game, if you think someone is scum of any kind, they get your vote. Very weird statement there. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228/160 "2011-04-27T00:41:20Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > Here is a post that bothers me. I’ve snipped it to the part that bugs me. > > I do not know how you can just eliminate the idea that he could be a scum with power role just because it’s “too risky” for him to do. > > Vanilla scum at worst? Dude, in a game this small, vanilla scum is bad enough. Heck, in any game, if you think someone is scum of any kind, they get your vote. > > Very weird statement there. Applying a lower weight to something is not the same as eliminating it. I had more than one person strike me as potential scum, and I voted based on the weight of those suspicions. Nothing weird about my statement at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thundercats-mafia-gameplay-thread-game-over/579228.md?page=9)