# Mafia Reunion Day 4 **URL:** \ **Category:** Thread Games\ **Created:** [January 31, 2017, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699 "2017-01-31T21:14:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/121 "2017-02-01T14:48:31Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > And I understand that a lot of people don’t agree with my methods. I’m Town and don’t want to be an imposition to others finding Scum. While I would much really rather live through the game, if Town votes to lynch me, I won’t take it personally. YesterDay your goal was: > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/339): > > After we get rid of the 3P’s, then we can concentrate on Scum. Taking out third parties before Scum _is_ an imposition on us finding Scum. I’m happy to continue voting for you. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ **vote Prof. Pepperwinkle** for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339. **vote Boozahol Squid** for advocating a deliberate mislynch in D3.499. **vote sinjin** for smudging counter-claimable Town in D3.432. **vote Scathach** for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35. **vote Johnny Bravo** for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265. **vote Plumpudding** for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401. While **Prof Pepperwinkle** is the most suspicious, note that I will move my vote to any of the above if it facilitates their lynch (either first or second). ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/122 "2017-02-01T15:03:09Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > If this was a regular-sized game, we would definitely be looking at some players just because they are famed scum-hunters and haven’t been killed yet. But this game, being 3 times the size of a regular one, may warrant this takes a later look. Especially since Scum have gotten unreasonably lucky with their kills of power roles. > > Anybody think we need to be looking at this? Or is it really too soon? I think this is a super-scummy thing to say. Angel-vouched or not, I really want to vote for you. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/123 "2017-02-01T15:12:50Z")
> [@Crys75](#): > > No I was asked not to do so and I haven’t. > > Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk Who asked you to do that? Unless you confirm him, Sachertorte could be a scum pretending to do be a third party. I don’t think it is likely, but I see no reason not to confirm. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/124 "2017-02-01T16:32:24Z")
**DAY ONE VOTE COUNT** As a quick reminder - there are no powers, hidden or open, that can affect the vote count. If you see an apparent discrepancy, it’s the result of moderator error. **Khameleon (2)** - Johnny Bravo (26), Hoopy Frood (52) **Boozahol Squid (2)** - Capt Klutz (45), EnderW24 (102) ## **DiggitCamara (1)** - Paulwhoisaghost (20) **Hooker Chemical (1)** - Lakai (46) **Prof. Pepperwinkle (1)** - Pleonast (121) \*Vote!! Vote now!! Vote for him! Yes, I mean THAT guy!! Get your vote in today! Don’t let him get away!\* –brought to you by the forbidden posters council. Finding ways to participate but not play since 2007 * * * Remember, ties are bad. Right now the vote is tied. I don’t have to tell you that it shouldn’t stay that way.\*\*\* \*\*ToDay, the top vote getter will die of course. The second vote getter will die if he/she reaches 14 votes. The Day will end on Sunday at 3:00 Eastern. [Here is a countdown to that time.](https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?iso=20170205T15&p0=77&font=cursive)\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/125 "2017-02-01T16:42:23Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I think this is a super-scummy thing to say. Angel-vouched or not, I really want to vote for you. Why is this a super-scummy thing to say? I have played a number of games where this strategy was Standard Operating Procedure. I agree with Paul that the circumstances of this particular game don’t make the strategy feasible at this time, but just bringing it up? Pfui! ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/126 "2017-02-01T16:44:16Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > YesterDay your goal was: > > Taking out third parties before Scum _is_ an imposition on us finding Scum. I’m happy to continue voting for you. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > **vote Prof. Pepperwinkle** for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339. > **vote Boozahol Squid** for advocating a deliberate mislynch in D3.499. > **vote sinjin** for smudging counter-claimable Town in D3.432. > **vote Scathach** for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35. > **vote Johnny Bravo** for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265. > **vote Plumpudding** for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401. > > While **Prof Pepperwinkle** is the most suspicious, note that I will move my vote to any of the above if it facilitates their lynch (either first or second). I can see why you feel that way. I have a gut feeling about sachertorte that isn’t good, and I’m guessing he well may be hiding something, 3P or not. I will try to earn your unvote. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/127 "2017-02-01T16:57:16Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Why is this a super-scummy thing to say? I have played a number of games where this strategy was Standard Operating Procedure. > > I agree with Paul that the circumstances of this particular game don’t make the strategy feasible at this time, but just bringing it up? Pfui! Because not everyone agrees on who the top players are, people mistake frequent players with good players and townie players whom you accuse as being too good to have survived so long are being blamed for something which they have no control over. