# You-Solve-It Mafia Game **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 11, 2007, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636 "2007-12-11T18:21:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 53
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1041 "2008-01-15T16:57:33Z")
[QUOTE=sachertorte] **Hockey Monkey** , I wonder if you are seeing the same thing I’m seeing. [QUOTE] Not sure…care to elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1042 "2008-01-15T17:43:59Z")
Storyteller’s behavior on Day 3 indicated suspicion of brewha, he even lays out a case, but he never votes for brewha and conveniently misses the Day 3 deadline. To me it looks like storyteller was setting up to vote for fellow scum brewha, but when he saw that brewha didn’t have to swing, he “forgot” to vote. If he was against all the suspicion on brewha, I could understand his behavior better, but he laid out a case against brewha and called brewha suspicious, yet misses the vote entirely. I don’t see Town behaving the way storyteller did on Day 3. That’s what I see. What do you see? Thanks for the storyteller summary. I’ll read it to see if there is anything else. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1043 "2008-01-15T17:51:11Z")
Hey, there isn’t any convenient way to view one player’s posts in one thread only, is there? I’m writing out the **Freudian Slit** case, and since she’s an active poster elsewhere on the Dope I have to comb through all her posts to other threads to track her history here. It’s a pain in the ass - is there a better way? * * * And to **Hockey Monkey** : Having no idea what your case against me is, I’ll be unable to respond for the moment. Care to offer a preview? Your last post, to **sachertorte** , looks a bit like fishing to me - “hey, can somebody give me a hook here?” It’s funny how this game works. Intellectually I know that when another player accuses me of being scum, that doesn’t make them more likely to be scum themselves. But then someone accuses me of being scum, and \ - emotionally, I start combing their posts for tells. It’s a tough mindset to fight, even when you know you need to. ---
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1044 "2008-01-15T17:51:37Z")
[QUOTE=sachertorte] Storyteller’s behavior on Day 3 indicated suspicion of brewha, he even lays out a case, but he never votes for brewha and conveniently misses the Day 3 deadline. To me it looks like storyteller was setting up to vote for fellow scum brewha, but when he saw that brewha didn’t have to swing, he “forgot” to vote. If he was against all the suspicion on brewha, I could understand his behavior better, but he laid out a case against brewha and called brewha suspicious, yet misses the vote entirely. I don’t see Town behaving the way storyteller did on Day 3. That’s what I see. What do you see? Thanks for the storyteller summary. I’ll read it to see if there is anything else. [/QUOTE] There’s that, plus a lot of promises and excuses, and I can’t do it nows. He’s expressed suspicion of several people (including me) and comes out of nowhere today voting for someone completely different. “Missing” the vote because he didn’t know what time the day ended isn’t something a town \*\*storyteller \*\* would do. I have a lot of re-reading to do to do a point by point case. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1045 "2008-01-15T17:56:00Z")
[QUOTE=sachertorte] Storyteller’s behavior on Day 3 indicated suspicion of brewha, he even lays out a case, but he never votes for brewha and conveniently misses the Day 3 deadline. To me it looks like storyteller was setting up to vote for fellow scum brewha, but when he saw that brewha didn’t have to swing, he “forgot” to vote. [/quote] Well, this would be reasonable, but the actual explanation is that I missed the deadline. As I said. If you don’t believe that, there’s not much I can do about it. **NAF’s** post with the deadline in it was at the end of a page, and I was involved in another discussion when it happened. > [@](#): > > If he was against all the suspicion on brewha, I could understand his behavior better, but he laid out a case against brewha and called brewha suspicious, yet misses the vote entirely. I don’t see Town behaving the way storyteller did on Day 3. The last part is not true, and you know it. I’m suspicious of _everyone_; Town ought to be. I outlined evidence against **brewha** ; I’ve outlined evidence against others. But I wasn’t convinced he was the best candidate yesterDay, and I don’t apologize for it. I thought I had more time to make a final decision, and was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1046 "2008-01-15T17:58:01Z")
[QUOTE=storyteller0910] Hey, there isn’t any convenient way to view one player’s posts in one thread only, is there? I’m writing out the **Freudian Slit** case, and since she’s an active poster elsewhere on the Dope I have to comb through all her posts to other threads to track her history here. It’s a pain in the ass - is there a better way? [/QUOTE] [ghostly voice] “Search this thread” for her screen name and just skip any posts made by others?[/ghostly voice] ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1047 "2008-01-15T17:59:48Z")
