Mini #582: Meta Mafia Mini! GAME OVER!

[DestroyeroftheSky]

<snip>
What is wrong about this is that Emp is trying to describe an early barely-serious vote and the motivations behind it as somehow equal to those of a hammer.
<snip>

For the record: I am not arguing that that kind of early vote was necessarily serious- only that lying about the motivations behind a vote is.

But the overstatement is the same. You're still applying an undue amount of scrutiny to the

motivations

behind an very early vote. It was on page 1! Why would you

expect

anything remotely serious about even the motivations of a vote of that nature on page 1?

Same question goes to massive.

Because he had already randomly voted -- in post 6. For him to change his vote by post 20, it is definitely presented as no longer random.

Presented as no longer random?

unvote: Johoonho

Lurker vote: Kingpin

I really don't care about the metaful definition of "random votes". How does a vote from an experienced player preceded with "Lurker" on

page 1 of a game, just over 24 hours since it began

, come across to you as, if not random, meaningful?

---

I'm pretty content with Stoofer's response in 164, except that he didn't explain why questioning a dead "townie's" alignment is a scumtell. And apparently Johoohno finds it scummy too. I still don't see why, so either one/both of you, please enlighten me.

---

Er, that’s precisely my point. The roles did *not* have any color or mention any color scheme: Nobody got "red" or "green" in their PMs, as confirmed in [162]- everyone’s role-color in PM was black. So:

If DotS were antitown: he would have a black antitown PM, and have seen Greasy Spot’s was green. From his point-of-view, it would seem that black=antitown, green=protown. By asking about this, he reveals that his role not-green. Since [from his point-of-view] protowns would have green rolenames in their PMs, he would be incriminating himself as antitown.

But if DotS were protown: he would have a black protown PM, but have seen Greasy Spot as green. And his actions are consistent with this explanation.

Therefore, DotS is protown.

LOL. This is assuming I'm not incredibly dull and overly speculative scum. Also, regardless of my alignment, having recieved a black role PM I would reasonably assume that all PMs would be the same. I've seen in most games that a mod will denote alignment on death with a colour scheme. My question had nothing to do with the colour in my role PM. It seems odd for me to argue against a case for my innocence, but it's not one I'd have made myself and felt I should make that known.

---

mneme, you're being...

sloppy?!

Let alone vote-worthy, I was really surprised by mneme's suggestion that sloppiness was

lynch

-worthy, especially in this context.

Of -course- sloppiness is lynchworthy. So is saying "I did X" when you did nothing of the sort. It might not be as signfiicant as something else someone does, but sloppiness is every bit as lynchworthy as, say, consistently being third on bandwagons.

@ mneme

- Based on this post, would you be willing to lynch Stoofer right now for not reading the thread carefully in the first 24 hours of the game (being sloppy) and providing a false explanation for his actions (saying X but doing nothing of the sort)?

Also to mneme:

I'm not suggesting that you lied as a matter of strategy, nor am I invoking LAL. But the level and type of inattention involved in your prevarication regarding your "lurker" vote (not to mention the error in the vote itself), combined with the levels of inattention involved in your -1 -on-Primate vote read "scum" to me.

Is there a reason town wouldn't have done exactly what Stoofer did?

My Primate post will come tomorrow.

[mneme]

---

mneme, you're being...

sloppy?!

Hmm?

Let alone vote-worthy, I was really surprised by mneme's suggestion that sloppiness was

lynch

-worthy, especially in this context.

Of -course- sloppiness is lynchworthy. So is saying "I did X" when you did nothing of the sort. It might not be as signfiicant as something else someone does, but sloppiness is every bit as lynchworthy as, say, consistently being third on bandwagons.

@ mneme

- Based on this post, would you be willing to lynch Stoofer right now for not reading the thread carefully in the first 24 hours of the game (being sloppy) and providing a false explanation for his actions (saying X but doing nothing of the sort)?

I'd certainly be willing to lynch Stoofer for the totality of his actions in this game. That's, you know, why I'm voting for him. No, as I said above, I wouldn't have been willing to lynch him (given other viable candidates) for -just- what you state above; just because something is lynchworthy doesn't mean it leads to a lynch, just suspicion. But close to half his posts have contained something worthy of suspicion, his recent ones not being an exception.

