# Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT TWO **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 27, 2008, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862 "2008-12-27T18:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**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:** [December 30, 2008, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/101 "2008-12-30T02:48:34Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > Because time is short and I don’t know if **brewha** will show up in time. _blinks_ _blinks repeatedly_ Nope, it still doesn’t make any sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/102 "2008-12-30T02:58:45Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > Assuming Hawk scum, Cookies town: > +bufftabby’s vote becomes relevant as setup (P1.158) > +Hawk did conveniently leaves out the ‘ignoring macey’ and lurker card piles > +Finds Pleonast scummy, but puts him in the neutral pile (maybe scum already decided to Night kill him?) > +Could be defending Chucara (two votes at the time). Puts him in the neutral pile, even though he thinks macey was not fishing. Suggests if NAF scum, Chucara must be town > +mentioning everyone who responded gives a nice opportunity to put suspicion or false trust on a lot of players > =Probability: medium to high I didn’t look back at the interactions with Buff. That is next on my to do list. The fact that she voted for Cookies is interesting and worth exploring. I left out the ignore and lurker stuff mostly because I didn’t have too much to say about them. To reiterate I think ignorers are slightly scummy and lurking is a null tell. I said Chucara is probably town if Naf (and/or Diggit) are scum. I didn’t say must or at least if I did I shouldn’t have. I did mention a lot of players, but isn’t that a good thing? I mean you are complaining about me leaving people out of the analysis and complaining I gave too many thoughts? > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Why did you not count bufftabby along with me, Naf, and amrussel in that group? > > With regards to bussing fellow scum, considering that the two Deadites that have been killed aren’t actually dead, there is certainly a wrinkle to the usual disincentive to bus one’s scummates. I was only talking about people who tried to protect Macey. There are certainly scum elsewhere as well, but I believe in not as high concentrations. Buff wasn’t part of that focus. The second point is an interesting one. > [@pedescribe](#): > > This is false. Attempting to protect is a question of _intent_. Making it less likely that the person is lynched is a matter of _consequences_. That you are attempting to conflate the two is highly scummy IMO. If you vote for one player, then you intent for everyone else to not lynched. I intend for Naf and Amrussell not to get lynched even thought I find them scummy. I think this is just a semantics argument though. > [@](#): > > Lurking is, if nothing else, highly anti-town. It can also turn into a pro-scum maneuver if that’s why the lurker lurks. This has been discussed before. I find lurking at least somewhat scummy. It is also a very easy argument for the scum to push. If they there players aren’t lurking then push lynch the lurker. When it fails they can say it was anti-town behavior they were trying to rid the game. Sure scum hide while lurking, but they can do more damage by pushing the town to their will. At any rate in all the game I have watched, I’ve not seen any connection between post frequency and alignment. > [@](#): > > The upside is twofold: not only would a scum you snag a high-level participating town, but (assuming no-one sees through it, which, while typically a safe assumption, didn’t happen) you look town. That is a very strong motivation for scum behavior, and it is scummy that you neglect to consider it, IMO. Well it is possible. Scum can do any number of crazy things. In general though the simplest answer to usually accurate. Read through the day assuming I’m scum and see how much sense it makes. > [@](#): > > Why do you keep pushing suspicion away from NAF? I’m not. I still think he is likely scum. But if Chucara happens to be scum, then my case against him is greatly diminished. Even if I think it unlikely, it is still possible. > [@NAF1138](#): > > Hawk are you a deadite or town? I am pro-town > [@JSexton](#): > > Strawman. I expect scum to try and blend in and act townie. If that means posting an legit attack on their own, then yeah, that’s the right play. Macey made a series of terrible posts. Good town play is to attack them, therefore good scum play is to attack them. Let us say as scum you have two options. One is a pro-town and the other is pro-scum. Town thinks both choices are equally likely to be done by scum. You would pick the pro-scum option