[QUOTE=Hal Briston] My largest suspicions are directed at **Pleonast** and **Diomedes** for their continued disbelief over my role. **Hockey Monkey** pings me as well, but as others have mentioned, she’s been very helpful. That doesn’t necessarily exonerate her, but it keeps her off my personal chopping block for now. I don’t particularly want to see **brewha** swing, but I recognize that _someone_ has to be lynched toDay – I have a feeling he’s town, but could very well be mistaken. To sum up: vote **Diomedes** , but if need be I’ll grudgingly switch tomorrow. [/QUOTE] Let me get this straight: you’re voting for me because I’m dubious of your power role? I like **faithfool** ’s OMGUS vote much better, at least she was open about it. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1048 "2008-01-15T18:04:40Z")
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey] There’s that, plus a lot of promises and excuses, and I can’t do it nows. [/quote] You do realize that you’re using this as one of your arguments against me, while at _exactly the same time_ engaging in identical behavior? You have a case against me, but you can’t post it right now. You have to wait. You have to re-read. A promise, and excuses. That inconsistency on your part is worrisome, of course. And of course what you say is not true; I have delivered lengthy cases against **Diomedes** and (shortly) **Freudian Slit** , and shorter cases against **brewha** and **sachertorte**. But even if it were true, as an argument against me, it kind of stinks, because it’s unanswerable. So tell me this: do you suspect that: (1) I did not have a technical rehearsal last night’ or (2) I did not have a work meeting this morning? Which real-life event do you suspect I am making up in order to avoid posting an argument that I could have avoided posting by _not mentioning it at all_? > [@](#): > > He’s expressed suspicion of several people (including me) and comes out of nowhere today voting for someone completely different. Once again, I am suspicious of _everyone_. Perhaps it would be more convenient for the scum if I stuck rigidly to one avenue of investigation - as you would apparently prefer - but I’m not interested in doing that. > [@](#): > > “Missing” the vote because he didn’t know what time the day ended isn’t something a town \*\*storyteller \*\* would do. I’ve already responded to this. There’s really no way to satisfy this point, so I’m not going to address it further. ---
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1049 "2008-01-15T18:08:17Z")
[QUOTE=storyteller0910] You do realize that you’re using this as one of your arguments against me, while at _exactly the same time_ engaging in identical behavior? You have a case against me, but you can’t post it right now. You have to wait. You have to re-read. A promise, and excuses. [/QUOTE] You asked for a preview! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1050 "2008-01-15T18:12:13Z")
[QUOTE=Pleonast] Besides some arguable analysis of the game setup, what evidence is there that you’re telling the truth about your role? Your claim is not self-confirming. Lack of a counter-claim is not convincing when the game setup implies no power roles at all. So I am skeptical of your claim. [/QUOTE] Therein lies the rub – this is _not_ a “power role”. This is a tiny bit of extra info. The logic of the “7%” in the setup makes it pretty clear it’s info supplied to a townie, and balance indicates that it would be info _about_ a townie. Trouble is, we already know all this. Continually trying to say it’s something else reeks of scum. [QUOTE=Diomedes] Let me get this straight: you’re voting for me because I’m dubious of your power role? [/QUOTE] Sure enough. See above. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1051 "2008-01-15T18:15:07Z")
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey] You asked for a preview! :mad: [/QUOTE] Well - the thing is, though, that you teased “being almost sure that I was scum” before I (or anyone) asked for a preview. Then you said you’d make your case later. How does this differ substantially from what I’ve done with **Freudian Slit** in the last 24 hours? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1052 "2008-01-15T19:02:01Z")
