# Trouble in Paradise (Mafia Game Thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** Thread Games\ **Created:** [October 23, 2015, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585 "2015-10-23T22:52:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![Biotop](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biotop/32/321_2.png) [@Biotop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biotop)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/781 "2015-12-03T05:58:08Z")
**DeadCat** : You ask me how to find our way out of this predicament? Good question. I don’t have an answer. All I can try to do is to try and guess correctly, as should **snfaulkner** , and the remaining Town player. (And **DeadCat** —“two hours” to reread and compose a post… I can tell you I’ve spent much longer than that. My wife would claim it has been more like all day several times for me!:eek:) If **DeadCat** and **Suburban Plankton** put on a mutual bussing performance yesterday, they did a very good job of it. My gut after the **Suburban Plankton** reveal was that \*\*Hooker \*\*must be the final wolf. Yes, I went back looking for that evidence —which is probably bad Mafia play. But what else was there to do? My vote stands, because I am now listening to my gut and my head and they are both saying the same thing. * * * This is from \*\*HookerChemical’\*\*s Post#79, very early in the game: \*\*“Scum tends to operate in a straight forward manner. There may be simple fake-outs and bluffs, but town tends to think they’re operating wheels within wheels within wheels. It’s possible, but it is frequently not the case.” \*\* Whichever one of you is Wolf, (and even if you think I am) I think it is fair to say that wolves were surely operating “wheels within wheels…" this game. We were very lucky that **Suburban Plankton** was the Alpha and not goon, because if Alpha had been either \*\*DeadCat \*\*or **HookerChemical** , we would surely have gotten it wrong today by lynching **Dante or snfaulkner. However Hooker** , I think your Town cred was more valuable than any Alpha power once the cop outed himself, and you knew it. I think **Suburban Plankton** realized it too. That cred might have well have won you the game. It might still, if we are not careful. **Hooker** , you say your play makes no sense as Wolf. But is that truly the case? I don’t think so. You ask why you would not play for a mislynch yesterday instead of going after **Suburban Plankton**. Had you done so, you must have known it would have raised a lot of eyebrows. I think the three of us (You, **DeadCat** and I) had built up so much Town cred at the point when **IRConfused** came out as Cop, that there was no way that **Octarine** and **Suburban Plankton** were not going to be the next two lynched. I think you saw that. Had you made a case for anyone else besides **Octarine** or **Suburban Plankton** we would have looked at you with grave suspicion. Yes you could have first gone after **Octarine**. But that just delayed the inevitable. Why would any of us (You, **DeadCa** t, or I) _ever_ have been lynched before either of them. We wouldn’t have been. I think that the smart move was to immediately make the first case for **Suburban Plankton**. Why not **Octarine**? Because\* that would not have given you the desired extra Town cred\*. And we would have just lynched **Suburban Plankton** the next Day anyway. **Suburban Plankton** was almost certainly “done for” the minute\*\* IRConfused \*\*claimed cop, as was **Octarine**. Let’s see how it might have played out had we actually had lynched **Suburban Plankton** first instead of **Octarine**. Had we lynched **Suburban Plankton** before **Octarine** , we would have had you as the “most almost confirmed Town” because you were the one leading the charge against **SP**. You still would have even had cover for why you were not later night killed, because **Dante G.** and **snfaulkner** would have been the “obvious” choices because they would have been certain Town. You would have been “nearly” confirmed Town, but with a real excuse for why you were not then night killed. We’d quite probably have killed **Octarine** next. He didn’t have the level of Town Cred others had. Then either\*\* DeadCat\*\* or I would have gotten the rope. You’d have been left with a tie at the end with either **DeadCat** or myself, and if you thought that was a win, then the plan makes absolute sense. It’s not bad wolf play, it is smart wolf play. What other choice did you have? Tell me, please. If you think your this play is too much “wheels within wheels,” can you tell me how you think Scum \*\*Hooker \*\*would have played it? I really don’t see another viable way. None at all. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/782 "2015-12-03T06:36:59Z")
Biotop, thank you for the helpful post. If you are town as I hope, you are going to be pleased at the end of this game that your gut has led you the right way on this one. I’m not looking for any medals by saying how long I have spent on the game, clearly you and others have also put a lot of thought and time into it. I too have spent hours thinking about the game, to he exclusion of some other things. I think you are right that IRC’s timely claim really threw a spanner in the works of scum’s plans, and they were forced, mid-Day, to try and come up with an alternative. They couldn’t have known that this would happen, unless they have an investigative role themselves and had previously investigated IRC. But if Hooker is a scum investigator, maybe he investigated PCM Night 1, which is why he was killed Night 2. I also tend to think TexCat was role blocked by Mahaloth Night 2 (by lucky guess on his part), which is why she was killed Night 3. It all seems to fit, though it does involve some big assumptions. I’d still be interested to hear if Hooker and/or snf have a more plausible alternative. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/783 "2015-12-03T14:17:15Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > > [@HookerChemical](#): > > > > I’m much more worried about wolves moving us away from a tie than into a tie. Sure, a no-lynch isn’t good, but it’s better than a mis-lynch. (I get that this is a debatable position, but that isn’t critical to my argument.) > > > > There are three outcomes: mis-lynch, no-lynch, wolf-lynch. Wolves probably rank them in that order. If they engineered a no-lynch, that says to me they are trying to avoid a wolf-lynch. > > > > Does anybody else read it differently? > > I didn’t pick up on this at the time or since, but I’m now questioning it: why worry about wolves moving a vote away from a tie? This would only benefit the wolves if it created a certain mislynch instead of a possible wolf lynch. But it would also be a very risky strategy as the voters doing so would come under strong suspicion next Day. The subtext of this post is to try to get us not to worry about a tie. I’d already stated I was having a hard time reading him. Nobody seemed to have a strong read against him at the time except IRConfused (and now we know why). > [@HookerChemical](#): > > Though Mahaloth’s silence is worrying as well. I agree that it needs a :dubious:. That’s a gross misrepresentation of that post. The text of that post is that a tie is not the only and perhaps not the most worrysome outcome of a tie. I’m certainly saying that we shouldn’t worry about a tie (“a no-lynch isn’t good”) but there are other scenarios to consider when the vote is close. > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > > [@HookerChemical](#): > > > > For what it’s worth, I find Mahaloth a hard read. His posts are brief and don’t contain deep analysis but they can contain good insights or ask good questions. I have a slight town lean, but with reservation. > > Defending scum Mahaloth here. That’s not much of a defense of Mahaloth. I was hardly the only one saying “hard to read but slight lean” at that time. Here’s one: > [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > All right, I feel ready to post a summary of how I feel about various players. > > Likely Scum: > **snfaulkner** for that vote switch > **Suburban Plankton** and **Octarine** for how quickly they leapt on me toDay, and also for the general way they have been hiding in the shadows without attracting much attention. > > Neutral: > **Dante G** – keeps saying things that seem strange to me and other players, but I think it’s just a matter of style > **Mahaloth** > **HookerChemical** > **IRConfused** > **Precambrianmollusc** > > Likely Town: > **Dead Cat** > **TexCat** > **Biotop** Biotop had him as “neutral to slightly scum” but still outside his list of suspected scum: > [@Biotop](#): > > \ ***Mahaloth** : Originally voted for me in Post #303, but then all but certainly ended any doubt about who was going to be lynched by voting for **Sario** in Post #303. > I suppose I can sort of understand the gut vote on me for my attitude, though to then to say the argument that the case against **Prof P.** was “zippo” (Post #303) is curious. I guess I would like to hear more about why some players ( **Hooker, Mahaloth** ) so easily dismissed the case against **Prof. P**., which in hindsight, seems strong —and of course we now know that case against \*\*PP \*\* turned out to be right. **Mahaloth** ’s vote for **Sario** came just after \*\*Astral \*\*asked players who had not weighed in on the **Prof. P** / **Sario** debate to come pick a side (post #301). None of the others ( **Octarine** , **Suburban Plankton** , **Dante G**.) changed their votes. **Sario** was probably going to be lynched anyway at this point, so I sort of wonder _if_ **Mahaloth** is a wolf, then why did he wait to jump on that bandwagon until the result of a **Sario** lynch seemed already likely? Read: Neutral to slightly Scummy. > [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > > [@HookerChemical](#): > > > > I have to say, this was not the reaction I expected here. I half expected a “What he said” type post, but clearly that’s not the case. I’m curious