right? If town thinks scum are likely to pretend to be townie, why not just act scummy? After many games here this is the rationalization that scum have come up with. I expect the scum to act scummy because there is no reason for them not to. We have allowed scum to do whatever they want on the belief that scum will try to pretend they are town. But if there is no reason for them to need to pretend, they won’t. If nothing else voting for people who try to push the town away from pro-town actions, causing the scum to play a more cautious game. I would also say Macey’s lynch was not inevitable. Especially not when I casted my vote. When I was scum I successfully argued against votes on much bigger slips then that. If I was scum I highly doubt I’d concede a teammate that early in the process. > [@](#): > > Disagree. You’re confusing motive with effect. Taking a given action will prodice a variety of effects, some of which may be incidental and show nothing of that player’s motivation. I don’t know that there is a good way to determine motive. Looking at results and attempting to discern motive might be the best we can do. > [@](#): > > Or look at it another way: That logic means that every time a player casts a vote, that player is protecting _every single other player_, which renders it somewhat useless as a tell, doesn’t it? Yeah, but not all protections are equal. You can tell a lot based on timing and other factors. > [@](#): > > Lurking is scummy, because it is not pro-town. It does not allow the town to use your posts to determine your alignment, and it doesn’t contribute your brainpower. Does town lurk? Sure. But town also vigs town, mislynchs, and lies (irony!). The point is that those actions are anti-town, and hence are more likely to indicate motivation. It may be unhelpful, but I don’t think it is a likely place to find scum. LTL is also an easy scum battle cry. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/103 "2008-12-30T03:19:16Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Let us say as scum you have two options. One is a pro-town and the other is pro-scum. Town thinks both choices are equally likely to be done by scum. You would pick the pro-scum option right? If town thinks scum are likely to pretend to be townie, why not just act scummy? I think this is completely, completely untrue. Look back over the thread, and you will find several examples of players saying “I think x is scummy” and vote accordingly. I mean, that’s kinda the basis of the game. > [@](#): > > I would also say Macey’s lynch was not inevitable. Especially not when I casted my vote. When I was scum I successfully argued against votes on much bigger slips then that. If I was scum I highly doubt I’d concede a teammate that early in the process. False dilemma. Voting for Macey early on isn’t the same as conceding him. It’s not uncommon for a scumbuddy to hop on a wagon, and then watch their partner go completely unhinged, and be left with no reasonable way to move their vote. > [@](#): > > I don’t know that there is a good way to determine motive. Looking at results and attempting to discern motive might be the best we can do. The entire goal of mafia is to determine a players motive. That’s the game. I don’t really know how to respond to this without sounding extremely condescending. > [@](#): > > Yeah, but not all protections are equal. You can tell a lot based on timing and other factors. Sigh. Of course. But you’re contradicting yourself, because what I was responding to was you saying that that a vote for someone other than macey was protecting macey. If that’s not a contradiction, then you were making a trivially true point; a tautology. And then how is that helpful to essentially say “A vote for someone other than macey is not a vote for macey.”? > [@](#): > > It may be unhelpful, but I don’t think it is a likely place to find scum. LTL is also an easy scum battle cry. Gee, guess we’re back to attempting to divine motive then, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/104 "2008-12-30T03:36:36Z")
> [@JSexton](#): > > I think this is completely, completely untrue. Look back over the thread, and you will find several examples of players saying “I think x is scummy” and vote accordingly. I mean, that’s kinda the basis of the game. Of course. But most of the time people vote for things they think scum would do rather than actions that specifically help scum. Also many things, like votes, townies can’t know whether they were pro-scum until later. If townies aren’t willing to look back and see who tried to help scum stay alive then why shouldn’t scum do everything in there power to protect each other. It sure worked in SDMB. Scum has adjusted to how town plays here. Town needs to adjust back > [@](#): > > False dilemma. Voting for Macey early on isn’t the