# International Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 1, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553 "2010-12-01T16:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/501 "2010-12-18T17:00:28Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Isn’t the whole point of having Masons to gain confirmed Town? It would be highly gastard for one member of a two-person masonry to be Scum, IMO. I think this confirms peeker. Can you explain your reluctance to consider him confirmed Town? I have to agree with DB here. I’ve been in a three-man mason team with an infiltrator, but that game was absolutely loaded with anti-scum powers. To put one in a two-man team in a game with so many vanilla (or near-vanilla) roles as this one would seem harsh indeed. That peeker is now the most trustworthy player in the game is blindingly obvious. So obvious, in fact, that I struggle to understand why Pleonast would make a second post just to mention it. ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/502 "2010-12-18T21:38:25Z")
So the Kiwis got one criminal, awesome! Soon we will be able to see an advantage of having 2 separate games in one: 5 of the 10 remaining players in Wellington have voted to lynch Natlaw, and though this isn’t by itself enough to innocent them, it’s a good start. We also know that peeker was telling the truth about being mason, so there’s only 4 suspects remaining to be considered “prime suspects”. Prime Suspects (4): Idle Thoughts, Normal Phase, Scuba Ben, special ed. Voted Natlaw (5) : Cookies, Guiri, Mahaloth, Suburban Plankton, USCDiver. Claimed/almost confirmed Mason (1) : peeker. And Pleonast is in transit to Wellington, which is coherent with the Attaché role he claimed, being forced to travel at every opportunity.The next day in Wellington will be interesting to watch, and it’s too bad that I won’t be able to participate. Like some Kiwis have pointed out, it’s a painful thing to be unable to communicate in “real time” with people on the other side of the world. Here in London the situation is different. We lynched an innocent on day 1, so with 9 remaining players, everyone is still a prime suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/503 "2010-12-18T22:00:03Z")
Something I found curious, in the transition between turn 1 and turn 2, was the encrypted part, confirming the murder of CatInASuit. > [@sachertorte](#): > > \ > > Url Fphzzl Fphz! > V unir tbbq arjf, onq arjf, tbbq arjf naq zber onq arjf. > > Gur tbbq arjf vf guvf nffubyr zbqrengbe vf yrggvat hf xvyy fbzrbar va Jryyvatgba guvf svefg Avtug. > Gur onq arjf vf jr unir gb xvyy gur qreryvpg cynlre jub arire fubjrq hc. > Gur tbbq arjf vf ur jnf nffvtarq n ebyr ng enaqbz, whfg yvxr rirelbar ryfr. > Gur onq arjf vf gung ebyr vf Inavyyn Gbja. > > **PngVaNFhvg, Inavyyn Gbja naq pvgvmra bs gur Havgrq Xvatqbz, vf qrnq.** > > Fvtarq, > Pevzvany Znfgrezvaq > > \ which turns out to be: > [@](#): > > Hey Scummy Scum! > I have good news, bad news, good news and more bad news. > > The good news is this asshole moderator is letting us kill someone in Wellington this first Night. > The bad news is we have to kill the derelict player who never showed up. > The good news is he was assigned a role at random, just like everyone else. > The bad news is that role is Vanilla Town. > > CatInASuit, Vanilla Town and citizen of the United Kingdom, is dead. > > Signed, > Criminal Mastermind As Scuba Ben found out, it was encrypted using ROT13, which is a pretty easy algorithm to figure out. Why was it encrypted? And why was there no such thing last time for the murder of Astral Rejection? I cannot figure out if the encryption was made sachertorte, to add colour, or if this is the result of a player’s ability. It doesn’t make sense either way to me. The message is addressed to “Scummy scum” and signed by the “Criminal Mastermind”. This could mean the Scum cannot communicate with each other, at least maybe between cities, or that’s what they want us to believe. Anyway, if anyone has a good explanation why the first murder was encrypted, I’d like to hear it. Not sure if there’s something to learn from this. ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/504 "2010-12-18T22:30:48Z")
And I think there’s merit to what some of the Kiwis have said about Drain Bead: [Post #197](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13235810&postcount=197) - ShadowFacts quoted most of the London players to show that a majority of us don’t have a bias against travel. [Post #213](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13239682&postcount=213) - One day later, Drain Bead ignored this previous post and voted for ShadowFacts. Reason given was that > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > \ > **vote ShadowFacts**. I see his actions here as trying to talk out both sides of his mouth. To honestly try to argue that nobody wanted to lynch travelers when one of his first posts in this game was expressing that his initial thoughts were to vote for travelers is quite squirrely. The first