# Mafia: Not-so-simple-Simpletown **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 6, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592 "2009-03-06T22:58:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Almost\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@Almost\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Almost_Human)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/721 "2009-03-31T14:27:40Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > 1 - Almost Human (MentalGuy) > 1 - Hero From Sector 7G (peekercpa) > 1 - MentalGuy (Almost Human) > 1 - Natlaw (Oredigger77) > 1 - Ichini Sanshigo (ok11) Crikey, I hadn’t even noticed the votes were so spread out. TIES ARE BAD! ---
**Author:** ![Almost\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@Almost\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Almost_Human)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/722 "2009-03-31T14:32:00Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > No, I am voting for you because I thought “What did the scum need to achieve?”, “How would scum do that?”, and “Who seems to be doing those things?”. The stuff mentioned in the quote above is just sort of extra evidence for me and places you a bit ahead of Natlaw and ok11 on my list of suspicion. > > I slipped up and said wolves in the response to straggler and got unlucky that there are actually wolves in the game. I don’t really have any way to defend myself if you see that as a PIS, so if you don’t believe me then I can certainly understand you voting for me. But this response doesn’t encourage me in any way to put my vote elsewhere. You’ve even admitted you slipped when you said wolves!!! ---
**Author:** ![Almost\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@Almost\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Almost_Human)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/723 "2009-03-31T14:34:23Z")
And between peek and Hero I was having more trouble parsing what Hero was rabbiting on about till he eventually explained himself. Put your toys back in the pram boys. ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/724 "2009-03-31T15:50:13Z")
At least I explained myself. Peeker still seems to be voting on me because he thinks I have a vendetta against him for asking him to do the same. **Peeker** , I defended you earlier this game. I have not voted on you. I did wonder why you didn’t actually vote for Oredigger, and you turned around and started tossing insults my way. You apparently have no reason for voting me other than a) misunderstanding or b) serious OMGUS. Please re-read today’s events. – Personally I’m still suspicious of Ichini. Seeker was suspicious, and Ichini didn’t do any real work yesterday. She dropped an OMGUS vote than skittered off, and hasn’t even posted today. It seems to be the trend to drop out when one is taking heat. I was waiting for her to actually post to this thread to see if she had anything new to say. However, I think three days is enough time. And as AH pointed out, the five way tie is crazy. Vote Ichini Sanshigo. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/725 "2009-03-31T19:06:59Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Just a quick note on you’re scum wouldn’t do that idea. #1 is obviously wrong because Pleo was scum and created a two way tie right before you created the three way tie. Yes, ‘scum wouldn’t do that’ applies, but it isn’t black and white: - **Pleonast** created a tie between two non werewolves, picking **straggler** because he found him more suspicious. So his tie was pretty save with both players looking suspicious. And when **kitten** would turn up town, his tie can’t be explained as trying to save scum. Assumptions are that wolves knew each other and they didn’t know kitten was part of a not-town faction. Little risk (you mentioned this as well) with the gain of a tie between non-wolves. - I created a tie between two Cabalists and a very likely not Cabal player. That is much higher risk as Cabal trying to save fellow Cabalists, but the gain seems greater, so you say scum would do that. While I agree that scum can’t just sit back and win, they also only need to control the vote to win (equal numbers to the rest). So with two of them tied, would it really worth for a third to risk his neck voting like I did? > [@](#): > > I disagree with #2 because while you’re right that there is a large chance it wouldn’t work that chance is what gives you deniability, especially if it had worked. You would be here posting that it wasn’t your fault because the other four hadn’t voted yet it was one of them that had push to vote in the wrong direction. > > I think you’re right about the night talk that was given to kitten because he disappeared yesterday and I think it was to try and lower the suspicion level, which is some good advice normally. Yes, you can see the point like that: it reduces the danger with the argument ‘it probably wouldn’t work anyway’, but also makes it less likely to save a fellow Cabalist, so why risk it at all? Lurking might be useful advice normally, but I disagree that it was good advice for **kitten** , especially not with the votes he got both Days. Why I voted **Sitnam** , was not because I thought