same as conceding him. It’s not uncommon for a scumbuddy to hop on a wagon, and then watch their partner go completely unhinged, and be left with no reasonable way to move their vote. Do you think I would be under more suspicion if I argued against Macey’s vote right out of the gate then for it. I’m not sure what town cred you think I got from that vote. I think if I was scum I would be increasing the odds of Macey being lynched without achieving any actual benefit. Why would I do that? > [@](#): > > The entire goal of mafia is to determine a players motive. That’s the game. > > I don’t really know how to respond to this without sounding extremely condescending. Yes, but often the best way of figuring out why a player did X is to look at results. They aren’t the only factor, but they are an important one, and should be closely considered. > [@](#): > > Sigh. Of course. But you’re contradicting yourself, because what I was responding to was you saying that that a vote for someone other than macey was protecting macey. If that’s not a contradiction, then you were making a trivially true point; a tautology. And then how is that helpful to essentially say “A vote for someone other than macey is not a vote for macey.”? I’m just saying we need to look closely at all the votes that would have helped a scum stay alive. Some players did a fair bit more towards that end then others. > [@](#): > > Gee, guess we’re back to attempting to divine motive then, huh? We never weren’t. I just think results is a useful indicator of motive. Sure results don’t imply causation, but we don’t have any foolproof methods here. I think it is a better way of voting then thinking Dotchan is scummy for confusing a couple of players, and not posting very much. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/105 "2008-12-30T04:02:45Z")
I just deleted a long reply to you, Hawkeye. I think, again, that we’re coming down to a difference in playstyle. I tend to think my way has more merit (but doesn’t everyone?) because you get to analyze as you go instead of waiting for solid results, but hey, it helps to have people looking at the same elephant from different angles. unvote hawkeyeop. This isn’t to say that I consider you town all of a sudden, but the main reason I was after you was because I felt your motivation for your actions was scummy. I can see a townie motive now, and that’s enough. Maybe outside the game we debate theory some more, hey? ---
**Author:** ![Millit\_the\_Frail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/51bf81/32.png) [@Millit\_the\_Frail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Millit_the_Frail)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/106 "2008-12-30T04:08:32Z")
> [@Millit\_the\_Frail](#): > > **Peeker** : I forgot to say that **peeker** is on this list. (Sorry **peeker** , I didn’t mean to be aggressive with my previous posts; I’m just frustrated and should have added in some smilies to indicate I’m doing more teasing than bullying. Here are a few: ;)🆒:D) He voted for **Thing Fish** , then unvoted, then voted for **macey** later on. That’s a suspicious pattern if I ever saw one. There were 5 votes on **macey** and 2 on **Thing Fish** when he cast his vote. But then at **macey** 5, **TF** 4, he changed his vote! So maybe not so suspicious after all. If scum, **peeker** probably would not have ditched that vote while there was still a contest. :smack: I’ve been making some mistakes because I can’t read my own writing. How about I revisit **peekercpa** , whom I confused for \*\*pedescribe \*\*in my notes? The names look somewhat alike, and \*\*pedescribe \*\*was quoting **peeker** in his vote post (D1 P191), so all of this led me to attribute the vote/unvote to the wrong person. Apologies for being dead wrong in that post. (I don’t even know if anyone’s reading along; maybe this is all for my benefit. Hope it helps sort out the voting, though. Maybe I’ll make and post a spreadsheet later on. I like spreadsheets. :)) **Peeker** _did not_ change his vote from **TF** to **macey**. So this changes things–I’m putting a high suspicion level back on **peeker** for voting **Thing Fish** during the **macey** train. ---