OK. **Freudian Slit**. All quotes below are hers unless otherwise noted. The numbers in parenthesis at the end of some quotes are added by me and are the post numbers. Also, I’m not going to include every post she’s ever made here. I’ll attempt to be representative but I think the longer these things get, the more they get tuned out, and this thing is very, very long. Her first substantive contribution is here: > [@](#): > > Part of me thinks faithfool is just discouraged. Another thinks that she’s scum trying to psych us out…like, playing the part of the martyred, I don’t know what the hell I’m doing, newbie townie. Because that is kind of what I did in the last game. Waffling early. Placing herself on both sides of the **faithfool** issue. This is an neutral tell in my mind, as it could mean scum positioning herself or cautious townie reserving judgment. > [@](#): > > Perhaps one reason faithfool is giving up so easily is because she doesn’t want to reveal the dossier? That is, she assumes that if she just votes for herself, she doesn’t have to make a big reveal because it’ll be moot. She does have a chance of squeaking by if she doesn’t get an exact majority of votes, though. Still not really taking a position. This qualifies as a smudge of **faithfool.** I think, and the first appearance of **Freudian Slit’s** constant mentioning of needing to get an exact majority. > [@](#): > > The only thing I have so far is MHaye’s delay. > > I don’t know if I really want to vote for him based on that but it’s the only thing we have to go on so far, IMHO. And I suppose it’s better to vote than to sit around talking about how we SHOULD vote. (Vote or die!) > > And I have time to change this…So… (vote mhaye) This is the classic “I’m voting for him, but it’s just a vote to get a vote out there, I don’t really mean it, I can pull it back at any time vote. When this is followed by elaboration, further investigation of the player in question or another player, it’s a pretty neutral thing. When it’s followed by sitting on that vote - which was made with a disclaimer and had little basis - right up through the lynch, it seems scummy. You get to be on the lynch wagon, but you set yourself up with an easy way to jump the wagon if you need to - or to dissociate yourself from your own vote later. Which does Freudian Slit do? > [@](#): > > Hey, I voted for MHaye too a while back. My vote was not counted! Hanging chads! (595) > [@](#): > > Counting my vote for MHaye and also Hockey Monkey’s vote, he now has 9. So we only need…is it one more person(?)? How many people are now in the game? > [@](#): > > So if ten people have voted, that’s a majority and if no one changes anything, then MHaye will die? No additional analysis provided, and for someone who was so diffident about her initial vote, she sure is anxious to ensure a majority here. She will eventually state that **faithfool** reminds her of herself in the previous game, but she doesn’t want to switch her vote because she really wants to see **mhaye** dead. **mhaye** dies, we go to Night, and suddenly **Freudian Slit** is a very prolific poster. Overall, I note, her fluff-to-content ratio is pretty high. > [@](#): > > I guess we have to vote for OAOW, huh? I agree with Shadow. I liked the psychological aspects, the thrill of the chase. This game feels like it’s more like taking the LSAT than about psyching each other out. This one is a little tenuous, but the wording of this post, especially the last line, niggles. I’ve played this game a bunch of times now. Only once have I considered my role in it to be about “psyching each other out,” and that was the first time, when I was scum. _Scum_ need to “psych out” the other players; townies need to do precisely the opposite. Could be just an unfortunate word choice, but I’m mentioning it anyway. > [@](#): > > I’m not totally sure either…in fact, it’s hard to say either way. I’m kind of leaning towards faithfool not for dossier reasons but for general weirdness and vibe reasons. (Yeah, emotion over logic!) But I am not totally convinced of that either. (773) More waffling, over the same subject as on Day One. Still no evidence or analysis, but more importantly, still more careful backing away from her own opinion. “faithfool is giving me a weird vibe… but… um… not completely. Certainly not enough to vote for her yet… but… yeah… weird vibe. Everybody look at faithfool!” > [@](#): > > brewha seems pretty defensive…That’s kind of making me suspicious. Then again, so was our dear friend Idle of the gigantic letters sooo…he may yet be a townie. And okay, maybe he does “suck at this” or maybe that’s just a cover for the mistakes he’s been making. Still ruminating. “…or maybe brewha’s scum… lot of you seem to think so… or maybe he’s not… certainly don’t expect me to give an opinion with which you can ever connect me… Ooh, and somebody pass the maple syrup. Mmmm, waffles. > [@](#): > > I think I’m a go with faithfool. If only because her interactions really remind me of mine with Idle last game. The defensiveness when being called on scumhood…for some reason, that’s making me trust Dio and making me think that faith is disgruntled, and just not doing as good a job hiding it. Newbieness is not an excuse, and while I’m tempted to excuse her for that, it might just bite us in the arse if we do. _Finally_, a firm vote. > [@](#): > > So far now it seems like it’s either lynch brewha or lynch no one. What I dislike about the majority rule is that I feel like I’m voting for someone just because it’s pragmatic and we need to make some kind of progress. Joining the bandwagon is just that much easier. I’m