why you dismiss the case against WF Tomba (primarily) and why you dismissed the case against Prof P if not for the reasons I dismissed it. > > This is in response to Mahaloth voting for him. I think this is classic scum on scum to distance themselves from each other. I also have a theory that explains one of Biotop’s “mysteries”. Maybe Mahaloth realised on Night 2 that he wasn’t going to be able to participate much more in the coming weeks, which would have put him under suspicion. So he and his fellow wolves hatched a plan - one of them would bus him next Day, then he would confess which would sow lots of seeds of confusion among town players. This theory, while perhaps a little outlandish, does seem to fit the facts. If I may quote Sherlock Holmes, once you have eliminated the impossible [i.e. in this case, snf being scum], whatever is left must be the answer. “A little outlandish” is a decent description. I prefer “highly speculative” and “overly elaborate.” There is simply no basis for that speculation. Mahaloth has been posting elsewhere on the SDMB since being lynched, so there’s simply no basis for this speculation. It doesn’t “fit the facts.” (Also, your early vote on Mahaloth also fits the scenario as well.) > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > This is the bussing I refer to above. It also casts suspicion on other townies such as me, snf, and particularly Dante. You’re leaving out the critical elements of the suspicions I’m casting on you and snf. First, you had three votes to mis-lynch. Anybody who did not suspect somebody with three mis-lynch votes is a fool. Second, I’m including myself in that discussion. Dante is a different case. I’ve made my case for him, and it was wrong. That case was based on a series of gaffes and mistakes. I was hardly the only one thinking along those lines, and I think it was a reasonable position at the time. > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > For this theory to work, I also need another theory to explain why Hooker went after SP subsequently. I think that’s easy on Day 4 - it’s bussing to gain town cred. Day 5 is tougher but I think the theory that Hooker misunderstood or forgot the win conditions and was playing to end toDay with a mislynch which he thought would win him the game is plausible. > > Ultimately, the reason I am happy to leave my vote on Hooker and not change back to Biotop is because on rereading, it seemed to me that while Hooker has posted a lot, apart from bussing Mahaloth and SP he has not done a great deal of scum hunting, and very little successful scum hunting. Given that I know one of Hooker and Biotop is a wolf, I could hardly find anything in Biotop’s posts that suggested scumminess, whereas I have all the above for Hooker. In addition, I can’t help but be influenced by Hooker going after me. I do realise that it is possible Hooker is a townie who is equally sadly mistaken about me as I am about him, in which case all we can do is congratulate Biotop on a superbly played game. My early scum hunting was bad. I voted for Sario, and WF Tomba, but so did you, Dead Cat. Your scum hunting wasn’t great until you put an early vote on Mahaloth. Of those still around, only Biotop managed any better the first two days with his vote on Prof P. Overall, my voting record is slightly better than yours, Dead Cat, because I didn’t join the bandwagon to mis-lynch Octarine. > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > > [@HookerChemical](#): > > > > It’s the change that reeks of scum. When voting to win the game, you hung your hat on paper thin arguments against Biotop. > > That is an unfair characterisation of my initial vote. I was merely posting some initial thoughts, I am sorry if I did not make that clear enough at the time. I had not done enough analysis. Your case for what could be the game winning vote was based on inaccuracies and omissions against Biotop. Your case was: [ul][li]Post drop off[/li][li]Statement that we should ignore Mahaloths post-confession posts[/li][li]Biotop was late to the Mahaloth and Suburban Plankton bandwagons[/ul][/li]I’ve explained why these are paper thin accusations. They also omit the glaring red flag that was the switch to Octarine on Day Five. Maybe they’re only your initial take, but it’s a very thin basis for the vote to win the game. On the other hand, if you’re scum, you only need to ride one misled townie’s arguments to victory. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/784 "2015-12-03T14:44:42Z")