Also to mneme:

I'm not suggesting that you lied as a matter of strategy, nor am I invoking LAL. But the level and type of inattention involved in your prevarication regarding your "lurker" vote (not to mention the error in the vote itself), combined with the levels of inattention involved in your -1 -on-Primate vote read "scum" to me.

Is there a reason town wouldn't have done exactly what Stoofer did?

Yes, because town want to win. Nothing Stoofer has done so far seems calculated to do anything to make town win; there's nothing protown I see there yet. Townies who want to win don't pervaricate about their reasoning for votes, don't post crap defenses, and don't bring players to -1 without saying they're doing so, nor do they do so as early in the day as Stoofer did unless they're deliberately testing the waters, which I see every reason to think he wasn't doing. (As it was, well, yes, he did a good job of showng Fonz as town. But that's no credit to him).

MOD: Please put the roster in the first post. This site has a useful feature of letting people see the first post on every page of a game -- but that's not useful unless the first post contains the salient info (ie, roster of living, dead, and replaced) that makes the game more meaningful! Thank you.

[massive]

But the overstatement is the same. You're still applying an undue amount of scrutiny to the motivations behind an very early vote. It was on page 1! Why would you expect anything remotely serious about even the motivations of a vote of that nature on page 1?

Well, if you don't intend for any motivations to be read into a vote, why put "Lurker" in the vote at all? I think the word "Lurker" there IS, in fact, very telling in determining whether Stoofer was serious or not in his vote.

Oh, and asking me to take something for granted in a game = NEGATIVE POINTS

Presented as no longer random?

Yes. He says "Lurker vote" indicating that he believes that he should vote for KingPin because he is lurking. That indicates what we call a "reason" and implies that he is no longer random voting. Really, you don't see that? Do you really think Stoof was just kidding around?

[KingPin]

Emp’s forcefulness strikes me as being over the top. I realize that I find Stoofer to be more scum than town myself. However, Emp’s play to me seems a little more than distancing himself from Stoof-scum. Perhaps this is because he lacks an actual vote today (I dislike lending votes).

He is blatantly sticking his neck out on day one where the actions at this point from Stoofer are Sloppy, Lie, L-1 w/o comment, deflection ect. What benefit would a Townie have for these actions? Potentially lynching someone whom is acting scummy.

What benefit for scum?
Emp sees that Stoof just made a mistake on D1 page 2. Emp attacks Stoof. Then another player points out the obvious flaw in Stoof’s reasoning. Emp now has a choice, either go full force against Stoof or find another bandwagon or tree to bark up.

Which option would benefit scum in this scenario? IMO Option 1, attack relentlessly and keep attacking knowing that if Stoof is scum and is lynched then he would have huge townie points for himself if he lynches a scum buddy.

If Emp lynches a townie then he can say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus the reason for my super-attack on Stoof. It was the rest of the town that is to blame.”

If Emp does not effectuate a lynch at all, then he could say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus my super-attack on Stoof.”
-----------------------------
I also realize that this is rife with assumptions and holes. However, his actions catch me as more scummy than town.
-----------------------------
As of right now I have Primate being more scum that either Emp or Stoofer. So much so that I am ready to vote for Primate. However, because of the status of the votes, I will see what happens over the next few real days.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Do you really think Stoof was just kidding around?

Yes.

[EmpTyger]

DotS:

<snip>
But the overstatement is the same. You're still applying an undue amount of scrutiny to the

motivations

behind an very early vote. It was on page 1! Why would you

expect

anything remotely serious about even the motivations of a vote of that nature on page 1?
<snip>

unvote: Johoonho

Lurker vote: Kingpin

I really don't care about the metaful definition of "random votes". How does a vote from an experienced player preceded with "Lurker" on

page 1 of a game, just over 24 hours since it began

, come across to you as, if not random, meaningful?
<snip>

It’s not about the vote! It’s about the explanation!

I’m not arguing about [20]. I’m arguing about [28]

. That’s this post- also in its entirety:

The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote". It was my way of getting the game moving. I was using the word "Lurker" semi-flippantly, and I think that was obvious from the context.

Interestingly, my semi-flippant comment caused you to spring in to life immediately, which makes me wonder whether you were following the thread and not posting. Is that what happened? Or is it just coincidence that your first post of the game was immediately after I had called you a lurker?