**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:** [December 30, 2008, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/107 "2008-12-30T04:17:06Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > I said Chucara is probably town if Naf (and/or Diggit) are scum. I disagree with this. Chucara could easily be a third party who is trying to determine AlphaBeta status or some-such. > [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > If you vote for one player, then you intent for everyone else to not lynched. I intend for Naf and Amrussell not to get lynched even thought I find them scummy. I think this is just a semantics argument though. No, no you don’t. You intend for everyone else not to get lynched that day. You may cry semantics but there is a world of difference between the two. People who didn’t vote for macey may have intended to vote for him tomorrow, or protect him again tomorrow. Of course, after the fact claims are meaningless, which is why we’re trying to puzzle out intent. Did the non-macey voters want to keep him away or did they just not care/not look/were planning to vote him tomorrow/thought the case was bogus? I agree that what you are doing is a good tactic. I even agree with your results, to some extent. I am suspicious of NAF, and amrussel, and cookies (otherwise, I wouldn’t have kept her from falseclaiming). I just think that you are scum intending to make the best of a bad situation rather than earnest, practical townie. > [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > It is also a very easy argument for the scum to push. If they there players aren’t lurking then push lynch the lurker. When it fails they can say it was anti-town behavior they were trying to rid the game. Sure scum hide while lurking, but they can do more damage by pushing the town to their will. At any rate in all the game I have watched, I’ve not seen any connection between post frequency and alignment. In games where we have clear information about sub/modkill information, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, if Blam–for example–continues to not post but is not modkilled, it really doesn’t matter what alignment he is, since he’s dead weight if town and he still needs to be killed if non-town. > [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Well it is possible. Scum can do any number of crazy things. In general though the simplest answer to usually accurate. Read through the day assuming I’m scum and see how much sense it makes. I think it makes a lot of sense. That’s why I’m arguing against you. > [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Let us say as scum you have two options. One is a pro-town and the other is pro-scum. Town thinks both choices are equally likely to be done by scum. You would pick the pro-scum option right? If town thinks scum are likely to pretend to be townie, why not just act scummy? After many games here this is the rationalization that scum have come up with. I expect the scum to act scummy because there is no reason for them not to. We have allowed scum to do whatever they want on the belief that scum will try to pretend they are town. But if there is no reason for them to need to pretend, they won’t. If nothing else voting for people who try to push the town away from pro-town actions, causing the scum to play a more cautious game. I disagree. Some scum (like macey) will pick the pro-scum actions. They are easy to catch. Some scum (like The Toad\*) will pick the pro-town actions. They will evade capture, but (hopefully) eventually be forced into a corner and either reveal themselves or be more useful to town anyway. Some scum (like DEQ\*\*) will only do pro-scum actions that look pro-town. These are hard to catch. Some scum (like the turned Janitor\*\*\*) will attempt to act pro-town but eventually do pro-scum stuff. Also hard to catch. Point is, the scum don’t act as a block. This is why we say ‘scum would do that’. But we also have to consider what is more likely. Point being, you’re overgeneralizing and eliminating certain ideas in order to bolster your case. Scummy. \*See Pollux Oil in Marvel [here](http://psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=skrull). He claimed to be a 50/50 investigator, and even after getting two of his scumbuddies lynched, he still didn’t look as townie as the town. \*\*See Blaster Master in SDMB [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=490235). He admitted to doing so after the game was over. \*\*\*See Rysto in T2 somewhere. Because he was recruited halfway through, he had a better excuse, but eventually he was revealed to have changed allegiances. > [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Do you think I would be under more suspicion if I argued against Macey’s vote right out of the gate then for it. I’m not sure what town cred you think I got from that vote. I think if I was scum I would be increasing the odds of Macey being lynched without achieving any actual benefit. Why would I do that? You are constantly touting the inherent townieness of the way you voted. Also, you have this big long investigation, which could have netted you two townies and which you certainly had no idea that it would blow up in your face. Those are benefits. Solid benefits. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/108 "2008-12-30T04:23:15Z")
So **peek** , are you saying you killed **bufftabby**? Why would you be modkilled? ---