post by ShadowFacts, is clear that he does not see travelers as scummy. He says something along the lines of “My first reaction was that people traveling should be seen as scummy BUT after more thoughts, it is not the case.” Drain Bead ignored again ShadowFacts’ reply and left his/her (eir!) vote hanging, for two days. Like Kiwis pointed out, this is a vote for wrong reasons, and it could very well be a Scum trying to place a vote without attracting suspicions. And after looking at all Drain Bead’s posts, I can’t say that I am overwhelmed by their content, if any. Seven posts total, and a “bad” vote. Looks like a Scum trying to take cover. **vote: Drain Bead** Some of you might think this is a very early vote, but I think it’s a good way to get things moving. It’s been 24h already since the day started, and people are barely speaking. Now DB at least, will have to talk. ---
**Author:** ![Wolverine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba9def/32.png) [@Wolverine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolverine)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/505 "2010-12-19T04:50:32Z")
First thing, Congratulations to the Kiwis! Awesome detective skills! Now on to London, Drain Bead is now on my horizon as well, but I’m going to go with Pleonast’s suggestion and **vote Rin Twisted** The no vote thing is suspicious, but the thing for me that seemed scummy was they stayed highly suspicious of me. Since only scum and myself know I’m innocent and most people seemed willing to give me half a pass, anyone that questioned me too strongly could probably be scum trying to draw attention away from themselves or others. If things got too hot for them, they could draw me back into the conversation and make a stronger accusation. Rin Twisted could instead just be a cautious town, but the not voting pushes me to the scum side. I don’t think a mass claim is necessary, but I can’t travel. They only way for me to go to New Zealand is if Baffle was correct and somebody has a “deport” power. Quick opinions about the Kiwi’s 1. Agree that peekercpa is innocent 2. I don’t see that GuiriEnEspana is that suspicious. They were one of the first to vote for peekercpa, but quickly changed their tune after peeker’s claim and recognized the scummyness of Natlaw. 3. Scuba\_Ben gains some cred due to the vote of Natlaw against him. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/506 "2010-12-19T15:12:00Z")
I was pleased to see that the Kiwis were paying attention to **Drain Bead’s** actions yesterDay, as they were driving me crazy. It seemed to me that she was deliberately twisting my comments, and others apparently saw that, too. To recap some points from Wellington: > [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > They are not currently around to defend themselves and there has been some discussion during the London Day but I can’t help finding these posts questionable: > > [QUOTE=Drain Bead] > I think it’s mighty disingenuous that ShadowFacts is saying that nobody was coming out guns-a-blazing to lynch travelers, when his own post was the main one I was looking at when I made that statement.[…] To honestly try to argue that nobody wanted to lynch travelers when one of his first posts in this game was expressing that his initial thoughts were to vote for travelers is quite squirrely. Skimming? Irrespective of **ShadowFacts** ’s alignment, this is a terrible vote AND she didn’t unvote when **ShadowFacts** quoted the post in question with added color. [/QUOTE] > [@Mahaloth](#): > > 1. Drain Bead was way off in saying that people were massively pushing(guns-a-blazing, I think) to kill all potential travelers. That was a radical interpretation of the posts made, including the ShadowFacts one(s). There were a few more posts about **DB** , but I don’t want to make this post too long. I came in here to post pretty much what **Romanic** already pointed out, so I’ll just quote it for emphasis. > [@Romanic](#): > > And I think there’s merit to what some of the Kiwis have said about Drain Bead: > > [Post #197](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13235810&postcount=197) - ShadowFacts quoted most of the London players to show that a majority of us don’t have a bias against travel. > > [Post #213](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13239682&postcount=213) - One day later, Drain Bead ignored this previous post and voted for ShadowFacts. Reason given was that > > [QUOTE=Drain Bead] > vote ShadowFacts. I see his actions here as trying to talk out both sides of his mouth. To honestly try to argue that nobody wanted to lynch travelers when one of his first posts in this game was expressing that his initial thoughts were to vote for travelers is quite squirrely. The first post by ShadowFacts, is clear that he does not see travelers as scummy. He says something along the lines of “My first reaction was that people traveling should be seen as scummy BUT after more thoughts, it is not the case.” Drain Bead ignored again ShadowFacts’ reply and left