Mafia: Evil Dead - DAY/NIGHT TWO

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@special_ed

I may have easily made a mistake, as I didn’t really look over all of Night 1, I jsut went from **story’**s last count and looked over Day 2 so far. I’m operating under the assumption that votes by people who are now dead are removed. (a safe assumption, I hope)

Story said votes were removed: with an unvote, or when the voter or votee is dead. So, yes, valid assumption.

@amrussell

IIRC, **story **was challenged in the setup thread over the size of the game; his response was along the lines of “that won’t be a problem for long”. With four deaths in one Day/Night cycle, I can see the truth in that. So two (nearly) dead scum out of those four is, as mentioned, pretty good going. But if we start Day 3 with a total of six town dead, it won’t look quite so rosy.

Yeah, but he said that would be true if we had a 30some player game. I assumed that he meant if 30some, then lots of death…though that doesn’t exclude if 30some or 27, then lots of death. I suspect, though, that the extra roles were death-prone roles, which is what he meant.

@Natlaw

1. with bufftabby pushing pedescribe, I think it’s less likely Almost Human, Hawkeyeop and DiggitCamara are scum as well.

I don’t necessarily think this is the case. Imagine this: the scum see my case. It, of course, means nothing but that I’m probably not vanilla. But they can easily twist that. Bufftabby jumps on, lays down the foundation for the case in such a way that anything I say could make her more certain. At two votes, I’m tied for the lead. Hawkeyeop notices, TF notices, there could be a real bandwagon. All that’s left to seal it is an argument from another angle, and there could be a real bandwagon going. And then DiggitCamara posts this:

@DiggitCamara

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

And this:

@DiggitCamara

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.

Again, note how my defense is incorporated into the accusation, which weakens the integrity of any further defending I could make. And as the case starts to slip (admittedly, to another power role, but TF probably wasn’t pegged as a power role like I was by the scum at that time):

@DiggitCamara

Well, now it looks even worse.

I didn’t chime in on your “slip” because I thought there could be two interpretations. But now, not only are you showing the “fishing trip” possibility as a more and more viable option, you’re trying to back-pedal!

At first, my vote was based on a weak link. Which, being Day 1, is the strongest one I was expecting to get. But now? It seems like you’re trying to convince me my vote is right.

Granted, he does counter macey’s ridiculous counterarguemnt to my mason role…but considering how weak the counterargument was, that was a safe position.

Then he votes for a lurker with controversial ideas–both of which are common accusations, and both of which are often done by townies. Chucara might be a ‘safe’ candidate, that DiggitCamara is voting for so he can say ‘:shrug: He looked scummy.’ when he turns up town.

And today, he’s only said one thing, about the way the night kills unfolded, that’s already been posited.

Vote DiggitCamara