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/109 "2008-12-30T04:24:17Z")
Oh, and +2 pts? Are you playing your own game? ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/110 "2008-12-30T04:53:16Z")
Huh. I totally skimmed over peeker’s statement because I thought he was being weird again. Is there some kind of “posting to the wrong board” curse in effect here? 😉 **FoS peeker**. You have some splainin to do. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/111 "2008-12-30T05:27:24Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > I was only talking about people who tried to protect Macey. Hmmm, but by your own definition, that is exactly what bufftabby was doing since she was voting for me, not macey. > [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Anyone who pushed someone else’s lynch is by definition attempting to protect Macey. ---
**Author:** ![Millit\_the\_Frail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/51bf81/32.png) [@Millit\_the\_Frail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Millit_the_Frail)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/112 "2008-12-30T05:52:49Z")
OK, the rest of the list, a couple drinks later…:o **Cookies** : I already said why, for me, **Cookies** is off the hook. Her vote for **Blaster Master** reads neither town nor scum to me, as there was a close race between **macey** and **Thing Fish** , both known quantities now, and she chose neither. Seems likely she didn’t have any inside info. I could be wrong (scum trying not to create a tie?), but my feeling is that she’s Town. **amrussell** : **Macey** is leading **TF** 6-3 now, and **amrussell** makes a vote for **Rapier** (unvoting peeker) based on low participation. The train against macey was in full speed at this time, with only a handful of hours left, so actions taken from about here on out have less meaning. This vote feels like a null tell–could be anything. **Natlaw** : Switched from **Diggit** to **peeker** , no other votes on either. Makes a point to say that current top two vote-getters are fine choices, but votes another way. Another null tell? There was quite a bit of writing on the wall about **macey** ’s impending lynch. A scum probably wouldn’t have drawn attention to the fact that they felt OK with the town lynching **macey** and **TF** , though, right? I’m getting a slight Pro-Town read just because of that. **chucara** : voted \*\*Thing Fish \*\*in a **macey** -voting world. It was 7-3 for **macey**. At this point, it’s WIFOM. What would a scum do? Zig and vote for the fellow scum or zag and cast a vote in the #2 candidate’s direction? I got nothin’. **Almost Human** : Voted for me. MUST BE SCUM! Just kidding. This was another vote for someone who had no votes on them, but it seems way too late to be a plot to get me lynched instead. **AH** gave good enough reasoning for not voting for **macey** , also. I’m going to reserve judgment. Looks like I have a lot less to say here and a lot more “I don’t knows.” That’s the hard part about the later half of the list; the votes are more calculated and people are taking fewer chances. More WIFOM. I’ll vote soon…there’s more to this game than just votes, and I’m looking specifically now at some of the top candidates toDay. Keeping up with Mafia feels like a full time job. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/113 "2008-12-30T08:33:46Z")
Having slept on it (short night though), I awoke with this thing: If **Hawkeyeop** is scum: -scum placed the second and third vote on **pedescribe** -scum placed the second on **macey** -scum placed the first and second vote on **Cookies** (one before, one after macey died, both before **bufftabby** outed). Would scum be voting like that on Day one? Maybe they would to save macey, but the votes don’t achieve that. Perhaps the Cookies votes are to get something positive out of macey’s mistakes. I think it makes Hawk a bit less likely to be scum. Another thing that is bugging me a bit is how perfect **Cookies** ’ defense is. It isn’t just a defense, but a full-fledged counter attack on **Hawk**. It could just mean Cookies is an experienced player and familiar with Hawks reasoning. On the other hand it could be the collective experience of the scum, who can talk day and night. Though they definitely didn’t share their experience with **macey**. **dotchan** hasn’t expanded her defense or even tried. Worst case that means she is townie and has no power role to claim. Then **peekercpa** : -I pressure him Today about how his posts are difficult to make sense of -Millit points out a mistake in a post of him -brewha point outs he corrected his mistake right after, mentions peek post style is hard to understand -brewha adds that he doesn’t see that as either town or scum tell -peeker seems to claim Night kill power -wtf? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/114 "2008-12-30T09:34:52Z")
