# Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT EIGHT **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 27, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-eight/483255 "2009-01-27T18:22:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 32
**Author:** ![Almost\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@Almost\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Almost_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-eight/483255/32 "2009-01-28T14:37:41Z")
Millet and brewha seem to be under scrutiny at the moment so as I’ve already had some suspicions of millet I’ve done a bit of a read through. I’ll try and do brewha as well but I’m supposed to be working. And crap - I just tried to post it and was told it was too long so I’ll break it up into two. Sorry - it’s a long one as the actress said to the elephant: > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/12): > > Possibly, but again, I’m not sure why we want to know. I’m still thinking that a mass roleclaim is a great deal more likely to out power roles to scum than to out scum to town. Can someone who supports the roleclaim lay out a better case for it? If I see the logic, you could change my mind. It just seems really hasty, like the Masons claiming early. > > **I’m also wary of naming people in posts–those who are using powers will be using them on the most logical targets, and that will be easy to spot. For instance, the Dr. will protect the most likely scum targets (T_ownies who are “on to them”_), the Detective will investigate the scummiest looking players…very risky, IMHO**. (bolding mine) I brought this point up when she first posted it but this wording still seems very strange to me. Not only that, the whole post is basically disagreeing with name claims while calling them roleclaims while asking for reasons to claim while saying it might out power roles - no real solid opinions. I don’t get the being wary of naming people part either. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/210): > > Well, shucks. I think that, in my absence, the town is on to something for real. That was suspicious as hell, **macey**. > > Vote **macey** Vote number 9. Voting for scum at this point doesn’t make her scum certainly but there’s no town motivation there either. A null tell. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/245): > > Yay! I can’t believe we got away with that on Day 1. I wonder how the board outage affected the voting. A lot of last-minute votes may have been prevented…or not. Maybe that’s why the scum couldn’t save **macey**? > > Of course, by then, **macey** had nine votes, so it’s really unlikely that anything would have worked without being uber-suspicious. > > I’m sure some scum voted for **macey** –it’s a good place to hide–but it seems likely that we’ll find other scum either not voting or keeping their vote on someone else. Just sitting in place, worried about looking like they’re trying to save **macey**. > > From what I’m reading, I’m sure I’ll come under fire for being a late voter for **macey** , but what can I say? I was asleep the entire time he was getting the earlier votes! And his fishing was _definitely_ a scum tell. No one else, suspicious or not, had anything as damning against them. This post implies the scum were either not voting for macey or early voters who couldn’t reasonably get off the wagon. Excuses her late vote. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT TWO](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/78): > > I’m stuck between a couple of choices. **Peeker** is up there for going back and forth on some things (from what I can tell, anyway), such as lynching **BlaM** for lurking. And the metagaming and constantly throwing out what appears to be random thought–it feels like he’s trying to put on a persona for the game. Which is annoying, but not damning…shifty at worst. Why create a smokescreen around yourself if you’re pro-town? > > Looking at the votes gives me some other good candidates. The people who voted after **macey** started getting votes but who did NOT vote for **macey** are: > > **zeriel** (one jokey post voting and un-voting **dotchan** ) > **NAF** (voted **chucara** –that vote still stands) > **buffy** (SCUM–voted **cookies** ) > **Pleonast** (Mason–voted **JSexton** , unvoted **JSexton** , then voted **Thing Fish** ) > **Diggit** (voted **chucara** –that vote still stands) > **Cookies** (unvoted **JSexton** , voted **BlaM** , but currently voting for **Hawkeyeop** ) > **amrussell** (unvoted **peekercpa** , voted **Rapier** , currently voting **dotchan** ) > **Natlaw** (unvoted **Diggit** , voted **peekercpa** , has since unvoted) > **chucara** (voted **Thing Fish** , unvoted during Night, sounding almost like he knew his vote might have immediate consequences) > **Almost Human** (voted **Millit the Frail** , then quickly unvoted) > > I would expect to find more scum in here and in the pool of never-voters ( **MHaye, BlaM, Nanook, Hal** ). > > I can give the second-listers some leeway, as they weren’t around to make votes or got caught in the board outage. Lynching the lurkers is a gamble, and I want to hear more from all of them before I throw out an actual vote. (Despite my belief that, statistically speaking, there’s probably at least one scum among them.) > > It’s the first-listers that I want to focus on. There are potentially a few scum diversion attempts in there, none of which really went anywhere, possibly due to the board outage, but more likely due to the fact that they couldn’t herd enough townies toward any other candidate without being extremely obvious. > > More analysis to follow, stay tuned. Again the implication is scum were among those not voting macey - convenient. Also a subtle smudge against me “voted Millet the Frail then quickly unvoted”. Actually I unvoted after she responded to my suspicions but hey, what’s a little smudge in mafia. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT TWO](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/219): > > OK, now that that’s settled, you should have gotten a “TRUE,” because I would have shared my Alpha/Beta persuasion with y’all, and yes, I have one. This whole Vincent thing (love the reference, btw) is pretty nifty, but people have already come along to create doubts. > > Some good reasons to doubt: > > 1. We already have (had) ☹ a confirmed Investigator. Would there really be 2 in a game this size? > 2. If there are 2, our puppy here could be “paranoid” or unreliable. And in this sort of situation, an unreliable cop is as good as no cop. IMHO. > 3. We’ve already killed 2 scum in just under 2 days; they could be scared enough to try a false roleclaim. Especially one that distracts the Doctor. > > Caution is a good thing. I’m not sure we should talk about lynching him for proof yet. If he is for real, we should probably keep him around for as long as possible. And there’s still a significant chance he’s for real. Firstly he wouldn’t have got a TRUE because story, while awesome, isn’t as far as I know able to divine intentions. The rest of this post is basically casting doubt on NAF’s claim without actually coming out and saying you don’t believe him. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT THREE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/14): > > Crud. Sorry to see you go, **Hawkeye**. Oh well, at least we learned some things. We have a non-compulsory Vig, apparently, and these 1/5 dead things are piling up. > > I’m town, dudes. (And chicks.) And you don’t have to keep calling me Mrs. Millit, but hey, it’s better than **Ma’am** , I suppose 😃 This is not a proper town claim IMO so it was fairly safe to make it. You did reclaim on Day/Night Four but by then NAF had already said who he’d be investigating the next two Days so it was safe to do so as you planned on him being dead by then. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT THREE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/100): > > Crap crap crap! These days are too short, and I’ve been on the road all day and probably won’t be back until tomorrow night. I just realized that will be too late to vote then, and it’s after 1AM and I need to go to bed. What’s up toDay? There’s very little posting but a lot going on. I worry that we may be letting power roles do all the work for us. :dubious: And we’re not even certain about their claims yet–there’s no way to know for sure who’s telling the truth and about what. Can we trust **DC**? The knocks are there, but he could be lying about the questions. > > I had a great reason to put my vote on him (the **macey** diversion vote), and now I have no other candidates jumping out at me. I imagine that there will be a flurry of voting tomorrow morning as you all decide what to make of the new claim, but I’m going to leave my vote where it is, try to get online in the morning, and see how things check out. We’ve all been suspicious of **NAF** ’s claim–why are we so eager to believe **DC**? I mean, I’m leaning toward **NAF** being totally above board, but we’ve got to be cautious, people. > > And why are we now claiming Alpha and Beta? I thought we had decided it was not a good idea, for fear of outing power roles. Even though I’m pretty much trusting **NAF** … So you were suspicious of NAF but now you’re inclined to trust him but now you’re suspicious of Diggit? > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT THREE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/114): > > Thought I’d be too late, but here I am. Whew! Anyway, I’m gonna cut to the chase: > > \*\*Unvote DiggitCamara > > Vote Chucara\*\* > > I’ll go with that. If DC is being truthful, I’ll forget about my own vote analysis for the moment. > > And still, let’s be careful about manipulation. There’s no reason to unequivocally believe there’s not a big ol’ scummy plot going on. And now you give Diggit the benefit of the doubt while implying there’s a scummy plot going on - whether this includes NAF or not isn’t clear. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT THREE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/243): > > I’ve been trying to make sense of lots of things, including all these roleclaims, and I’m still inclined to believe everyone. But I don’t suspect everyone who doubts them either. Sigh. (snipped) And now you believe both roleclaims. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT FOUR](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-four/480155/43): > > Arrrgh. I just re-read my post. Sorry to sound confrontational there **NAF** –I guess I still don’t understand how you’ve picked your targets and feel you should be investigating scummy players. But it’s not my power role. I want to trust you but don’t see how this tactic is more useful to us. It would be what I would do if I were scum making a false claim–keep finding townies instead of looking for scum. And you could be psuedo-attacking him here to throw us off his nasty Deadite scent. You’re desperate to get him modkilled, and we may not even have a Vig… > > BTW, what do you think about the other lurkers– **Hal** and \*\*zeriel \*\*come to mind. **Hal** said he’d be back by now. Neither have voted at all. And now you don’t trust him as much but want to. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT FIVE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-five/480855/48): > > I’m listening to Ash; she’s got the hookup. My opinions: > > **Nanook** is a good candidate too. After I run a couple errands today, I’m going to post my **Nanook** case. Good or bad. > > Of those you’ve mentioned, I’d go with **Hal**. He finally voted, only yesterDay, and when he did, it was for Ash. That’s completely fishy. As the Pool O’ Scum ™ is shrinking, I’m betting the scum start getting awfully quiet, and **Hal** is caught in the crosshairs on this one. He said he’d start posting more last week, but by then, it was getting risky to do so. > > **amrussell** is posting a lot, and it’s mostly decent analysis. I don’t see anything particularly scummy. I’ve got to think about this one. > > **MHaye** has some bad stuff going for him. Posting infrequently, voting last-minute, etc. I don’t know that his “Alpha Redshirt” guess on Hal was PI, though. If the scum know who is Alpha and who is Beta, they also know who the power roles are, as none appear to have A/B identities so far. That’s waaaaay unfair. Then again, what do I know? A scum investigator is possible, but why investigate **Hal**? The paranoid version, if I’m right about **Hal** : **Hal** could simply be lying in order to make **MHaye** look bad. “Haha, he’s RIGHT! Must be scum!!” > > **JSexton** is a mixed bag. He went after **Blaster** pretty hard, and he hasn’t been bandwagoning other than that. His other vote that stuck was for **Pleonast** , early on Day 1, and that doesn’t tell me anything. Seems to be posting a fair amount, though. > > Just my 2 cents, as a non-confirmed townie. It’s weird, you’ve been in and out the trusting NAF and Diggit camp yet you trust cookies. You can only trust cookies if you trust NAF. Or if you have another reason to have trusted her you should spell it out which you didn’t do here or previously. You make some new accusations. MHaye and JS are at the bottome of the list with Nanook, Hal and amrussel at the top. Your case against Nanook is for lurking, Hal for voting cookies. You mention amrussel as doing decent analysis (very different from your later post about him). With MHaye you manage to say what he’s done does look suspicious but maybe there are reasons for it and he isn’t necessarily the scum investigator and Hal’s just trying to make MHaye look bad. With JSexton - well he went after Pleo and Blam quite hard but that’s about it. Both scum. Both somewhat protected by you. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-eight/483255)._