his/her (eir!) vote hanging, for two days. Like Kiwis pointed out, this is a vote for wrong reasons, and it could very well be a Scum trying to place a vote without attracting suspicions. And after looking at all Drain Bead’s posts, I can’t say that I am overwhelmed by their content, if any. Seven posts total, and a “bad” vote. Looks like a Scum trying to take cover. **vote: Drain Bead** Some of you might think this is a very early vote, but I think it’s a good way to get things moving. It’s been 24h already since the day started, and people are barely speaking. Now DB at least, will have to talk. [/QUOTE] Sums it up well, IMO. I agree some pressure will be good here: \*\* Vote Drain Bead\*\* I am a little surprised she did not come out and address this stuff immediately, since she has already posted toDay. Hopefully she’ll will explain herself now. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/507 "2010-12-19T15:58:52Z")
Won’t have time to do post gathering for this until Monday afternoon. ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/508 "2010-12-19T21:54:45Z")
> [@Wolverine](#): > > First thing, Congratulations to the Kiwis! Awesome detective skills! > > Now on to London, Drain Bead is now on my horizon as well, but I’m going to go with Pleonast’s suggestion and > > **vote Rin Twisted** > > The no vote thing is suspicious, but the thing for me that seemed scummy was they stayed highly suspicious of me. Since only scum and myself know I’m innocent and most people seemed willing to give me half a pass, anyone that questioned me too strongly could probably be scum trying to draw attention away from themselves or others. If things got too hot for them, they could draw me back into the conversation and make a stronger accusation. Rin Twisted could instead just be a cautious town, but the not voting pushes me to the scum side. First- I can understand why other players would be suspicious of you, because of your proposition to vote for a Kiwi on day 1, so questioning you, and keeping suspicions on you is not a scummy behavior. It could come from a scum, trying to finger you with an easy vote as much as a townie who’s legitimately suspecting you. Second- You say that the “not voting of Rin pushes you to the scum side”. Well, not voting is not exactly a scum tell either, because scum are trying to stay in the shadows, and being the only non-voter is bringing a big spotlight on himself. I don’t see a scum do so on purpose, thus Rin not voting speaks of innocence to me. Also, I don’t know if Rin will be more active in the future or if he will dissapear, but voting an inactive player isn’t generally a good idea because these guys will be modkilled eventually. It may be a little early to speak of Rin as an inactive, but it’s a good idea to place a vote on someone who will answer your accusations, something Rin may not do. So, like day 1, I find you a little odd on day 2, and I do not approve of lynching player because of inactivity. This often means throwing a lynch away. > [@Wolverine](#): > > I don’t think a mass claim is necessary, but I can’t travel. They only way for me to go to New Zealand is if Baffle was correct and somebody has a “deport” power. Why this claim now? There’s no consensus that claiming travel abilities is a good idea, nobody has done it before you today, and you are under no pressure to claim. I cannot figure why you decided that this was the time to announce that you cannot travel. Please do explain. > [@Wolverine](#): > > Quick opinions about the Kiwi’s > > 1. Agree that peekercpa is innocent > 2. I don’t see that GuiriEnEspana is that suspicious. They were one of the first to vote for peekercpa, but quickly changed their tune after peeker’s claim and recognized the scummyness of Natlaw. > 3. Scuba\_Ben gains some cred due to the vote of Natlaw against him. At least some points we can agree on. 1. Yes, agreed. Peeker is most likely innocent. Almost confirmed in my eyes, otherwise Rufus’ mason partner might have counterclaimed peeker. 2. Agreed. Guiri’s vote against Natlaw brought him to the lead, making the tally Plankton 2, peeker 2, Natlaw 2, so to a 3 way tie. Although devious players will make this move, scum players generally don’t put their teammates in the lead, so agreed that Guiri’s vote speaks of innocence. But there’s 5 players who voted for Natlaw, can you explain why you chose to discuss Guiri’s vote and not the four other players? 1. I disagree here. When Natlaw voted for Scuba Ben, the tally was Natlaw 4, Suburban Plankton 2, peeker 1. In this situation, it’s a trivial matter for a scum to vote his partner because one vote doesn’t mean anything. Be careful to assume that Scuba Ben is Town for this reason. Natlaw voting Scuba Ben is a null tell to me, and it raises the question “Was Natlaw trying to provide his partner some cover?”. Remember that Ben is one of the players who didn’t get the lynch right, and he does seem to work hard to appear Town, with the editable spreadsheet and all. ---