> [@Biotop](#): > > If you think your this play is too much “wheels within wheels,” can you tell me how you think Scum \*\*Hooker \*\*would have played it? I really don’t see another viable way. None at all. Drop the SP lynch on Day 4 and call you out for starting the charge on Octarine. At the time, we were 4-2. Rather than charging out of the gate with a post prepped during night (because the night kill was obvious due to the claim), play it a little slower and base the case against you on your switch from the SP lynch in Post 663. Based on snfaulkner’s Post 620, I think there’s a good chance a scum team could have peeled him off, which gives a block of three and at least a coin toss for a mis-lynch of and victory. And again at 2-2. And again at 1-1. If scum managed to pull a fourth vote, it was game then and there, no coins. (If you believe I thought a tie game was a scum win, the game would have been over even earlier in this scenario.) This wasn’t a slam-dunk play by any means, but I think it’s a much better play than banking on a solitary scum to survive to the end. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/785 "2015-12-03T14:50:40Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I never thought that \*\*Dante \*\*was a better vote than **snfaulkner**. I’ve been saying for some time now that I think Dante is Town. What I thought (and said, quite clearly) was that Dante was a better vote than _ **me** _. My vote on Dante was a self-preservation vote, pure and simple. > > I was quite clear yesterDay who I suspected of being Scum: Dead Cat and snfaulkner. I’ve seen nothing since to change my opinion. > > There’s not too much we can glean from the Scum kill last Night; they took out the Town Cop. That was pretty much expected. But it does suggest that perhaps the Cop had already served his purpose (from a Scum perspective), which was to investigate the Alpha…who I think is snfaulkner. > > It is interesting to see how we got from Point A to Point B yesterDay. > > The first vote on Dante was from Dead Cat, who then switched his vote over to snfaulnker. Other early Dante voters were: Octarine, snfaulkner, and Biotop…and then Dead Cat again, once the votes had started to pile up. > > HookerChemical placed the first vote on Suburban, followed quickly by snfaulkner and Biotop, briefly changing the vote lead, until I (SP) placed my vote on Dante to create the tie. > > At that point, Biotop placed the first vote on Octarine. To be precise though, it wasn’t the first vote of the Day on Octarine; snfaulkner had briefly had a vote there before moving it to Suburban. And once the Octarine train started picking up steam, snfaulkner and Dead Cat both jumped on board to seal the deal. > I’m convinced that **Dead Cat** and \*\*snfaulkner \*\*are the two remaining Scum, and will gladly vote for either of them. > > **Vote Dead Cat** I don’t put much weight on the posts of scum, especially as they’re marching toward the gallows, but since Dead Cat is pointing to Mahaloth’s vote against me and my reaction as “classic scum on scum to distance themselves from each other” I need to highlight this post. Dead Cat was the target of scum SP’s dying vote, but is willing to hand Mahalot’s on me as scum on scum distancing. This is either a massive blind spot in DC’s analysis or a willful omission. Likewise, Mahaloth tossed a one-off vote on Biotop on Day Two. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/786 "2015-12-03T14:51:57Z")
Please consider this post again. I was leaning 60/40 against Dead Cat after putting together my case, but this post hammered home that I was right (say, 90/10 certainty). It’s not because DC votes against me, but the justification and the quick pivot to make any mislynch happen. We’re well past the 48 hour timeframe proposed, and Dead Cat has still not presented a case against me. His vote is based on the appeal Biotop’s case to lynch me being more favorable to him than **my case to lynch him**. > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > Yes, it seems I got at least one thing right - the Mexican stand off I predicted has come to pass. However, not for long. I haven’t got time to post in more detail right now, but at the moment I find myself much more swayed by Biotop’s postings today than HookerChemical’s. As such, while I may well change a couple more times yet, > > UNVOTE Biotop > > VOTE HookerChemical > > Biotop, I am from the UK but have been on this board long enough to know all about the ‘holidays’, and Black Friday etc. The latter is attempting to make its way across the pond but it appears we are resisting a bit for now. I have also worked retail. I feel your pain and I didn’t mean to upset you. Having said that, for clarity it wasn’t that that made me change my vote. > > I should be able to come back and make further points in the next 48 hours or so. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/787 "2015-12-03T15:57:24Z")