Does [28] sound random to you? Does [28] sound non-meaningful? Does [28] sound not-serious?

---

KingPin:
First of all, this is factually wrong:

<snip>
Emp sees that Stoof just made a mistake on D1 page 2. Emp attacks Stoof. Then another player points out the obvious flaw in Stoof’s reasoning. Emp now has a choice, either go full force against Stoof or find another bandwagon or tree to bark up.
<snip>

I did not attack Stoofer until [53], which was *after* another player (you, in fact) pointed out Stoofer’s flaw, in [49].

Which option would benefit scum in this scenario? IMO Option 1, attack relentlessly and keep attacking knowing that if Stoof is scum and is lynched then he would have huge townie points for himself if he lynches a scum buddy.

If Emp lynches a townie then he can say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus the reason for my super-attack on Stoof. It was the rest of the town that is to blame.”

If Emp does not effectuate a lynch at all, then he could say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus my super-attack on Stoof.”

Forgive me, but what the hell would you rather I do?
I have no control over the fact that I don’t have a vote.
I have no control over the fact that Stoofer (as you yourself put it!) has been acting “more scum than town”.
So, because of 2 things that happened completely independently of anything I’ve done, and because I was attacking a player who you agree is “more scum than town”, you think I’m antitown? I mean, is there *any* action I could have taken in my situation which wouldn’t be “more scummy than town” to you?

---

mathcam:
So, given that DotS did not post in the wrong thread, thoughts?

[Mr Stoofer]

I'd like a Vote Count and then I'm going to put my vote where my mouth is.

[Awesome Pants]

Mr Stoofer

: (4) - mneme, The Fonz, Massive, Primate

Primate

: (3) - DestroyerOfTheSky, Johoohno, TheSweatpantsNinja

DestroyerOfTheSky

: (1) - mathcam

Johoohno

: (1) - Primate

Not voting, but can

: KingPin, Mr. Stoofer

6 votes for a lynch.

[Mr Stoofer]

Vote: Primate

, I guess.

[KingPin]

Do you really think Stoof was just kidding around?

Yes.

Where did I ask that question?

-----------

I mean, is there *any* action I could have taken in my situation which wouldn’t be “more scummy than town” to you?

Maybe, it is more of a gut reaction to the posts and the tone of the posts. Like I said though, there are definitely holes in my argument and I will accept that, but it makes sense in my head based on the reaction and interaction between you and Stoof.
---------------
Waiting for a reaction from Primate.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Dammit, I have to stop doing that.

Do you really think Stoof was just kidding around?

The answer still being yes.

But anyway, to answer emptyger, 28 sounds serious, but it sounds like motivations I can completely understand and therefore don't have a problem with.

[massive]

TSN

: How can you think Stoof is kidding around in post 20 but serious in post 28?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I read the thread and came to the conclusion that 20 was a vote one jot above random, whereas 28 is a serious response to kingpin's 27.

How can you think Stoof is being serious in post 20?

[EmpTyger]

TSN:
The point massive is trying to make is that, if you accept that [28] is serious, then how can you not accept that either Stoofer’s explanation in [28] about [20] is true? (Since you are indicating that you don’t believe Stoofer was lying about a vote rationale.) And Stoofer’s explanation is that [20] was (partially) serious. Therefore, how can you hold the conclusion that [20] is just Stoofer kidding around?

Or put another way: How can I think Stoof is being serious in post 20? Because Stoofer himself said so:

The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote". It was my way of getting the game moving. I was using the word "Lurker" semi-flippantly, and I think that was obvious from the context.
<snip>

His explanation for his rationale wasn’t that he wasn’t being serious. It was that he “looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random”- something you agree he was being serious about- but something which he definitely did not do.

[Mr Stoofer]

"Semi-flippantly" = not (really) serious. So no, post 20 wasn't really serious.

I mean, come on, a lurker vote on page 1? How can that ever be serious?

[The Fonz]

Right, let's see:

1. Primate, grow the hell up. Your ad hominem is ludicrous, especially since it's fairly obvious why scum could 'lend' their vote in order to buddy up.


2.

Things that struck me on my re-read:

First, I see a lot of players being very cautious. There have been two main debates/bandwagons, and most people have committed to a position on those two issues. But I think that the heat generated by those two debates has stiffled discussion on wider topics. I can well understand why TSN made post 62.