willing to change my vote if it’s really out there and a stupid vote, but I do think that this system makes it a little tougher on us. (823) In light of her behavior leading up to it, this post reads like more of an effort to divorce herself from her votes. “Hey, if I join a bandwagon and kill a townie, it wasn’t because I was actually believing they were scum - it was because I was trying to be pragmatic, and keep the town from failing to lynch. Really, don’t ask me for a defense of my vote - my defense is “we needed a majority.” Blame the system (As a side note, this is why forcing people to vote just to get a majority is problematic, because it allows for defenses like this). > [@](#): > > Okay, then. In the interests of putting this to bed on time and actually having a lynch of someone who may be scum as opposed to a no lynch, I’m going to change my vote. > > brewha has seemed suspect, but I can’t tell if it’s out of true scumminess. But like you, Hockey, I’d like something to happen. I don’t want to just throw out a meaningless vote that I believe but that will get us nowhere. (votes brewha - 828) Basically, this post is the outcome of the one before it. The next post is about **Hal** and **faith**. Once again, note how our narrator uses “maybes” and “on the other hands” to express suspicion without taking a firm stand on anything. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I agree with that. What if they’re both scum and covering for each other? This could easily be something they’re doing to manipulate us into thinking they’re both okay when they’re both in fact scum. > > Okay, that could be a reach, too. I’m just saying that I’m not 100% sold on anything anyone tells us without verification. I ask her if she thinks **Pleonast** is right about the secret being the source of the dossiers, or if it’s something yet unrevealed. Shockingly, she’s not taking a stand: > [@](#): > > I’m not sure yet. I’m leaning towards a different secret. I just feel like…this…would be too much of a let down. And it seems like we’ve spent the thread poring over the dossiers. I just feel maybe we need to think bigger. But I have no idea how so. Shortly thereafter - way back at the BEGINNING of the day: > [@](#): > > Personally, I think we need to try and vote off someone because we’ve only managed to get one scum and our numbers are dwindling. Are we all just going to go for brewha, or is it going to be someone else? The only other person I can think of is faithfool. I mean, we pretty much have to make a concerted effort because it’s the only way we can do it… (954) Are we all just going to go for brewha? At the very beginning of a seven-day Day? Or if not, are we just going to go for faithfool? We’re just going to keep looking at the same two people, right, everybody? We’re not going to branch out in any crazy directions, right? We’re just going to vote as a big bloc and not think about it too much, right? Next, in response to me. I had just posted a very long indictment of **Diomedes**. Very long, with multiple points. Here’s her response: > [@](#): > > Skimming is a sign of scumhood because scum doesn’t need to read as carefully? I’d say that’s pretty off. Scum needs to pretend to be like town. I think that’s a weak case against Dio. Also, I thought the third vote thing was pretty much crap? (975) She dismisses one of my points with a non-sequitur, addresses one other point of mine that was literally made with _one character_, and ignores the rest of the argument but declares the case “weak?” Hey, a strong opinion from **Freudian Slit**. Cool! > [@](#): > > I’m still split between brewha and faithfool, so I think my FoS is on both of them. > > I think we’re more likely to get a brewha lynch, though, and there does seem to have been more hard evidence against him. faithfool’s evidence just seems to be based on feelings and on her voting for herself. > (votes brewha - 982) “Let’s keep chasing these two, guys! They’re the only people in the game! **brewha** and **faithfool** , **faithfool** and **brewha**. One of them has to be scum, right? So if one of them isn’t, then we’ll just jump on over to the other. After all, we can afford more than two mislynches, right, guys?” > [@](#): > > Yeah…I see your points. It’s just that I’m more inclined to doubt Hal and faithfool and side with Dio as town. Everyone else…I’m not totally sold on either way. Okay, maybe a mod wouldn’t cover up…but I’m still not totally sure I trust faith. (997) “Still not totally sure I trust faith.” Gosh, I hope so, since she’s been one of the people you’ve been talking about all game. Heck, just yesterDay you were telling us that you really wanted to lynch **faith** , but you just had to vote for **brewha** instead to ensure a majority. Now, suddenly, it’s back to “not totally sure I trust faith,” which is about the mildest expression of mistrust that’s possible. I’m not totally sure I trust ANYBODY. No town should be. But the big problem for me is this phrase: “I’m more inclined to doubt Hal and faithfool _and side with Dio as town._. What?? No explanation, either in this post, before it, or after it. She’s just inclined to side with Dio as town. It was this post that made me take a step backward pursuing **Dio** , and try to figure out who would benefit if I was wrong. Here **Freudian Slit** is aligning herself with **Dio** for no reason at all. This is the best trust-building strategy in the world for scum, because who doesn’t like it when someone else calls them town? Especially if they _are_? Summary post to come under separate cover. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1053 "2008-01-15T19:13:37Z")
