# Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT THREE **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 1, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484 "2009-01-01T18:31:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Rapier42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90db22/32.png) [@Rapier42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rapier42)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/201 "2009-01-06T00:29:43Z")
Looks like we lost part of your post, there, NAF. But I disagree with your conclusion regarding a Mason claim… if they claim now, it puts any remaining power roles at greater risk, by reducing the size of the pool the killers (vig and scum) may choose to go hunting in. A mason claim would remove folks from your fishing pond, but not from the general list - I think we can trust a Mason in danger of being lynched to say so, and so in effect that pool is already smaller… we just don’t know it yet. Capiche? So a smaller pool for your investigation is the only benefit I see to a mason claim at this time, offset by increased danger to still-hiding power roles… I don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/202 "2009-01-06T00:35:20Z")
What I was trying to say is, isn’t it even better if we find a Scum than if we find more vanilla? That’s why I would suggest investigating those you are most suspicious of. ---
**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:** [January 6, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/203 "2009-01-06T00:46:20Z")
ouch. Well that sucks. I didn’t even notice until Rapier pointed it out. The rest of my post was me trying to reason out that the remaining power roles are safer in the smaller pool because there is a better chance of a vig hitting a non-confirmable vanilla or a scum than the power role. And as long as there are fewer power roles than vanillas they stay safe and the scum are exposed. That’s why the mason claim. Ed, I see where you are coming from, but I don’t think you are right. That’s what the lynches are for. We lynch the people we are suspicious of, we confirm the people who claim vanilla town (and cookies and TL) and then I get killed to nail down the conirmation. They we are working both sides toward the middle. ---
**Author:** ![Rapier42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90db22/32.png) [@Rapier42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rapier42)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/204 "2009-01-06T00:49:16Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > ouch. Well that sucks. I didn’t even notice until Rapier pointed it out. > > The rest of my post was me trying to reason out that the remaining power roles are safer in the smaller pool because there is a better chance of a vig hitting a non-confirmable vanilla or a scum than the power role. And as long as there are fewer power roles than vanillas they stay safe and the scum are exposed. That’s why the mason claim. > > Ed, I see where you are coming from, but I don’t think you are right. That’s what the lynches are for. We lynch the people we are suspicious of, we confirm the people who claim vanilla town (and cookies and TL) and then I get killed to nail down the conirmation. They we are working both sides toward the middle. I don’t follow this at all, NAF. To my mind, a mass mason claim exposes power roles to scum just as much as it exposes scum to the rest of us, to the extent that unclaimed power roles are hiding in the same pool as scum are. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/205 "2009-01-06T00:58:03Z")
Just chiming in. Does anyone want to change my proposed PM at all? I’ll send it off in a while, otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/206 "2009-01-06T02:01:35Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > ouch. Well that sucks. I didn’t even notice until Rapier pointed it out. > > The rest of my post was me trying to reason out that the remaining power roles are safer in the smaller pool because there is a better chance of a vig hitting a non-confirmable vanilla or a scum than the power role. And as long as there are fewer power roles than vanillas they stay safe and the scum are exposed. That’s why the mason claim. > > Ed, I see where you are coming from, but I don’t think you are right. That’s what the lynches are for. We lynch the people we are suspicious of, we confirm the people who claim vanilla town (and cookies and TL) and then I get killed to nail down the conirmation. They we are working both sides toward the middle. No problem. From someone who isn’t you though, finding and lynching a Scum would give you a bit more cred. Finding out you were lying on Day 7 would really suck for Town. That’s my point 🙂 and, it’s all the better to lynch or Vig hit a Scum, n’est pas? ---