**Author:** ![Wolverine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba9def/32.png) [@Wolverine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolverine)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/509 "2010-12-20T00:45:31Z")
> [@Romanic](#): > > First- I can understand why other players would be suspicious of you, because of your proposition to vote for a Kiwi on day 1, so questioning you, and keeping suspicions on you is not a scummy behavior. It could come from a scum, trying to finger you with an easy vote as much as a townie who’s legitimately suspecting you. I don’t deny my stupidity. Several people pointed it out and said it bore remembering, which they are wise to do. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s just Rin Twisted responded to MentalGuy specifically about me. It struck me as a “Let’s not dismiss him too fast, in case we (scum) need to find a fall guy later.” > [@](#): > > Second- You say that the “not voting of Rin pushes you to the scum side”. Well, not voting is not exactly a scum tell either, because scum are trying to stay in the shadows, and being the only non-voter is bringing a big spotlight on himself. I don’t see a scum do so on purpose, thus Rin not voting speaks of innocence to me. > > Also, I don’t know if Rin will be more active in the future or if he will dissapear, but voting an inactive player isn’t generally a good idea because these guys will be modkilled eventually. It may be a little early to speak of Rin as an inactive, but it’s a good idea to place a vote on someone who will answer your accusations, something Rin may not do. > > So, like day 1, I find you a little odd on day 2, and I do not approve of lynching player because of inactivity. This often means throwing a lynch away. After participating on the first day and watching on the second day, I saw lots of votes and unvotes. I plan on unvoting Rin Twisted later, if they appear and defend their abstain vote. I also plan on unvoting Rin Twisted if someone else definitely strikes me as scum. Lastly, I agree that I should unvote Rin Twisted if they don’t show up because it would be a wasted vote on a modkill. Since it’s a little early in the day, I want to draw Rin’s attention and hear what they thought about the proceedings on day 1. > [@](#): > > Why this claim now? > > There’s no consensus that claiming travel abilities is a good idea, nobody has done it before you today, and you are under no pressure to claim. I cannot figure why you decided that this was the time to announce that you cannot travel. Please do explain. I didn’t see any reason for me to keep it a secret. After being wrong about Baffle, I went back to read some of the conversations again and noticed the comment about maybe a “deport” power. By claiming _not_ to travel, it might be easier to learn if someone had that power (just in case I started traveling without reason to). > [@](#): > > At least some points we can agree on. > > 1. Yes, agreed. Peeker is most likely innocent. Almost confirmed in my eyes, otherwise Rufus’ mason partner might have counterclaimed peeker. > > 2. Agreed. Guiri’s vote against Natlaw brought him to the lead, making the tally Plankton 2, peeker 2, Natlaw 2, so to a 3 way tie. Although devious players will make this move, scum players generally don’t put their teammates in the lead, so agreed that Guiri’s vote speaks of innocence. > > But there’s 5 players who voted for Natlaw, can you explain why you chose to discuss Guiri’s vote and not the four other players? > > 1. I disagree here. When Natlaw voted for Scuba Ben, the tally was Natlaw 4, Suburban Plankton 2, peeker 1. In this situation, it’s a trivial matter for a scum to vote his partner because one vote doesn’t mean anything. Be careful to assume that Scuba Ben is Town for this reason. > > Natlaw voting Scuba Ben is a null tell to me, and it raises the question “Was Natlaw trying to provide his partner some cover?”. Remember that Ben is one of the players who didn’t get the lynch right, and he does seem to work hard to appear Town, with the editable spreadsheet and all. Good call on number 3. I didn’t notice the timing of that vote. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/510 "2010-12-20T15:22:56Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Isn’t the whole point of having Masons to gain confirmed Town? It would be highly gastard for one member of a two-person masonry to be Scum, IMO. I think this confirms peeker. Can you explain your reluctance to consider him confirmed Town? You are jumping to conclusions that have no basis in evidence. Let’s look at the record:1. **peekercpa** claims they know **Astral Rejection** is names Rufus and is town. 2. **Astral** dies and the moderator reveals they are named Rufus, is town and a Mason.That’s it. There’s no information from either a player or the mod about **peeker**. It’s very likely that **peeker** is a Mason. That’s why I have them marked as confirmed town in my notes. But it’s possible that **peeker** is not town. For example, let’s say a scum investigator found **Astral** ’s name and role during Night One of Wellington. (We have a claimed town hacker who can affect London during the Wellington Night, it’s reasonable that scum have a hacker who get act similarly.) During the Wellington Day One, when **peeker** is the target of a large bandwagon, they make the Mason claim, knowing that **Astral** will not be able to counterclaim due to the Nightly post restriction and then death. If there’s a Mason who’s not **peeker** and has no reason to think **peeker** is a Mason, they need to claim a soon as possible. The best course of action is to assume **peeker** is town, but to keep our minds open to contraindications. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/511 "2010-12-20T20:35:08Z")
