Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT THREE

[Stanislaus]

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:

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

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. .

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

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.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

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).

2. 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.

3. Pre-emptive defence against Hawk:

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

@Hawkeyeop

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:

@Hawkeyeop

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.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

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.