Jeez, that ended up being longer than I’d anticipated. That was the long version; here’s the synopsis: **The Case Against Freudian Slit, with Bullet Points** [ul] [li]She has shown a consistent pattern of throwing opinions, ideas, suspicions, and even votes out for consideration - but hedging them and backing away from them to an extreme degree, usually in the same post. She consistently seeks to avoid responsibility for her own votes, casting votes to lynch **mhaye** and **brewha** while protesting her own uncertainty and citing the need to achieve majority as her primary justification. The only strong and unqualified opinion she’s had has been:[/li] [li]Her utterly groundless expression of trust for **Diomedes** “as town.”[/li] [li]Also concerning has been her constant and insistent effort to get people to focus on **faithfool** and **brewha** as the primary (even _only_ reasonable lynching candidates), even going so far as to ask if we were all just going to lynch **brewha** before the current Day had even really begun. The fact that her myopia just so happens to concern two of the more popular targets over the past several Days appears to me to be further evidence of her effort to protect herself with a nice cozy cocoon of waffling and majority opinion. [/li] [li]Finally, she used exactly the same phrase - “psyching [each other] out” - to describe her own perception of how the game should feel as she previously used to describe her own behavior _as scum_.[/li][/ul] My vote, obviously, stands. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1054 "2008-01-15T20:00:23Z")
Based on my almost certainly flawed theory, I would say that the four most likely canidates for scumhood are \*\*Pleonast, Hal Briston, Fruedan Slit, \*\*and **Rysto** **Hockey Monkey** at least acknowledged my theory as a possibility and was the one who pointed out that if I were town, there’s no reason that one more scum wouldn’t jump on the wagon to lynch me. I dont’ have much of a reason to believe **sachertorte** is scum. All I have is yesterday’s vote for me and is FOS at me based on him misinterpreting my words. After four posts that implicated those six as possible scum, **Hal** and **Pleonast** didn’t even acknowledge that I had pointed the finger at them. Which very possibly means that my theory held some water and they just would rather not acknowledge it and bring more attention to it. Or, they missed it by skimming. Rysto has said nothing – which makes me lean more towards scum. And **Slit’s** voting just to ensure a lynch - any lynch - makes me lean scum as well. This in particular bothered me: [QUOTE=Freudian Slit] We have five for **brewha** , but that’s not enough…more have to change their votes. And just vote to begin with. I’m not faulting **brewha** for not voting for himself, but I’m thinking either it is him or no one dies. And at this point, we’re at a serious disadvantage against scum who get to kill someone every night. [/QUOTE] It’s me or no one? We have time. I’m siding with **Storytellor** on this one. There’s no rush to switch votes to one person. Vote Freudian Slit ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1055 "2008-01-15T20:02:34Z")
Considering last day, we had no one to vote for and town is dropping like flies, yeah, I think we do need to rush a vote. I have no idea why you think this is scummy in me, but not in **Hockey Monkey**. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1056 "2008-01-15T20:07:13Z")
[QUOTE=Freudian Slit] Considering last day, we had no one to vote for and town is dropping like flies, yeah, I think we do need to rush a vote. I have no idea why you think this is scummy in me, but not in **Hockey Monkey**. [/QUOTE] 1. This was not the only reason I gave for finding you scummy; and 2. I haven’t looked closely enough at **Hockey Monkey** to say whether her push, like yours, is representative of a pattern of dodging responsibility for her vote. Her arguments against me have been dodgy and inconsistent, but of course I would think that - I know them to be false. ---
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1057 "2008-01-15T20:29:25Z")