OK, now you’re just pissing me off. Your post 783 does contain some reasonable points, but then at the end you simply re-state your complaint that my case against Biotop was weak. I have already acknowledged that and I changed my mind accordingly. If the fact I did so so swiftly persuades Biotop and snf to vote against me, then I have made a bad mistake and I apologise in advance to town if this causes us to lose. But the fact I placed a swift vote on Biotop and a swift switch to you should not indicate that either of these were my final decision. Look at your many votes early in the game where you did the same. Since my initial two votes, I have come back with some deeper analysis as I promised, which you have basically ignored. In particular, you have not attempted to make a case against Biotop. I assume that’s because you think you have more chance of persuading Biotop to vote for me than vice versa, in turn because there are more potentially scummy things you can point to about my play than his. But the fact you haven’t even tried just reads scummy to me. In your post 784 you make some reasonable points, but you don’t give any solutions. In post 785, it is ridiculous to accuse me of a ‘blind spot in my analysis’ because I did not point out something that could point to a scum case against me. Firstly, as a town player at this critical stage of the game, why should I draw attention to something that may help me lose the game? And secondly, I haven’t been analysing my own posts or those against me because I already know my own position. Then in 786 you again re-state a complaint you had made previously, which again I have already addressed. It should be abundantly clear that I am voting for you because I think you are the most likely final wolf. As I have also explained, I was quite happy to throw a bit of mud at the beginning of toDay to see what stuck. Given there seems to be little evidence to vote for you or Biotop, yes I am keen to ensure one of you was lynched as long as it isn’t me, which is a guaranteed mislynch from my perspective. I appreciate that unfortunately, that looks the same to an outsider as a wolf just going for a random mislynch. But I think you haven’t really backed this up with much other evidence, nor convincingly rebutted some of the evidence that points to me as town. I don’t know why you are not even attempting to consider (apparently) the possibility that Biotop might be the wolf. If you are town, you should be, because if you can come up with a decent argument to that effect I could yet be persuaded to change my mind again. At the moment you seem to be pinning your hopes on Biotop and/or snf voting for me. Clearly, it’s hard for me to see otherwise, but it appears they don’t think you’ve made your case yet. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/788 "2015-12-03T16:57:25Z")
I would like to apologise for the tone of my last post. I got too caught up in the game and should have stepped back for a few minutes before replying. There was no need for my rudeness and I am sorry. That said, I stand by the content relating to the game. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/789 "2015-12-03T17:20:43Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > OK, now you’re just pissing me off. Your post 783 does contain some reasonable points, but then at the end you simply re-state your complaint that my case against Biotop was weak. I have already acknowledged that and I changed my mind accordingly. If the fact I did so so swiftly persuades Biotop and snf to vote against me, then I have made a bad mistake and I apologise in advance to town if this causes us to lose. But the fact I placed a swift vote on Biotop and a swift switch to you should not indicate that either of these were my final decision. Look at your many votes early in the game where you did the same. Let me reframe it this way and see if it’s more palatable, even if you disagree with the conclusion. I think you put together a case against Biotop. To some extent, what followed (circular firing squad) made the quality of that case irrelevant. I see that case as weak and that contributes to my scum read of you. When he came out with a case against me and I came out with a case against you, you seized on his case opportunistically to case a vote against me. The quality of that case is largely irrelevant, because voting with Biotop (or snfaulkner) against me is better than the other option, which are to leave the circular firing squad intact and hand the game to known townie snfaulkner. For scum, two votes on anybody who is not scum is a much stronger position than handing the game to snfaulkner to decide. The comparison of Biotop’s case for lynching me to my case for lynching you is particularly scummy to me because you’d never vote against yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/790 "2015-12-03T17:53:12Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > I think you put together a case against Biotop. To some extent, what followed (circular firing squad) made the quality of that case irrelevant. I see that case as weak and that contributes to my scum read of you. I made a vote against Biotop without much of a case. That was because I wanted to get the conversation started (and in that at least I have clearly succeeded!). As you say, the quality was irrelevant. I think it’s a stretch to give me a scum read on that basis. > [@](#): > > When he came out with a case against me and I came out with a case against you, you seized on his case opportunistically to case a vote against me. The quality of that case is largely irrelevant, because voting