# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 27
**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 2, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484/27 "2009-01-02T15:32:32Z")
I went back and had a look at people’s interaction with Hawkeyeop; there’s some interesting stuff there (obviously, mostly centred around Cookies, but not entirely). However, someone else jumped out at me: **unvote dotchan** **vote DiggitCamara** Working backwards: remember I pushed for recaps of cases for carry-over votes? Part of the reason was that I felt scum, having argued spuriously, would be less able to give a convincing recap. Here’s Diggit on the case for Chucara: > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT TWO](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/95): > > I can’t answer for anyone else, but \*\*NAF \*\*(?) talked about a subtle fishing attempt on her(?) part. > > I looked at her(?) posts from Day One and felt \*\*NAF \*\*was spot on. And that’s why I voted for her(?). > > My vote remains on \*\*Chucara \*\*because **macey** ’s blatant fishing was proven to be fishing. And it makes \*\*Chucara \*\*a good candidate. What kind of case is this? No quotes, no links. “Someone else said there was a case, and I agreed.” Then there’s this, to macey on Day One, when he was attracting votes for questioning **pede**. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/142): > > Well… the thing about claiming mason and lying is that, at this juncture, it’s probably the most dangerous thing scum could do. Right now, the only advantage they have is knowledge. The town’s advantage lies in numbers. > > Therefore, any 1x1 exchange at this moment is troublesome to scum and advantageous to town. A false masonhood claim would, at best, turn into a 1x1 exchange. > > That’s why no one is questioning **pede** ’s claim. It’s all true. But, having seen the suspicious non-case-summary above, this now reads to me \*a little \*like one scum trying to get another to back down. Carefully explaining things, laying out the basics, highlighting the downside for scum, and emphasising that no-one (else) was questioning the claim. Finally, there’s Diggit’s original pushing of pede himself (pre-claim), which, as was said at the time, doesn’t make a lot of sense. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/69): > > And AH, why do you think that my “slip” is scummy? If anything, it seems more a power role admission. > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/83): > > Strangely, up to this point, that would have been my interpretation as well. But \*\*story \*\*being \*\*story \*\*(i.e. the introduction), his non-vanilla PM’s are bound to be interesting as a rule. > > You seem to be fishing(kinda scummy IMHO). > > Vote pede > [@Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-one/477854/97): > > Well, in the original context it might have seemed like an innocent slip by someone who had a power role. But your defense against **AH** seems to show that you had tried to get someone else to reply by saying something akin to “Yeah… my PM is pretty cool too”, thus outing a power role. > > Or, like I said before, your second post makes your first post seem like a fishing expedition. All things considered, DiggitCamara comes over as rather scummy. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-three/479484)._