[QUOTE=Freudian Slit] Considering last day, we had no one to vote for and town is dropping like flies, yeah, I think we do need to rush a vote. I have no idea why you think this is scummy in me, but not in **Hockey Monkey**. [/QUOTE] I’ve been trying to spur discussion, not rush a vote. I’ve made my feelings perfectly clear - at the end of the day, regardless of who has the majority, every town member needs to be on that wagon. We have to make sure a lynch happens, but there is no need to start the clock early. I’ve also made it perfectly clear who I’d like to toss over a cliff today, but \*\*storyteller \*\* has a compelling case against you which I will be pondering further. Yes I know I just agreed with **storyteller**. I have an open mind. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1058 "2008-01-15T20:42:25Z")
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey] I’ve been trying to spur discussion, not rush a vote. I’ve made my feelings perfectly clear - at the end of the day, regardless of who has the majority, every town member needs to be on that wagon. We have to make sure a lynch happens, but there is no need to start the clock early. [/quote] Actually, I quite agree with this. This idea has been floated in previous “majority-required” games, but has never actually been used, but is there any reason we can’t set an advance deadline, with the period between the advance deadline and the real deadline essentially “not counting” for game purposes? Here’s what I propose. Whatever the actual deadline is - it’s Wednesday, at what time? - we set our advance deadline six hours ahead of it. From now until the advance deadline, everyone votes as if a majority vote were _not_ required - ie, vote for the person you think is most likely to be scum. Don’t worry about trying to secure a majority, just make your arguments and vote naturally. When the advance deadline arrives, whoever is in the lead is the target of choice. From that point on, _everyone_ changes their vote to that player, as a purely mechanical action to secure the lynch. Essentially, this would allow us to operate as if the majority requirement didn’t exist, in exchange for shortening the Day by six hours. > [@](#): > > I’ve also made it perfectly clear who I’d like to toss over a cliff today, but \*\*storyteller \*\* has a compelling case against you which I will be pondering further. Yes I know I just agreed with **storyteller**. I have an open mind. Is it just me, or is this the most paranoid game of Mafia yet? You just agreed with me, and it made me feel more suspicious. Ack. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1059 "2008-01-15T20:57:16Z")
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey] [Storyteller Post History](http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcbk3rwp_0hsr2tffn) It’s much too long to repost here so I made you a google doc. It includes post numbers and quotes for context. I’m delving in now. [/QUOTE] While management appreciates your initiative, and innovative solution to the problem you’ve encountered, we regret to inform you it does not meet company requirements. Using external sources to house data creates several issues for corporate. Firstly, the integrity of the data. Since external data stores carry different rules about editing and updates, the management can not verify, without tedious oversight, the document’s integrity on an ongoing basis. Secondly, the channels of communication have been designed to flow organically among our staff. Branching off of these channels causes disruption and we can not guarantee all staff have access to said external data stores or can render them properly. Thirdly, the archival scheme of external data stores may vary from the company’s own. Future teams wishing to re-visit the experiences of this team during your team-building retreat may be unable to do so if the external data is no longer available and was never merged into the main documentation. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. Mgmt. In case anyone missed any of that, here are the problems the mods have with using external docs, in English. 1. Having documents outside the thread, owned by individuals, could bypass the “no edits” rule. No edit timestamps or window for edits are imposed on outside documents. 2. Players, or spectators, may not be able to access google docs. 3. People wanting to re-read the thread in the future may find a broken link if whoever created the document deletes it later. I’m not accusing **Hockey Monkey** of doing anything untoward, and I genuinely appreciate her initiative. I just think it’s too dangerous a precedent to allow. Instead of having a static, uneditable, single source to analyze for behavior or votes, both the players and mods have to go multiple places to get the whole picture, and that picture can change, be unaccessible, or disappear entirely. That wouldn’t be good. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636/1060 "2008-01-15T21:11:27Z")
I am hereby shamed and chastized. I just copied and pasted all the posts into a word doc so I could read them better, and thought it would be helpful to share the info. (Instead of pasting a 26 page word doc into the thread.) 😛 Noted boss…won’t happen again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-solve-it-mafia-game/429636.md?page=54)