So Peeker (if I’m parsing the peekerese) thought my analysis of Hawkeyeop was either condescending or moronically basic, and Natlaw thinks it is too perfect. You can’t win for losing. I think our current circumstances are blowback from the rare and warm glow of roasting a scum out of the gate. I don’t think my statements and vote would have been as likely to be seen as “suspiciously protective” of macey if, for example, he had been spared the noose on Day 1 but revealed as a dead scum in the mid or end-game. I am a victim of circumstance in that I came down on the wrong side of macey on Day 1. That’s it. As soon as he was revealed as scum I winced and then I perked up, knowing that I’d be looked at for what I had said. I’m an admittedly defensive and self-centered player, and Hawkeyeop’s posts lit up and stood out from that perspective. I think I’m right, and I think I’ve made a damn good case. And the whole card trick thing is just one of the ways I have come to view this game, and it has been an organic analogy that I had an epiphany of when another player (NAF, I believe) had built a list with my name on it and was using what I suspected to be a stacked deck to come up with who was on that list. It isn’t an absolute, it does have false-positive risk, but I can assure you that any “perfect fit” being perceived is either going to result in a bittersweet moment of intellectual mafia vindication for me upon Hawkeyeop’s reveal or a tragic comedy of town-on-town errors. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/115 "2008-12-30T09:39:41Z")
NETA: I used the word “bittersweet” because that sentence was supposed to finish with the hypothetical of me being the one in the noose toDay. ---
**Author:** ![Total\_Lost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e56c9b/32.png) [@Total\_Lost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Total_Lost)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/116 "2008-12-30T11:24:57Z")
I’ll let my vote on **Dotchan** stay for now. But I did (while reading through this Day) think a bit about switching it to **Hawkeyeop**. I’m stating this because I got a feeling we might later in the game need to go back and look at the Hawk/Cookie-debacle. [fluff: oh, no!! I used the debacle-word - so help me Og] I can’t see the case being made against **Cookie** as convincing or even well-founded. So if this isn’t a case on town-on-town then I perceive the **Hawkeyeop** side as the more scummy one… not much to base a vote on. The reason I however DID think about placing my vote on **Hawk** was to get info. If we did lynch him we would get a lot of info - but for now I’ll just wait and see what happens. I’m fine with a **Dotchan** -lynch toDay. She votes and unvotes without giving much (if any) reasons. She hasn’t really made a contribution in this game worth remembering. If she is “just” vanilla her role in this game is to put forth new ideas, hunt scum and try to win this game for Town. This would also mean a proper defence for herself. And in her case a defence really just would be to make an efford… not that hard IMO. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/117 "2008-12-30T12:50:20Z")
**Cookies** , I’ll admit it. My vote for you was mostly to see how you’d react. Your explanation holds water for now. Unvote **ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies** Yeah, count me in for a giant WTF in the direction of Peeker. I missed most of the action yesterday since I do most of my reading and posting during business hours. So, he’s a vig? A SK? Am I the only one who doesn’t understand him? Cause it seems to piss him off when I say so. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/118 "2008-12-30T14:19:23Z")
> [@JSexton](#): > > Maybe outside the game we debate theory some more, hey? Sure. I do want to run my next offboard game by you at some point if you are interested in listening. > [@pedescribe](#): > > I disagree with this. Chucara could easily be a third party who is trying to determine AlphaBeta status or some-such. Right. My method here doesn’t really distinguish between town and PFKs. So everytime I said a player is likely town you can substitute likely town or PFK. I did it a couple times, but it wasn’t worth mentioning everytime. PFK and town players are both likely to try to vote in a pro-town manner. Due to that fact, I’m not terribly concerned with lynching PFKs until later when there is more of a threat of them winning. They tend to hinder scum more than town. I’d much rather lynch a maybe scum than a maybe PFK. > [@](#): > > No, no you don’t. You intend for everyone else not to get lynched that day. You may cry semantics but there is a world of difference between the two. People who didn’t vote for macey may have intended