straggler and kitten were town or wanted to save them, but because I thought Sitnam was a more likely scum trying to fly below the radar. With the possibility of scum Day talking and thus newbie scum players able to get advice, I found the others more likely to be newbie town. The latter was wrong, so I now think the first assumption is as well. Recap why I voted Sitnam Day One: -Sitnam placed a random vote to spur discussion and was about as effective as **peeker** s Today: not much, except make me wonder why would you think random vote or vote/unvote helps discussion? -Sitnam next vote was for peeker for posting like he does, but peeker had also some lucid posts Day One (compared to not so much Today imo). -When **Almost Human** pointed out that vote and mentioned much better things discussed, he reduced it to just the post that started those discussions. This now seems more his style to me, as made some more snippy comments like that. **Nanook** voted Sitnam for not trusting out-of-game messages, I stayed clear of that, because I didn’t want to get into a discussion about that. So that was a null tell for me. **Almost Human** also voted him because he posted a suspicion list like **straggler** , with the obvious difference that he posted why he suspected them. That was for me a reason to not revote him Day Two. I guess AH came to the same conclusion Today after reading [this response](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10967084&postcount=615) by Sitnam. Day Two, **Mr. Svinlesha** did spark another thought against him, that **Pleonast** signaled him to post more, which fitted my conclusion Sitnam is probably not Cabal, but could still be wolf. As said, scum Day talk might be out, but it is kind stretchy argument, in that you could probably explain a lot of statements in such a way. So I can agree with Almost Human not voting him as well, though I would first reread before voting. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/726 "2009-03-31T20:17:41Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Underlined section #1: When \*\*Hero \*\*reposted the rules with no interpretation, it did lead to a great deal of conversation and eventually some votes. My feeling at the time was that he was reposting the rules. It was no big deal. Now that it’s brought to my attention again, it might be interesting to see why it was such a big deal for some people. Brought to your attention? Do you mean you weren’t paying attention when you made the comment in your post summary of Hero? This really gives me the feeling you just posted the ‘random player post summary’ to be seen posting something. The rest of the quoted post is not unbelievable, but still you first make the post analysis with comments about interesting things that end up nothing. Why they are nothing, I have to drag out. And than you post the following: > [@special\_ed](#): > > Your style of questioning seems accusatory. If you were Town, I’d think you’d use a more direct approach. > > Something along the lines of, “I noticed that you didn;'t comment on this PostXXX, despite the fact that you later said XXXXXXX” It seems odd. Were you skimming?" > > Your style implies that you noticed something but you’re not sharing it. It seems a good tactic for Scum, just accuse someone and see if anything turns up. Then you can go after them. If not, you can simply say, “I was just asking a simple question” To me it seems that is what _you_ are doing: seeing things, not sharing what you think that could imply about the players involved and ending with ‘it was simple observation’. **Vote special ed** And yes, I know that spreads out the vote even more, at least I didn’t make a six way tie :rolleyes:. But I find him behaving the most scummiest. He voted **kitten** first Day One (some not-Cabal points) and as very last Day Two (null tell imo), so that doesn’t help build a case. I do not find most other cases Today more convincing: **Almost Human** - similar case as against me: Cabal voting to save Cabal. Her Sitnam (un)vote reasons I find credible, voting **MentalGuy** for the wolves/Day talk slip not so much. The case against **Ichini** is based mostly on **Seeker** s vote and now lurking. He is on my list to look at for a for not voting in the tie Day One, both Seeker (got banned) and Ichini (only in the game after Dusk) couldn’t do much about it. So I’ll need to re-read Day Two of him. On lurkers, reading the rules: **Batman Jenkems** won’t be replaced anymore and might get mod killed at Dusk. **paulwhoisaghost** hasn’t posted Today and not much Yesterday either. **peeker** s vote for Hero is an OMGUS one in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/727 "2009-03-31T20:32:39Z")