**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:** [January 6, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/207 "2009-01-06T02:24:40Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > No problem. From someone who isn’t you though, finding and lynching a Scum would give you a bit more cred. > > Finding out you were lying on Day 7 would really suck for Town. That’s my point 🙂 > > and, it’s all the better to lynch or Vig hit a Scum, n’est pas? Yeah, I get that. I suppose I understand being wary of a false claim, I just wonder why I am being put through the wringer while, Diggit for example, isn’t. Not that I don’t believe Diggit, but I don’t understand why his claim is so much more believable than mine. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/208 "2009-01-06T02:39:17Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > Yeah, I get that. I suppose I understand being wary of a false claim, I just wonder why I am being put through the wringer while, Diggit for example, isn’t. Not that I don’t believe Diggit, but I don’t understand why his claim is so much more believable than mine. His claim isn’t more believable. I just don’t see it having the potential to do as much damage as yours if it’s false. And, I also don’t see it as having the potential to do as much good if it’s true. He should come back tomorrow with the name of a Deadite. As long as that Scum isn’t already dead, we should get a lynch out of it. **Thing Fish** should have nothing else for us after that. And, depending on who else dies, I don’t see **Diggit** having the potential to mislead us as much. I wouldn’t entirely expect that both you and **Diggit** will be alive in the morning anyway. But still, I’m not discounting your claim. I’m just trying to be careful. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/209 "2009-01-06T03:34:55Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > Yeah, I get that. I suppose I understand being wary of a false claim, I just wonder why I am being put through the wringer while, Diggit for example, isn’t. Not that I don’t believe Diggit, but I don’t understand why his claim is so much more believable than mine. From my perspective there’s more objective evidence: 1. No one (well… maybe\*\* Hockey Monkey\*\*) can deny there were knocks in the morning 2. No one (but me) claimed to know anything about them 3. Using them to establish my powers (if I hadn’t anything to do with the knocks) would be risky at best, stupid at worst, because I couldn’t have known what they meant. And could be exposed as a fraud if I claimed to know about them By the way: I’ll send my PM shortly. So: don’t expect me to change the contents after this post. ---
**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 6, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/210 "2009-01-06T14:16:39Z")
So, I’ve just done a review of **Cookies** , because I have a feeling we’re going to be discussing her for a while. As far as the (pre-claim) case for her being scum goes, I think you can make three main points: 1. Early on Day One - very self-conscious about the weakness of her vote, mentioning it several times: > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/90): > > This vote is circumstantial and based largely on a hunch that may be easily over-turned by a decent defense, but I’m going to make my wincing Day 1 vote for > > JSexton > > I want to be clear that I am not proposing that **Pleo** is town in any way but a weak assumption to arrive at a weak Day 1 vote. . > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/156): > > As you can probably tell from tone of my post, I am not passionately convinced that JSexton is scum such that I am inclined to proselytize with fire and brimstone. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/190): > > My case against JSexton being as weak as it is, I don’t mind attempting to be the muscle on some of our lurkers. > > Unvote JSexton > Vote Blam Note that she ultimately backs off this vote, which had failed to gain traction with others and had been openly questioned (of which more later). 1. Defending **macey**. Naturally, I’m a little ambivalent about this, as this charge applies to me too. For what’s it worth, there is obvious pro-scum motivation. 2. Pre-emptive defence against **Hawk** : > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/267): > > > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/266): > > > > Watching my game, one thing I picked up on was relationships between posters were more important than individual posts. The quality of an argument doesn’t really say anything. Coming up with credible reasoning isn’t terribly difficult. What reveals more is when players support other players, and when they don’t. With that in mind I’m going to go over every post concerning Macey from the “slip” to death. > > This statement sticks out to me like a sore thumb. With a single brush stroke you are a) dismissing argument quality as a variable to be considered during analysis and b) advocating instead for an analysis strategy that has a significant false positive rate. > > I’d also be extremely curious as to how you are going to define “when players support other players” and “when they don’t”. Which leads to this little gem of an exchange: > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/268): > > Funny (well probably not) you should ask. I’m almost positive you will come up as likely scum. I’ll try to get the full analysis with detailed explanation posted in the next day or two. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/276): > > Funny you should say that, because I knew you’d be coming after me. You’ll be wrong if that is what you come up with, but I look forward to reading your analysis. It should help me decide whether or not you’re scum who is so confident that I’d make a good target because you already knew that **macey** was scum, and started plotting as soon as you read my post referencing the case against **macey** and whether or not I should vote for you out of the gate Tomorrow. What strikes me about this (and I think \*\*Rapier42 \*\*mentioned it as well) is that \*\*Cookies \*\*is very quick on the defence. Specifically, as soon as \*\*Hawk \*\*mentioned that he was going to look over the macey lynch, \*\*Cookies \*\*immediately felt that she would be the target of that analysis. Furthermore, she moves quickly on to suggest that should \*\*Hawk \*_find her suspicious, this will be strong evidence that he is scum - sort of a pre-emptive OMGUS. Again, for what it’s worth, it wasn’t until I read through Hawk’s first macey-analysis post that I realised I was going to be fingered._ You can argue that this behaviour smacks of a guilty conscience - that \*\*Cookies \*\*knew \*\*Hawk \*\*would be coming after her because she knew she’d been acting scummy. This ties in with point 1 - getting her defence of her vote in early, because she was thinking about what made it look bad. There are however, counters to each of these arguments: 1. It’s pro-town not to overstate your case - if you know your vote is weak, there’s no harm in saying so 2. Sometimes, people make mistakes 3. Cookies had been fitted up before, and realised quickly that she was in the frame. There’s one other point, that I would say tends to argue for \*\*Cookies \*\*being town: \*\*bufftabby \*\*voted for her. Not once she’d come under suspicion but an early Day One vote, pre- **macey** , calling her out for her \*\*JSexton \*\*vote. This doesn’t mean \*\*Cookies \*\*\*can’t \*be scum. But, what is the scum motivation for voting for each other Day One? I can see a long-term goal of muddying voter records, but a big risk in that it doesn’t take much to get a Day One lynch and that first vote might have turned into a bandwagon. More likely, \*\*bufftabby \*\*saw an admitted weak vote and went for it. So that’s the pre-claim case, as I see it. Nothing completely conclusive; but for the bufftabby vote, I’d lean scum. With it, I’m less convinced. The claim raises its own questions. The big one for me is this: given that story published the two vanilla role-PMs, how come “Ash” is vanilla? If you had to give a name to a role that can vouch for one other player, it would be mason. But \*\*pede \*\*has explicitly said she isn’t one. Pending an answer to this, I’m leaning back to scum. ---
**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 6, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/211 "2009-01-06T15:02:05Z")
I’m moving on to a new post because I want to make a point about where we are in the game now, and I’m going to use my above post as an example: Arguably, it was a complete waste of time. We can’t vote for Cookies, because NAF is going to investigate her. And if we can’t vote for her, is it even worth discussing her? Surely, we should be looking elsewhere just now? Well, there’s no point talking about NAF, because we’re not going to lynch him toDay either. We’re giving Diggit a chance to speak to Thing Fish, so we’re not talking about him. Those are the people at the centre of the game. YesterDay, we shouldn’t have talked about Chucara, who put herself at the centre of the game, because she was NAF’s target. What I’m getting at is, tip-toeing around power-roles is leading us to squelch conversation. Not being able to talk about the most involved players, the alternative is to go through the quieter ones. The problem with this is that not having posted much, there’s little to go on. And if they’re not posting back, we won’t get any info. There are two alternatives that I can see: we start voting for lurkers to drive participation and let NAF investigate the central characters. OR, NAF investigates the quiet posters and the town talk about the big issues. I’m going to split the difference right now: add to the vote on Blam and hope that NAF will consider looking elsewhere for targets. **vote Blam** because, as pointed out upthread, his sporadic posting has been bandwagon voting and game theory, and because of the quieter posters, he’s already got a vote, giving NAF more options if he wants to change tactics. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/212 "2009-01-06T17:12:13Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > When did I make that switch? I never did that. I am still on the original plan to build a giant mason group. > > It would be nice if people like nookie weren’t up on my jock, but what are you going to do? Either you don’t believe my power claim and I am the worlds ballsiest scum (possible, but I don’t see anyone really pushing that theory) or you believe my claim and think that that my powers somehow help the scum or function as a third party win condition that will steal the game from town. That’s stupid but seems to be the operating assumtion of several players. (Including you hawk. Sorry, but it’s dumb.) > > So, I think that if Cookies is telling the truth I can prove it. That gives us both Cookies and TL as confirmed town. If she is lying I can catch her as scum, giving you me as someone you can actually trust. > > Again I would like the remaining masons to claim at some point. > > If you are willing to trust me until I get killed (and I am not asking to survive to endgame, just long enough to get a few town confirmed) then I think we can get a really nice and narrow pool to hunt scum in. So I am hoping that Cookies comes back as town. > > In the meantime let’s try to to be fucking myopic and maybe look a little bit at the big picture. > [@NAF1138](#): > > Ok, you know I love you TL, right? Good remember that while you read the following links. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10644624&postcount=57](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10644624&postcount=57) > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10644883&postcount=62](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10644883&postcount=62) > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10629847&postcount=122](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10629847&postcount=122) > There are more. > > On top of that, lynching someone based on a typo in a quoted PM is REALLY REALLY REALLY bad play. > > Really bad. > > Haven’t we been hit over the head with that one enough? It’s not just the lack of capitalization. It’s the entire style–the sentences about TL just sound different than the rest of the post–not to mention the randomness of the birthmark/new Ash thing. > [@brewha](#): > > Nice. Real Nice. > > Look, just because you say you can investigate means absolutely nothing to me. I have no reason to trust you unconditionally. That makes me, or any other town member, a moron? > > So, what if you come back with a ‘read’ on Cookies? How do we know your read is correct? We’re just supposed to trust you til day 5 or 6? What if you’re scum? All you are doing is delaying the town. > What if you, Cookies, and Total lost is scum. You’re basically screaming “NO DON’T LYNCH Cookies!”. So you can come back tomorrow and say, “well whadda know, Cookies is Town - which makes Total Lost town”. Now we have 3 confirmed ‘Townies’, who are actually scum and free to do what they want until we lynch you in a couple of days. By then it could be too late for the town to recover. > > Look, I’m not sayin that any of the above is actually what I believe. I’m just saying that I cannot take your word as gospel truth. And I’m just leary of your whole claim. Exactly. The way I see it, there are two major possibilities: -Cookies is godfather, NAF is town, TL is town. Here, cookies is trying to shake of the lynch while building the ultimate townie cred: a ‘confirm’ from an investigator and a confirmation of her role powers. -Cookies is scum, NAF is scum, TL is town. This is a slightly riskier play, but given we hit Scum day 1, night 1, and Hawk fingered NAF and cookies, they might be willing to try it. Here, NAF looks like an investigator while ‘clearing’ cookies–at night, the scum hit TL, also ‘confirming’ cookies. Even when NAF bites it on day 7, the scum think they’ll have enough numbers to pull it off. Yes, cookies could be town, but by this point I’m convinced she isn’t. > [@NAF1138](#): > > ouch. Well that sucks. I didn’t even notice until Rapier pointed it out. > > The rest of my post was me trying to reason out that the remaining power roles are safer in the smaller pool because there is a better chance of a vig hitting a non-confirmable vanilla or a scum than the power role. And as long as there are fewer power roles than vanillas they stay safe and the scum are exposed. That’s why the mason claim. > > Ed, I see where you are coming from, but I don’t think you are right. That’s what the lynches are for. We lynch the people we are suspicious of, we confirm the people who claim vanilla town (and cookies and TL) and then I get killed to nail down the conirmation. They we are working both sides toward the middle. Here’s the way I see it: -You investigate cookies, we lynch…someone else–Questionable. Who is this mysterious ‘someone else’? What if we find a power role? What if we don’t find anyone, and screw up at the last minute? It could work, but it depends on who we find–and so far, I haven’t found anyone scummier than cookies. -We lynch cookies, you investigate someone else–Net +. If cookies is town, we’ve confirmed 2 townies minus a vanilla town, slightly better than the one above. However, if she’s scum (likely), we’ve caught a scum and have a lead on one more…you [naf]. > [@amrussell](#): > > We can’t vote for Cookies, because NAF is going to investigate her. And if we can’t vote for her, is it even worth discussing her? Surely, we should be looking elsewhere just now. What?? NAF’s powers are day actions. If we vote cookies tomorrow, only an idiot or a scum (or an idiot scum) wouldn’t change his target. If he refuses, good! We have another lead! If he investigates someone else, good! We either have one dead scum and one more confirmed townie, or two confirmed townies and one dead vanilla. We should not be backing down for a power role who hasn’t sent his PM yet. Do you want to be lead around by the nose by some Scum investigator who’s pulling the wool over our eyes? Even if you are town, NAF (and I grant there’s a good possibility), you should not be dictating the town lynch when all you have is the promise of a future investigation. That’s a collective effort, the only one we have. ---