Stoof, these discussions are about scumcases. I'm not sure what wider topics you have in mind, but i tend to prefer scumcases to most other things as a topic of discussion.

Second, I agree with a lot of what Primate says on this page (except his suspicion of me, but at least what he says about me is logical and temperate). The big exception is his giving his vote to EmpTyger. It is bloody hard to lynch scum day 1 and it can't help thinking that to give away a vote to a player whom you think is scummy is very odd indeed. Primate's justification for his action has logic to it, I think, but I just can't see a pro-Town player giving his vote away to someone he thinks is scummy.

Firstly, Primate never really expressed any suspicion of you. He said you weren't 'especially townlike' but in a post where he fingers four different players as scummy and two as morons, I'd say that his assessment of you seems fairly positive.

Secondly, if you're accepting the possibility you might be 'lending' your vote to scum in the first place, and you're ok with that...

Thirdly, there is a part of me which thinks I would be a good lynch today simply because it would reveal a large amount about the Town. The main drivers of the stupid Stoofer-wagon were EmpTyger and mneme.

Don't play wifom games with us, Stoof.

I would bet my house on one (and only one) of mneme and EmpTyger being scum. I have no idea which one, though.

Yet you later suggest my being anti-Stoof, but being less forceful about it than Emp, is apparently 'exactly what scum would do.' If scum would be less forceful than Emp/Mneme, why does one or other have to be scum?


3..

Emp’s forcefulness strikes me as being over the top. I realize that I find Stoofer to be more scum than town myself. However, Emp’s play to me seems a little more than distancing himself from Stoof-scum. Perhaps this is because he lacks an actual vote today (I dislike lending votes).

That, to me, is one of the benefits of having a voteless player. He has to make clear his views, and has no prospect of hiding behind anyone else. I've seen townie-on-townie attacks much stronger than Emp's.

If Emp lynches a townie then he can say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus the reason for my super-attack on Stoof. It was the rest of the town that is to blame.”

Well, yes, if he tried to avoid culpability for a Stooftown wagon at all, that would be scummy. I'd suggest it unlikely though. Town players DO sometimes go after each other tooth and nail.

4.

DotS is innocent.

Temporarily assume DotS were guilty. His rolename would be black. He would have no way of knowing that the scheme wasn't protown roles=green/antitown=black, in which case he'd be lynched immediately for revealing he didn't know this in [153].

I don't see this. Everyone gets PMs in normal text. DoTS merely asserts that green alignment reveals might not necessarily mean town. THere's no indication that he felt that the PMs would include any coloured text? They almost never do.

[Mr Stoofer]

I would bet my house on one (and only one) of mneme and EmpTyger being scum. I have no idea which one, though.

Yet you later suggest my being anti-Stoof, but being less forceful about it than Emp, is apparently 'exactly what scum would do.' If scum would be less forceful than Emp/Mneme, why does one or other have to be scum?

To be honest, I think I have lost my objectivity in relation to the EmpTyger's ferocious assault on me, aided by mneme in particular, for reasons which I always considered to be utter crap. I winced when I saw that quote.

[Johoohno]

@ DestroyeroftheSky:

I'm pretty content with Stoofer's response in 164, except that he didn't explain why questioning a dead "townie's" alignment is a scumtell. And apparently Johoohno finds it scummy too. I still don't see why, so either one/both of you, please enlighten me.

It seems obvious to me that green indicates town player, and the part you are fishing for is his saying only "bah!" and not "go town". In my eyes that sticks out as trying to create something out of nothing.

@ Mathcam:

Have your feelings towards DestroyeroftheSky changed from his post 160 and onwards?

[DestroyeroftheSky]

My hypothesis: Primate is scum with two votes. He agreed to give one of his votes to EmpTyger as a means of diluting his responsibility and making it harder for us to read who

he

wanted to put votes on.

No way. I think we'd learn way more about your alignment if we could see who you were willing to put two votes on.

Bullshit. Me putting one vote on someone signifies that I want them lynched. Me putting two votes on someone signifies that I really, really want them lynched, yes? How about this. You are apparently relying on the fact that Emptyger will honestly say to you whether he wants someone lynched or not. How about you also rely on the fact that

I

will say whether I just want someone lynched or, in fact, really really want them lynched. That way you are equally happy, and we actually have a fucking voting record for one of the players in the game, as opposed to never actually fully committing to lynch someone. Imagine if he wants to bus a scumbuddy, all he has to do is say "if I had a vote, it would be on XXX", without making a particularly decent case against them that would sway anyone, and he gains a ton of pluspoints without actually contributing to that persons wagon in the slightest.