Short post for **peeker** , this quote is closest you came to writing down a real suspicion: > [@peekercpa](#): > > Well I feel sufficiently chastised. I was trying to poke the ant hill. My unvote was to make sure that **digger** was aware and that a real sticking vote could be forthcoming. So what are the reason you are suspicious of Oredigger or thought he needed your (ineffective poke)? Or do I need to read that as the unvote was to make clear it was just a poke and for the real vote you had already decide on **Hero**? Do you have other reasons to suspect him other than him pointing out your weak poke vote? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/728 "2009-03-31T20:54:20Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > Underlined section #1: When Hero reposted the rules with no interpretation, it did lead to a great deal of conversation and eventually some votes. My feeling at the time was that he was reposting the rules. It was no big deal. Now that it’s brought to my attention again, it might be interesting to see why it was such a big deal for some people. > > Brought to your attention? Do you mean you weren’t paying attention when you made the comment in your post summary of Hero? Did you not see the ‘again’? Yes, it had my attention when I posted it, then other things got my attention. Then you brought it back to my attention, and as I have time now, I thought I’d look at it. > [@Natlaw](#): > > > [@special ed](#): > > > > Your style of questioning seems accusatory. If you were Town, I’d think you’d use a more direct approach. > > > > Something along the lines of, “I noticed that you didn;'t comment on this PostXXX, despite the fact that you later said XXXXXXX” It seems odd. Were you skimming?" > > > > Your style implies that you noticed something but you’re not sharing it. It seems a good tactic for Scum, just accuse someone and see if anything turns up. Then you can go after them. If not, you can simply say, “I was just asking a simple question” > > To me it seems that is what you are doing: seeing things, not sharing what you think that could imply about the players involved and ending with ‘it was simple observation’. I did share my ideas, maybe they weren’t earth shatteringly brilliant or even mildly useful, but they were shared. If I said something was interesting, that meant I found it interesting. Notice I didn’t say ‘scummy’ or ‘suspicious’ or ‘funny’ or ‘hypnotic’ or ‘icteric’ or any other adjective. I used ‘interesting’. If you read more into than I intended, that’s not my fault. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/729 "2009-03-31T21:33:36Z")
This may not completely follow my original reason for reviewing these posts, and my less than sincere apologies to Natlaw if everything I say isn’t of the utmost importance or if I find things interesting that aren’t useful. 😉 In looking at the events that occurred after post 221, where \*\*Hero \*\*reposted the rules about potential Scum talk during the Day: Most of the conversation immediately after that dealt with **straggler** ’s suggestion that we wait until the final 24 hours of the Day to vote and then not change our votes no matter what. Many people, myself included, chimed in as to why this was a very anti-town idea. In fact, this suggestion and **straggler** ’s defense of it is what started suspicion against him. [At 229](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10938110&postcount=229), Almost vote for mental guy. Her reason being that he’s assuming Day talkig Scum and the fact that it’s already been discussed. Post 230 is \*\*Almost \*\*discussing with straggler comments about his idea and other things. Post 231 is \*\*Adrian \*\*voting for \*\*Almost \*\*with the reason: “Therefore I’m voting for the last to pile on:” IOn 232, Bill chimes in with a vote for straggler. Her’s a snippet: > [@Bill](#): > > Now in conjunction with the previous diatribe between Straggler and MentalGuy on wolves and scum talking during the day: > > ``` > * #209 Straggler raises the subject of Wolves > * #212 MentalGuy continues the them of Wolves, says they can talk during the day and pretty much FOS's Staggler > * #215 ok11 votes **MentalGuy** for #212 as PIS > * #216 Straggler answer's #215 > * #218 Natlaw questions why ok11's vote was on **mentalguy/b] not straggler > * #219 ok11 clarifies saying his vote is for talking during the day statement, not wolves > * #222 staggler claims an error and didn't know "scum" is the generic name for the non-town faction, not "wolves". > * #223 pede votes mentalguy for #215 > * #225 MentalGuy explains why he thought "wolves" and scum day talk > > ``` > > looks very suspicious. Both MentalGuy and Straggler have suggested the scum are talking during the day, and Stragglers “The lynchee gets no chance to defend themselves. This is a strength of the tactic, not a flaw” is just so unbelievably anti-town. What I’m wondering is, since \*\*straggler \*\*brought up the wolves first, Did the Cabal somehow know of the existence of wolves? Or was it just a newbie error and a coincidence? Note to **Natlaw** : I’m only bringing up thoughts, I’m not making accusations. Post 235, \*\*rexnervous \*\*brings up the thought that \*\*Adrian \*\*seems to be defending **mental guy** Post 238, \*\*Adrian \*\*responds, saying that he wasn’t defending **mental guy** as much as attack the reasoning for attacking mental guy. Post 240. \*\*rex \*\*responds with the idea that the suspicion on **mental guy** is for PIS about Scum Day talk and not for bringing up wolves. Post 241 by ok11 says this: > [@ok11](#): > > For now, I’m keeping my vote where it is. I’d like to reiterate that calling scum wolves wasn’t the thrust of my argument against MentalGuy. We’ll know for sure what flavor of scum we’re fighting against on Day 2 (from the death scene). So for now, let’s not fixate on it. _I think he assumes the color would let us in on the type of Scum. For me, I wouldn’t be sure until we had a dead Scum._ In this post, **ok11** , also asks \*\*Hero \*\*about post 221, "This doesn’t actually say what he thinks the rule change implies. So Hero, what were you trying to say in that post? " Post 248, \*\*Adrian \*\*defends **mental guy** ’s assumption of Scum Day talk again. Post 249, Hero responds to post 241 with: > [@Hero](#): > > I was hoping other people would analyze it and draw their own conclusions, but that didn’t happen so let me get Socratic: > > My Interpretation: > Old Rule = Scum may talk at night. > New Rule = People who get a PM saying so may talk outside the game. > > My Inference: > A) More than scum may talk outside the game > and/or > B) Scum may be able to talk all the time. > > It seems people are landing on B and using it to justify their votes. I think it is more likely to be A. It could be both but thinking that makes me want to give up. > > Remember “7 mislynches” ? What game setup would this require? If scum have low numbers what mechanics balance that? Is your conclusion consistent with the rule change? How about the title of the game? > > So that is what I was thinking when I re-quoted the rules. It felt relevant because it tied two discussions together. Post 250, \*\*Almost \*\*chastises \*\*Adrian \*\*for faulty logic. Post 255, **Mental guy** responds with a vote of \*\*Almost \*\*and a snuggle of **ok11**. He also makes the comment, “I realize that this makes it look like [Undecided] Adrian and I are working together” I’m hesitant to say this is interesting or will cause trouble for him later, for fear of reprisals from **Natlaw** …but, well…it did cause trouble for him Post 256, \*\*ok11 \*\*criticizes \*\*Hero \*\*for post 221, stating that \*\*ok11 \*\*doesn’t like these types of posts because they don’t commit to anything, and a Scum can come back and say whatever they wnt them to mean later. _I don’t get this, since it was just a copy/paste of the rules that were being discussed actively._ In this post, \*\*ok11 \*\*also quote \*\*Hero \*\*questioning Pleo’s 7 mislynch theory. \*I think \*\*ok11 \*_missed the point that Hero was questioning it and not espousing it._ However, in post 258, Hero seems to defend the thought that there could be 7 mislynches with 3 Scum and a 3rd party. _I’m finding that a stretch unless it’s some odd serial killer who can’t kill Scum_ OK, I’ve got to get my son to tennis practice and then go look at a house. I might come back to this later. Feel free to comment on it. And please do excuse my sarcasm, I mean it in only the friendliest of ways. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/730 "2009-03-31T22:54:26Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > Some major snippage, still a lot left with underlining by me: > > Again this is what I noticed Yesterday, making smudging comments, then saying you really mean nothing by it. Though I get now the feeling you are deliberately trying to get people to bite (congrats, I did then) and hoping for them to make a mistake of some sorts? > In my view, that works from both a scum or town perspective, though leaning to the scum side (hence my vote Yesterday). > About the things underlined, did _you_ see a town, scum or some other motivation? Again this was a suggestion you made, but don’t do yourself. > Also, why specifically pick a random person to check out? Why not pick someone you had a ping about (which I would do sooner). Or look at the votes with the new alignments revealed? > > Speaking of which, that got me a vote from **Oredigger** and it is something I noticed myself, so I’ll go respond to that. > > For **pedescribe** , could you still rephrase the [curse thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10976087&postcount=651)? What I meant is, Hero wasn’t referring to Pleo’s tendancy to die early, so what was he referring to? ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/731 "2009-03-31T23:25:10Z")
Night one scum died. Usually scum don’t die during nights. I imagined Pleo read the kill report and had a delightful expression of dismay on his face, one I would have liked to have seen. Bad form to gloat, maybe. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/732 "2009-04-01T03:26:13Z")
Ok, crud. Apparently I am being mis interpreted. That’s ok, however. I get accused of this every game and apparently need to change or just take it. I fully intended to vote for **digger**. If there was confusion my apologies are again extended. Having played in and watched a numer of games his current behavior did not seem consistent. Hence the prod and then subsequent unvote. I’ve got my vote on **hero** because of what I am going to call the **pleo** syndrome. I am unsure where my logic breaks down that causes folks to question me, not on their content but rather their style. Back in a second. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/733 "2009-04-01T03:32:29Z")