with Biotop (or snfaulkner) against me is better than the other option, which are to leave the circular firing squad intact and hand the game to known townie snfaulkner. For scum, two votes on anybody who is not scum is a much stronger position than handing the game to snfaulkner to decide. I made a mistake here, sure, in not allowing snfaulkner to state a case before trying to win the argument. It’s just my style, I guess I rather arrogantly thought I had enough townie cred to ‘carry the day’ and ensure I wasn’t mislynched. I see now that was foolish on my part, especially given I had not posted a decent case at that stage. I got everything in the wrong order. But you will note that for most of the game I have not concerned myself with “looking town”, I have just acted based on what I saw. I didn’t so much as vote for you because you voted for me, or vote for you because Biotop had done so, as change my vote because Biotop convinced me that my reasoning for voting for him was not good. You are then jumping to the conclusion that I must be scum for doing so, and yet now I have reinforced my case, you have still not taken the opportunity to give me reasons not to vote for you. > [@](#): > > The comparison of Biotop’s case for lynching me to my case for lynching you is particularly scummy to me because you’d never vote against yourself. I never made the comparison in those terms - you did. I simply said I found Biotop’s posts more convincing than yours. OK, perhaps that was a statement of the obvious given their content. But you are the one who is banging on about this false equivalence. You could have taken the opportunity to rebut Biotop’s case against you. Instead, you chose to make a case against me and not defend yourself. I appreciate your case against me, judging by the post, was built before you saw Biotop’s post, but you clearly saw Biotop’s post before posting your own and still chose not to address the accusations levelled against you. Even now, you have failed to do so except in rather a limited way. So I still believe you’re the scummiest. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/791 "2015-12-03T18:00:40Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > Since my initial two votes, I have come back with some deeper analysis as I promised, which you have basically ignored. In particular, you have not attempted to make a case against Biotop. I assume that’s because you think you have more chance of persuading Biotop to vote for me than vice versa, in turn because there are more potentially scummy things you can point to about my play than his. But the fact you haven’t even tried just reads scummy to me. I think I have addressed several points you make to either refute them as not scummy (discussion of the tie vote pitfalls), or point out similar cases where you and Biotop have been in similar circumstances (Mahaloth’s votes, SP’s votes). I can’t defend 100% of my record (the Prof P misread is the most galling), but we’ve all made mistakes over the course of 750+ posts and five votes. As for making the case against Biotop, I haven’t made it because there’s no upside. I think you’re the remaining scum. If I’m right, you voting for Biotop isn’t a safer position. You are not my audience, and you asking me to make a case against Biotop only adds to my suspicions of you. My audience is Biotop (who isn’t going to be convinced by any case against Biotop) and snfaulkner (and his vote against Biotop doesn’t do me much good because I still have two votes and will be the lynch). If I’m scum, there is every reason to make an argument against Biotop. A vote from either you or snfaulkner on Biotop is as good as a vote on you because I would be able to double up on it. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/792 "2015-12-03T18:40:39Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I made a vote against Biotop without much of a case. That was because I wanted to get the conversation started (and in that at least I have clearly succeeded!). As you say, the quality was irrelevant. I think it’s a stretch to give me a scum read on that basis. > > I made a mistake here, sure, in not allowing snfaulkner to state a case before trying to win the argument. It’s just my style, I guess I rather arrogantly thought I had enough townie cred to ‘carry the day’ and ensure I wasn’t mislynched. I see now that was foolish on my part, especially given I had not posted a decent case at that stage. I got everything in the wrong order. But you will note that for most of the game I have not concerned myself with “looking town”, I have just acted based on what I saw. I didn’t so much as vote for you because you voted for me, or vote for you because Biotop had done so, as change my vote because Biotop convinced me that my reasoning for voting for him was not good. You are then jumping to the conclusion that I must be scum for doing so, and yet now I have reinforced my case, you have still not taken the opportunity to give me reasons not to vote for you. > > I never