Primate ignored the point I actually made here, which was that we would learn more about

him

. He deflected the topic to EmpTyger and how we'd get a read on him when I was very directly speaking about reading Primate himself. This is exactly what the Primate-scum of my hypothesis would do - try to get some weight off his shoulders by shifting it onto another player.

So?

5 people on a wagon is more informative than 4. Pretty basic.

First, let's look at what I said "So?" to:

If I have a double vote, 90% of the time they'll just be on the same person, because I'm a gut player, and tend to be pretty single minded regarding the lynch I'm pursuing.

Primate is trying to justify his attempt to share responsibility for his votes and the above quote demonstrates

why

using his votes himself would be more revealing.

We can still get a read on Emp since he's free to FOS and post as much damning criticism as ever and we've already seen that being voteless doesn't seem to be stopping him. But this might be the only time we get to see YOU play with a double vote and it'd be great for the town to know who you're willing to use them on yourself.

How about if I use a Fos to count as my second vote? Or is that someone not exactly the same thing?

Strawmanning. I didn't say that Emp was as readable as a player with a vote, but that he

was

readable regardless. Primate's suggestion that he use an FOS to count as his second vote is a diversion from the fact that he DID have two votes while Emp had none. Being voteless, an FOS is essentially the most pressure Emp could ultimately apply to a player. Primate isn't in the same situation.

I also protected Emptyger night 0 in order to make sure he didn't die and I got to play with him. You consider that pandering, also?

I don't even know what to make of this. If he's actually claiming doc, the I'm going to say he's lying. Otherwise, this comes across as an emaciated attempt to discredit, or something. For the record, no, that's not pandering and a good enough reason as most to protect a player night 0. But, despite what Primate may be trying to imply here, what happens once the day begins is set to very different standards.

I don't give two shits about what is more informative to you. You people evidentally can't read for crap anyway, for me to be at lynch -1 on page 5 after making less than a dozen posts. I'm not going to try and aid you reading me when the alternative is me being able to read someone else better.

Being emotional about things doesn't make them more credible. But it could provide a good cover for justifying why you're trying to get out of the spotlight, which is exactly what I think Primate is doing.

Then there's all that stuff I said about Primate's original justification for giving his vote away having nothing to do with being informative, but to keep Emp on the site. This, I find most telling, especially in light of the lengths he's gone to trying to sell the "informative" angle.

[DestroyeroftheSky]

Well, if you don't intend for any motivations to be read into a vote, why put "Lurker" in the vote at all? I think the word "Lurker" there IS, in fact, very telling in determining whether Stoofer was serious or not in his vote.

You're making a mountain of a molehill. Yes, I think we can definitely read into the motivations of Stoofer's vote, and this seem to sum it up pretty well:

The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened.

So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote".

It was my way of getting the game moving.

I've bolded what I see as the essence of his motivation. The rest, it turned out, was false. But what WHAT reason, that isn't incredibly far-fetched and speculative at this point of the game, would ANYONE who is half-decent at this game have to LIE about this?

Oh, and asking me to take something for granted in a game = NEGATIVE POINTS

I wasn't asking you to take anything for granted, but a bit of sensitivity to context wouldn't be bad.

He says "Lurker vote" indicating that he believes that he should vote for KingPin because he is lurking. That indicates what we call a "reason" and implies that he is no longer random voting. Really, you don't see that? Do you really think Stoof was just kidding around?

No, I think Stoof was trying to "get the game moving". You're acting like you actually believe Stoofer was trying to fool us into believing he voted KingPin because he thought he was lurking after 26 hours of day 1.

---

It’s not about the vote! It’s about the explanation!

I’m not arguing about [20]. I’m arguing about [28]

.

Yes, I know, and that's why I was referring to his motivations.

That’s this post- also in its entirety:

The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote". It was my way of getting the game moving. I was using the word "Lurker" semi-flippantly, and I think that was obvious from the context.