And for right now my vote stands. Residual Borda - fuck you very much **Pede**. If it is true that **BJ** is potentially mod kill fodder I would strongly suggest that we talk about those implications. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/734 "2009-04-01T03:40:07Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > Night one scum died. Usually scum don’t die during nights. I imagined Pleo read the kill report and had a delightful expression of dismay on his face, one I would have liked to have seen. > > Bad form to gloat, maybe. And, gosh drat, just when I think I have a semi feeling. Holy crud. If you have a real good town alingned killer or an opposing faction he would be just the soul you want to take a whack at. ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/735 "2009-04-01T04:29:27Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > I’ve got my vote on **hero** because of what I am going to call the **pleo** syndrome. I am unsure where my logic breaks down that causes folks to question me, not on their content but rather their style. Referencing an undefined syndrome is logic? This is the fourth “reason” you’ve claimed for parking your vote on me. You didn’t substantiate any of the previous ones and simply moved on when no-one took the bait. Now Ped stopped by and put out his argument from yesterday and suddenly you run with that… ---
**Author:** ![BillMC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@BillMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BillMC)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/736 "2009-04-01T09:27:20Z")
Apologies for the low post count, RL is a little demanding at the moment - end of financial year. > [@BillMC](#): > > However, **Mental Guy’s** discussion with Straggler on day 1 around wolves really bugs me - not that Straggler mentioned wolves (which was probably an innocent mistake) but that MG didn’t correct him and accepted Wolves. **Ed** raises an interesting point in Post 729, did the Cabal know about the Wolves to start with, hence Straggler’s comment wasn’t innocent, and he could have been doggie baiting to see if any wolves would bite. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I slipped up and said wolves in the response to straggler and got unlucky that there are actually wolves in the game. I don’t really have any way to defend myself if you see that as a PIS, so if you don’t believe me then I can certainly understand you voting for me. That’s the crux of it, do we believe it was an honest mistake. The voting is all over the place, and I pretty much agree with the latter half of **Nat’s** 726 post > [@Natlaw](#): > > -snip- > And yes, I know that spreads out the vote even more, at least I didn’t make a six way tie :rolleyes:. But I find him behaving the most scummiest. > He voted **kitten** first Day One (some not-Cabal points) and as very last Day Two (null tell imo), so that doesn’t help build a case. > > I do not find most other cases Today more convincing: > **Almost Human** - similar case as against me: Cabal voting to save Cabal. Her Sitnam (un)vote reasons I find credible, voting **MentalGuy** for the wolves/Day talk slip not so much. > The case against **Ichini** is based mostly on **Seeker** s vote and now lurking. He is on my list to look at for a for not voting in the tie Day One, both Seeker (got banned) and Ichini (only in the game after Dusk) couldn’t do much about it. So I’ll need to re-read Day Two of him. > On lurkers, reading the rules: **Batman Jenkems** won’t be replaced anymore and might get mod killed at Dusk. **paulwhoisaghost** hasn’t posted Today and not much Yesterday either. > **peeker** s vote for Hero is an OMGUS one in my opinion. Nothing is particularly leaping out at me, so for the moment, I’m going to leave my vote on MG. **Vote MentalGuy** ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/737 "2009-04-01T14:25:35Z")
**peekercpa** still annoys me, but I’m starting to get from her very much the same vibe that I got when voting for **willthekittensurvive?**. **peekercpa** is a much more experienced player but her multitude of posts consist of fragment thoughts, cryptic ‘peekerspeek’ and a serious lack of rock solid support for her votes which convinces me for now it’s all just a much more elaborate attempt at hiding in plain site. **vote peekercpa** ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/738 "2009-04-01T15:52:28Z")
We do not have votes yet from **Ichini Sanshigo** , **pedescribe** , **Mr. Svinlesha** , **special ed** , **paulwhoisaghost** , or **Batman Jenkems** (who has withdrawn). I would like to see these before the end of the day in case I need to switch my vote. ---
**Author:** ![Ichini\_Sanshigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d9b06d/32.png) [@Ichini\_Sanshigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ichini_Sanshigo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/739 "2009-04-01T17:02:32Z")
Crap. When’s the end of the day? ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592/740 "2009-04-01T17:11:31Z")
Well, the end of the Day is Thursday at 4 EDT. I meant I would like to see votes by the end of the real-life day, just to give time for people to see everyone’s vote and switch if they feel it necessary. Obviously, this is just a request from me. If you want to place your vote at 3:58 tomorrow, I can’t stop you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-not-so-simple-simpletown/488592.md?page=38)