to vote for him tomorrow, or protect him again tomorrow. Of course, after the fact claims are meaningless, which is why we’re trying to puzzle out intent. Did the non-macey voters want to keep him away or did they just not care/not look/were planning to vote him tomorrow/thought the case was bogus? Any non-Macey commenters want to take a crack at answering that last part? > [@](#): > > I agree that what you are doing is a good tactic. I even agree with your results, to some extent. I am suspicious of NAF, and amrussel, and cookies (otherwise, I wouldn’t have kept her from falseclaiming). I just think that you are scum intending to make the best of a bad situation rather than earnest, practical townie. Okay. If I get lynched, can you take another look now that you would know I was town. I think getting town and particularly you to listen to me is more important than not getting lynched. > [@](#): > > In games where we have clear information about sub/modkill information, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, if Blam–for example–continues to not post but is not modkilled, it really doesn’t matter what alignment he is, since he’s dead weight if town and he still needs to be killed if non-town. Once again Story has stated there are no post restrictions. Story has stated lurking isn’t a viable strategy. I don’t think he is lying. Thus, if Blaster doesn’t show up, he will deal with it. We don’t need to do his job for him. > [@](#): > > I disagree. Some scum (like macey) will pick the pro-scum actions. They are easy to catch. Some scum (like The Toad\*) will pick the pro-town actions. They will evade capture, but (hopefully) eventually be forced into a corner and either reveal themselves or be more useful to town anyway. Some scum (like DEQ\*\*) will only do pro-scum actions that look pro-town. These are hard to catch. Some scum (like the turned Janitor\*\*\*) will attempt to act pro-town but eventually do pro-scum stuff. Also hard to catch. Point is, the scum don’t act as a block. This is why we say ‘scum would do that’. But we also have to consider what is more likely. Point being, you’re overgeneralizing and eliminating certain ideas in order to bolster your case. Scummy. I’m focusing on certain ideas. Yes, some scum could have behaved differently. I believe that some scum would try to overtly protect Macey and that is where my focus is. That doesn’t mean other scum didn’t do other things. I would urge you not to assume that scum wouldn’t act as a block though. Town always expects scum to spread out, which gives them incentive not to. > [@](#): > > You are constantly touting the inherent townieness of the way you voted. Also, you have this big long investigation, which could have netted you two townies and which you certainly had no idea that it would blow up in your face. Those are benefits. Solid benefits. You can’t have it both ways. Just because I think it should get me townie cred doesn’t mean it does. No one is not voting for me because of that vote. You also assumed I thought people would fully be on board with my theory. Convincing people is hard, probably harder than finding scum. I can ensure you I had no great confidence in starting a movement. Those are only benefits if they are practical. They weren’t. I feel an obligation to get all my thoughts out there. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Hmmm, but by your own definition, that is exactly what bufftabby was doing since she was voting for me, not macey. Yes. Lots of people did that. I don’t find ignoring Macey as scummy as the direct attempts to protect him. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/119 "2008-12-30T14:26:24Z")
DAY TWO VOTE COUNT - T-MINUS 4 HOURS **dotchan** (4) - amrussell, total lost, hockey monkey, Natlaw **hawkeyeop** (2) - Cometothedarksidewehavecookies, pedescribe **Cometothedarksidewehavecookies** (2) - bufftabby, hawkeyeop **Chucara** (2) - NAF1138, Diggitcamara **Blaster Master** (1) - peekercpa Day to end in about three and a half hours, at 1:00PM EST today, with all Day actions due by 12:45PM EST. Have fun! ---
**Author:** ![Total\_Lost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e56c9b/32.png) [@Total\_Lost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Total_Lost)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862/120 "2008-12-30T14:37:32Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > **Cometothedarksidewehavecookies** (2) - bufftabby, hawkeyeop > **Chucara** (2) - NAF1138, Diggitcamara > **Blaster Master** (1) - peekercpa > > Day to end in about three and a half hours, at 1:00PM EST today, with all Day actions due by 12:45PM EST. > > Have fun! 😕 A Bufftabby-vote on cookie?? A Blaster Master-vote on Peeker?? 😕 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-evil-dead-day-night-two/478862.md?page=7)