Interestingly, my semi-flippant comment caused you to spring in to life immediately, which makes me wonder whether you were following the thread and not posting. Is that what happened? Or is it just coincidence that your first post of the game was immediately after I had called you a lurker?

Does [28] sound random to you? Does [28] sound non-meaningful? Does [28] sound not-serious?

No, 28 doesn't sound random. I've explained my perspective on the first paragraph. The second paragraph sounds like a fairly genuine analysis of KingPin's reaction to his vote.

[massive]

TSN

: I think, ultimately, that Stoofer was just being sloppy in [20]. Maybe he was trying to stimulate conversation, but whatever the ultimate reason for that post, it's certainly created a firestorm that's polarized the town. I expect that it will remain a point of discussion through the first day.

Stoofer

: According to [189], your vote in post [20] was not serious. So why even bother defending yourself? Why not just say "my bad" when KingPin points out in post [27] that he had, in fact, posted?

DOTS

: I agree that the motivation given for the initial vote is possibly valid -- but hardly as defensible as Stoofer has made it out to be. And I don't think I've ever said otherwise. In fact, I answered a direct question from Stoofer himself about what I thought were the motivations behind his vote. [20] is sloppy. [28] also has evidence of very poor reading comprehension.

Your reasoning behind believing him, though, has that delicate hint of WIFOM ("what reason ... would ANYONE who is half-decent at this game have to LIE about this?") -- obviously the answer is "winning the game," which is the reason that Mafia lie about everything. Saying "Stoofer is a good player and obviously wouldn't be caught in a mistake like this and compound it, because he's a good player" isn't a very good reason to defend him.

I do like what you're saying about Primate and I do think it's unusual that he's willing to share his double vote. I haven't been saying anything about this side of the "debate" because I've been trying to wrap my brain around Stoofer.

---

On a side note, I like [181-183]. It reads like Stoofer is genuinely disappointed that the vote count that he requested came so quickly, and then when no one else had posted nine hours later, he felt like he had been forced into actually voting. It was humourous. =]

[Mr Stoofer]

massive

: I didn't realise until post 28.

[The Fonz]

Saying "Stoofer is a good player and obviously wouldn't be caught in a mistake like this and compound it, because he's a good player" isn't a very good reason to defend him.

Largely because it isn't true.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Maybe so, but again, a "page 1 lurker vote" has no particular benefit to scum, so the fact that he did make a mistake isn't a scumtell.

Then there's all that stuff I said about Primate's original justification for giving his vote away having nothing to do with being informative, but to keep Emp on the site. This, I find most telling, especially in light of the lengths he's gone to trying to sell the "informative" angle.

Speaking of people whose motivations for voting have shifted. . . primate is still scummy. And absent, apparently.

[EmpTyger]

I still disagree with the rationale used against Primate based on his treatment of the doublevote- it’s too similar to argument KingPin applied to me, where because of something probably beyond Primate’s control, anything he does can be seen as a sign of his guilt.
However, lurking for 2 weeks is completely in his control. Likewise, especially since I just explained to him the dangers of hedging, I’d really like to hear something definitive from mathcam.

---

TSN/DotS:

But what WHAT reason, that isn't incredibly far-fetched and speculative at this point of the game, would ANYONE who is half-decent at this game have to LIE about this?
<snip>

<snip>
Maybe so, but again, a "page 1 lurker vote" has no particular benefit to scum, so the fact that he did make a mistake isn't a scumtell.
<snip>

Why are you thinking that? Because, here’s why I *know* otherwise:
In the last game I was mafia in (Calvin & Hobbes), I made a page 1 lurker vote against my comafia in my second post of the game. 1 1/2 months later, I was eventually lynched. Later analyzing this, one of the townspeople gave my co-mafia “protown points”. In the 3-person endgame, that townsperson voted for the other townsperson (for a variety of others reasons, to be sure) for a mafia win.
Mr Stoofer was the mod of that game.

I’m not saying that that’s necessarily what Stoofer’s doing here. But he’s doing something. If you think that a “page 1 lurker vote” can’t be of use to mafia, you are woefully mistaken. I know otherwise. So does Stoofer.

And so any reason anyone give as an example is going to have to be speculative. But that’s no reason to dismiss the fact that Stoofer *did* lie about it.

Speculative reason for why he lied as mafia > non-existent reason for why he lied as town