I’m finding that I have much less time in front of a computer instead of a phone to post, which makes it very difficult to play Mafia. I’ve requested a sub. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/512 "2010-12-20T20:52:26Z")
**Rysto** is replacing Drain Bead. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/513 "2010-12-20T20:52:32Z")
> [@Romanic](#): > > Also, I don’t know if Rin will be more active in the future or if he will dissapear, but voting an inactive player isn’t generally a good idea because these guys will be modkilled eventually. I disagree with this. We shouldn’t delay lynching a player simply because the moderator might do the job later. That makes it much easier for scum to slink along with minimal participation. We each need to vote for whoever we each think is most likely to be scum. Ans speaking of lack of participation, where is everyone? I expect this week and next to be slow, but this is really quiet. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/514 "2010-12-20T21:35:05Z")
Hey guys, I haven’t been following the game too closely so I’m going to do my best to get caught up. I see that I have about two days until the Dusk, so I’ll try to have useful thoughts before then. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/515 "2010-12-20T21:44:29Z")
Holy crap guys, I forgot about this game until just now. I don’t suppose anyone wants to recap what happened at Night for me, do they? I see that the other side of the world lynched scum and that Peek is likely a mason. Other than that I am a bit lost. I will catch up and be back with thoughts. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/516 "2010-12-20T23:07:41Z")
T24:00 post #491 Rysto replaces Drain Bead in all Votes. Rysto(2): Romanic(504) ShadowFacts(506) Rin Twisted(1): Wolverine(505) ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/517 "2010-12-20T23:18:45Z")
Gotta love it when the tally leader is replaced. Drain Bead won’t answer our accusations, and now Rysto cannot be held responsible for what DB said, or should he? He certainly cannot answer why DB didn’t pull his vote from ShadowFacts. His best answer should be along the lines of “Er? I don’t know”, so we’re stuck with the decision to lynch DB, now Rysto, without further information, unless maybe if Rysto makes a claim. Welcome to the game Rysto! As far as I’m concerned, you’re still our best lynch. ---
**Author:** ![Romanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Romanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Romanic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/518 "2010-12-20T23:24:22Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > Holy crap guys, I forgot about this game until just now. > > I don’t suppose anyone wants to recap what happened at Night for me, do they? I see that the other side of the world lynched scum and that Peek is likely a mason. Other than that I am a bit lost. I will catch up and be back with thoughts. You “forgot about the game” !? I’m starting to wonder if the scums are not opting for a weird strategy: One non-voter, one replacement, one who has funny ideas, one who forgot about the game. _sigh_ I should have been born in Wellington. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/519 "2010-12-21T00:07:43Z")
> [@Romanic](#): > > You “forgot about the game” !? > > I’m starting to wonder if the scums are not opting for a weird strategy: One non-voter, one replacement, one who has funny ideas, one who forgot about the game. > > _sigh_ > > I should have been born in Wellington. I know, I never thought it would happen to me, but I managed to unsubscribe myself accidentally from the thread and then…it just sort of slipped my mind. I blame the very long Night coupled with a nasty cold and upcoming holidays. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/520 "2010-12-21T00:17:00Z")
After reading up, I am going to say that I don’t like the case against DB, patially (ok largely) because it demands that ShadowFacts not be scum for it to work out, and frankly he is still the person setting off my scum-dar more than anyone on our side. His responses to the votes he was getting just feel off to me. **vote Shadow** Yeah, I am feeling a bit stubborn right now, why do you ask? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553.md?page=27)