**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:** [January 6, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/213 "2009-01-06T17:23:09Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > We should not be backing down for a power role who hasn’t sent his PM yet. Do you want to be lead around by the nose by some Scum investigator who’s pulling the wool over our eyes? Even if you are town, NAF (and I grant there’s a good possibility), you should not be dictating the town lynch when all you have is the promise of a future investigation. That’s a collective effort, the only one we have. Agreed. I will investigate someone else if it looks like you are going to lynch cookies. I am just trying to present a case as to why I think we should be looking in other areas. Even if Cookies is the Godfather she is fucked if she is scum. My powers aren’t hindered by that sort of thing since I detect lies not alignment. I am not going to sit by toNight while town talks about doing something that I see as very short sighted. Come toMorrow I won’t be voting for Cookies but I also won’t try to talk anyone out of it anymore. I will be spending my time persuing the other suspicious folks in the game. That’s what Days are for. I am not trying to lead town around by the nose here, but the case against Cookies isn’t particularly strong to begin with and we get a lot of benefit from that investigation with very little risk. If she is scum it can wait a Night while we do some other investigations. ---
**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 6, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/214 "2009-01-06T17:33:50Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > What?? NAF’s powers are day actions. If we vote cookies tomorrow, only an idiot or a scum (or an idiot scum) wouldn’t change his target. Given what happened with Chucara yesterDay, which of your three options are you applying to NAF toDay? > [@](#): > > We should not be backing down for a power role who hasn’t sent his PM yet. Do you want to be lead around by the nose by some Scum investigator who’s pulling the wool over our eyes? Even if you are town, NAF (and I grant there’s a good possibility), you should not be dictating the town lynch when all you have is the promise of a future investigation. That’s a collective effort, the only one we have. That was my point. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/215 "2009-01-06T18:26:48Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > Given what happened with Chucara yesterDay, which of your three options are you applying to NAF toDay. If NAF is true to his word, none. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/216 "2009-01-06T19:13:52Z")
This has got to be the most perplexing discussion in the history of mafia games I’ve missed a few real life days of and then come back to. In all the talk about overanalysis of Cookie’s PM and capitalization thereof, we HAVE caught Cookies herself in a similar grammar slip when she was scum before. NAF’s pseudo-masonry idea is good and it should continue (not the least of which because I’m a claimed vanilla and on the investigation list. =P), but at the same time, he needs to be responsive to town’s collective will in terms of who to lynch–I’m leaning toward Cookies myself, at this point. There’s still a lot going on here and I’m gunshy about posting until I get my head back around the game, and I’m somewhat bemused to admit that it’s not going easily. =P ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/217 "2009-01-06T19:19:50Z")
First capitalization was a lie, and now it is grammar… ---
**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:** [January 6, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/218 "2009-01-06T19:32:55Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > NAF’s pseudo-masonry idea is good and it should continue (not the least of which because I’m a claimed vanilla and on the investigation list. =P), but at the same time, he needs to be responsive to town’s collective will in terms of who to lynch–I’m leaning toward Cookies myself, at this point. :smack: I am more than happy to investigate you tomorrow if Cookies is going to get lynched. Cookies lynch is a bad idea anyway. ---
**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:** [January 6, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/219 "2009-01-06T19:34:05Z")
NETA: Even if she is scum it’s a bad idea. I am actually kinda shocked that no one else sees that. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/220 "2009-01-06T19:42:49Z")
I can see it. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484.md?page=12)