# Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT SEVEN **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-seven/482492 "2009-01-22T18:47:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 33
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-seven/482492/33 "2009-01-23T23:05:59Z")
But there’s more! > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT SIX](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-six/481695/120): > > Point 1 I’ve talked about already. > > Point 2: Blam was the lynch I felt most strongly about. I’m not going to apologize for that. However, I’d like to note that I also attacked macey day 1 for being ridiculously scummy. I didn’t ride her as hard as Blam, because it wasn’t necessary - nobody needed convincing. Yes, of course I could have just been bussing macey, but it’s not true that the only strong attack I amde was on a SK. You say you’re playing with a toned down style. That seems fair enough. But like I said, and here we segue into point two, you reverted to form for **Blam**. By contrast, here’s the entirety of your strong attack against **macey** : > [@JSexton](#): > > Wow. It’s been said by others, but yeah. Claiming mason is not the same as any other claim, really. There’s zero chance that scum false claims mason day one. Think about it: if the mod told them there’s no mason group, that’s basically free rein to have two or three scum be unlynchable. > > This post and your others are pretty bad. I see a former mason buddy saying that you can be all over the place as town, but it’s still worth a unvote Pleonast, vote macey. It’s a vote. It’s a confident vote. But four lines is not a strong attack, especially when you’re the sixth vote. Rewriting your own posting history in the hopes that others will take you at your word is a definite scum tell. > [@](#): > > Point 3: I think here you’re misinterpreting what I was saying. When I said it would be good to analyze those that interacted with bufftabby and macey (and those that didn’t), I’m not saying that both of those actions are automatically scum tells. All I was saying is that it’s easy to get caught up in doing a PBPA and thinking that’s all there is to it. Context is important. For example, say a player is on a “lynch the lurker” hunt, and calls out two of the three lowest posters. If it later turns out that the the missing player is scum, well, maybe that’s a good indicator that the lurker hunter is also scum, due to the failure to call the scum lurker out. That’s what I was referring to, because it’s not something that would be apparent from just searching someone’s posts. > > It’s not remotely the same as calling people scum for opposite reasons. It strikes me that based on this you weren’t really saying anything. Telling people how they ought to go about hunting scum is easy; getting your hands dirty is harder. And you’ve been offering a lot more advice than you’ve been hunting scum. But the original point is that after making some clear Day One posts about not thinking “scum would never do that”, you tried to call me out for being prepared to consider that two different actions could have scum motivation. It’s not consistent. > [@](#): > > Point 4: Related to the above. I don’t think there’s any contradiction there at all. Again, it’s all about context. Regarding brewha’s vote on macey, there’s a difference between hopping on a wagon, and starting one. Brewha isn’t totally cleared in my mind, but then, no one is totally cleared in my mind. How does one decide to “start” a wagon? At the point you make the first vote, you have no idea if it’s going to be a wagon or not. First you pointed out that somebody who started a wagon like **macey** ’s would have no chance to get off, then you smear me for suggesting that **brewha** ’s early \*\*macey _vote may not be exculpatory for exactly that reason_. > [@](#): > > Which brings me to > > Point 5: What you call smudging, I call caution. The only confirmed townies are dead townies. We have someone cop-cleared? Could be godfather. We have uncountered claimed masons? One could be a traitor. I’ve lost too many games to assuming someone is 100% cleared, and I won’t hesitate to correct someone if they’re getting too casual with suspicion. Do I consider the masons and Total Lost to be very likely town? Of course. It doesn’t mean they’re unlynchable if the right evidence comes out, however. Caution is all very well and good. But you said twice that you would review **Total Lost** , and you never did. Which makes this look less like pro-town caution and more like scum sowing doubt and confusion. My vote stands. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-seven/482492)._