made the comparison in those terms - you did. I simply said I found Biotop’s posts more convincing than yours. OK, perhaps that was a statement of the obvious given their content. But you are the one who is banging on about this false equivalence. You could have taken the opportunity to rebut Biotop’s case against you. Instead, you chose to make a case against me and not defend yourself. I appreciate your case against me, judging by the post, was built before you saw Biotop’s post, but you clearly saw Biotop’s post before posting your own and still chose not to address the accusations levelled against you. Even now, you have failed to do so except in rather a limited way. So I still believe you’re the scummiest. Was there any doubt Biotop and I wouldn’t be willing to converse? There was no need to throw mud and see what stuck. As I’ve said, the scum read isn’t (primarily) coming from the weak case presented against Biotop. It’s the lightning quick pivot to me that is the major scummy action. The weak case itself only contributes to my scum read when taken with that pivot. I have defended myself from many of the accusations. Posts [766](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18901417&postcount=766) and [783](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18906940&postcount=783) are extended defenses. I didn’t do it in the same post that I laid out my case against Dead Cat because I had already been putting that post together for an extended period and needed a break and to see what the reaction to the cases. It wasn’t even 24 hours before I put together a post rebutting many of Biotop’s points. Biotop and snfaulkner, Dead Cat says he was convinced that his reasoning for voting against Biotop was not good, but Biotop’s defense of himself in Post 754 never directly addresses the accusation you make in Post 751 (post/content drop-off, one-off vote from Mahaloth, late to bandwagons). The reasoning behind the vote change does not stand up to ANY scrutiny. It was an opportunistic move by scum to put two votes on one person and create at least chance at the win. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/793 "2015-12-03T19:17:44Z")
> [@Biotop](#): > > If **DeadCat** and **Suburban Plankton** put on a mutual bussing performance yesterday, they did a very good job of it. My gut after the **Suburban Plankton** reveal was that \*\*Hooker \*\*must be the final wolf. Yes, I went back looking for that evidence —which is probably bad Mafia play. But what else was there to do? Biotop, I don’t see why you see my turning the investigation to SP as scummy bussing while the DC/SP interactions confirm DC’s townieness. You’re putting too much weight on SP’s vote/attacks. Look back at what you said after Mahaloth’s lynch: > [@Biotop](#): > > I don’t trust **Mahaloth** ’s reasons for confessing. Why should he tell us the truth about anything or anyone? I don’t believe his comments about whom to kill were directed to his teammates at all. They were directed to us. How am I supposed to tell what I should think of **Hooker** , or of\*\* snfaulkner\*\*, or of **Dante** , or of **DeadCat** , or of anyone else from what\*\* Mahaloth\*\* spewed after confessing. He posted those comments of his own free will. Why? To deceive us, to trick us, to make us think about his motivations, about why he chose this or that player to comment upon. Suburban Plankton is a similarly experienced player and was almost certainly trying to get inside our heads as well. I don’t see much momentum to a DC lynch, which is what you theorize SP was trying to create for a win/win (town cred for Hooker or a mis-lynch) scenario. Looking back, you were a solid target who’s lynch could have created a tie scenario. Prior to IRC’s claim, all votes were on Dante and snfaulkner. I don’t see any momentum for a Dead Cat Lynch. I was joking that DC wasn’t on my scumdar at all (Post [642](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18873069&postcount=642)).Dante G had you at #2 on his list in Post [606](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18868910&postcount=606). Snfaulkner gives you a town lean, but less than Dead Cat in Post [654](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18873939&postcount=654). If I were scum, the signs that you could have been the next lynch to you were there. Pulling even one of those votes to a DC lynch would have been enough if SP and I block voted Day 5. Instead, I made the case for my leading candidate in Suburban Plankton because I wasn’t scum playing for the win. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/794 "2015-12-03T22:16:27Z")
Ok, My wife is at the pet hospital now to try and get our foster dog to eat. But there is a real possibility we may have to put him down ☹ However, there is nothing I personally can do about it now since I’m trapped at boring work. Therefor I will attempt to do my best to help win this game for town with the few remaining hours I have left on this paradise island. Gimme a few minutes to catch up with last night’s/this morning’s posts… ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/795 "2015-12-03T22:53:50Z")
Ok, a few things. In regards to the idea that **Mahaloth** ’s confession might have been motivated by the fact he might not be able to participate, **Hooker** , you say this: > [@](#): > > …Mahaloth has been posting elsewhere on the SDMB since being lynched, so there’s simply no basis for this speculation. It doesn’t “fit the facts.” While I don’t really believe that was his motivation for confessing, the fact that he was posting elsewhere afterwards doesn’t mean he had time to participate in this very **VERY** time and energy (and life) consuming game. Most of my other posts on The Dope take all of a few seconds/minutes tops of effort. As you all know, these mafia posts can take hours… ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/796 "2015-12-03T22:58:16Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > …and hand the game to known townie snfaulkner. For scum, two votes on anybody who is not scum is a much stronger position than handing the game to snfaulkner to decide. The thought of this made me break out in a sweat and gasp for breath. I never thought there would be this much stress. Especially now that I don’t have to defend myself. That’s not to say I’m not having fun, though. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/797 "2015-12-03T23:02:27Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Ok, a few things. In regards to the idea that **Mahaloth** ’s confession might have been motivated by the fact he might not be able to participate, **Hooker** , you say this: > > While I don’t really believe that was his motivation for confessing, the fact that he was posting elsewhere afterwards doesn’t mean he had time to participate in this very **VERY** time and energy (and life) consuming game. Most of my other posts on The Dope take all of a few seconds/minutes tops of effort. As you all know, these mafia posts can take hours… For some posters, granted. However, Mahaloth was not one of those posters. His style was brief and enigmatic posts. The theory that Mahaloth volunteered to be bused is based on pure speculation. I’m providing some evidence that the theory does not appear to have a basis. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/798 "2015-12-03T23:14:25Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > The thought of this made me break out in a sweat and gasp for breath. I never thought there would be this much stress. Especially now that I don’t have to defend myself. That’s not to say I’m not having fun, though. I’d have so much fun as confirmed town on the last Day. I’d wake up each morning, roll a die, and vote accordingly. “You want my vote on the other guy? Dance, monkey, dance.” It’d be all about making them squirm and refute both simple arguments and wheels within wheels arguments. As far as I’d reach when putting together a case, I’d be safe from accusation that I was scum. I’m already dancing, so I’m already in favor of you employing this strategy to relieve stress. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/799 "2015-12-03T23:15:29Z")
**Biotop** , While I’m certain (as i can be) that you are town, and as compelling as your case is against **HookerC** (also fun/easy to read), I remember back to similar compelling arguments you had against me, which were also wrong (not that my arguments are right, let alone compelling). Right now I think I’m leaning a _bit_ more towards **DeadCat** as lupine. Mostly for the consistent self claims of his towniness starting from the very beginning (if prof flips scum, that confirms my towniness) all the way up through currently (I have the most town cred…etc). I know this is very very weak for voting somebody, so I’m not going to yet. But all the arguments I’ve heard are plausible. I put **DC** at 52% to **HC** ’s 48% for the last wolf. but but BUT, even if I WERE to vote **DC** , that would make it a Tie vote, yes? 2 each on DC and HC. I think we need to slam dunk one or the other. I will try to find and or make a case for either of them here in the next few hours… ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585/800 "2015-12-03T23:17:17Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > I’d have so much fun as confirmed town on the last Day. I’d wake up each morning, roll a die, and vote accordingly. “You want my vote on the other guy? Dance, monkey, dance.” It’d be all about making them squirm and refute both simple arguments and wheels within wheels arguments. As far as I’d reach when putting together a case, I’d be safe from accusation that I was scum. > > I’m already dancing, so I’m already in favor of you employing this strategy to relieve stress. I’ve certainly entertained this notion. And may still resort to this tactic. But I feel the stress of everyone else who worked hard on the game who wants to see a solid effort first. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trouble-in-paradise-mafia-game-thread/735585.md?page=41)