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/128 "2017-02-01T17:11:48Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Who asked you to do that? Unless you confirm him, Sachertorte could be a scum pretending to do be a third party. I don’t think it is likely, but I see no reason not to confirm. If they cross confirm each other ( crys/sach) this early they will be burned out - unable to check out the next claim- leaving it wide open for falsies to claim. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/129 "2017-02-01T17:14:16Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > @ProfessorPepperwinkle, I trust townie Angel’s gut. I’m gonna give you a pass for your eccentric techniques so far. I’m content with giving you as much rope to hang yourself with as possible. Wanna help me with something? I’m going to start rereading D1,2, and 3. Can you provide vote numbers and summaries if I were to ask for them? For example, I’d like to see who jumped off the main contenders on D1, the count at the time of their vote change and any reasoning they give. If it’s too much, I’ll do without or figure it out later, but I figured with your skill at figures it might be a lot easier for you to figure out than I. > > Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Guiri’s vote counts in [D3.941](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19960596&postcount=941) showing all of the votes and unvotes may be helpful. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/130 "2017-02-01T17:17:04Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Who asked you to do that? Unless you confirm him, Sachertorte could be a scum pretending to do be a third party. I don’t think it is likely, but I see no reason not to confirm. Well. I agree with you reasoning of this was still D2. But at this point Crys actually has a reason to not investigate Sachertorte. Crys didn’t come back with a result in D3, so it’s possible another cultist took a crack at Sach and Crys doing so now could mean the inability to confirm one of the cultists. Because they each only get one investigation, if two cultists each were to investigate Sach, and he is a cultist, then that would mean one of them is going to go unconfirmed when they are eventually all outed. And for us to know if another cultist has investigated Sach, they would have to claim. With so much anti cultist thinking going around I don’t think that is going to happen unless they or Sach is in danger. I do think it would benefit town to know if Sach is truly a cultist, but given the effect it could have on the cultists, I think it unlikely for them to help town at their own expense. All of this assumes that Crys is telling the truth, which I think likely and it all follows logic based on the cultists being honest nonhostile 3P. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/131 "2017-02-01T17:20:37Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > YesterDay your goal was: > > Taking out third parties before Scum _is_ an imposition on us finding Scum. I’m happy to continue voting for you. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > **vote Prof. Pepperwinkle** for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339. > **vote Boozahol Squid** for advocating a deliberate mislynch in D3.499. > **vote sinjin** for smudging counter-claimable Town in D3.432. > **vote Scathach** for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35. > **vote Johnny Bravo** for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265. > **vote Plumpudding** for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401. > > While **Prof Pepperwinkle** is the most suspicious, note that I will move my vote to any of the above if it facilitates their lynch (either first or second). No comment on Lakai’s strategy to lynch people for being suspicious of you? Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/132 "2017-02-01T17:21:03Z")
> [@Total\_Lost](#): > > I think let’s use number one on hunting Scum. And number two on the Cult. Or both on scum. Or what Paul said. Our wincon makes no mention of third parties, just 14 dead scum. > [@NAF1138](#): > > ToeJam - Doc Seward What was he thinking? Farewell, Angel too. e case against him. [/QUOTE] I can agree with this argument, a point in his favor. > [@TexCat](#): > > Either of these would work, but we need 14 for the second lynch…that means 15 for the first lynch or 29 of 39. Not much leeway for non-voters or one-off voters. If both get 14, won’t they both be lynched? > [@TexCat](#): > > I was a big proponent of lynching ProfP yesterDay, but given his cross-voting with ToeJam and JSGoddess, I’m inclined to think he’s not a wolf. He could very easily be mafia, but I’m willing to give him a temporary pass for the time being. Why would you want to give him a temporary pass if you suspect he’s mafia? Or are you no longer suspicious? > [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > I’ve been saying this since I subbed in. That I think there is scum in the pool of players who jumped off the Colby wagon. Specifically because I think they wouldn’t want that tarnish on their vote record. That’s why I prefer vote counts with unvotes, no hiding. **Colby(6):** Texcat[91],[del] Guiri[101-977], Septimus[106-231,993-1034], Meeko[130-1082][/del], ToeJam[132], [del]HockeyMonkey[152-1101][/del], [del]Lakai[154-775][/del], Suburban[162-541,1026], [del]Diggit[249-264][/del], Hawkeye[350], [del]Nanook[455-1208][/del], Brewha[683], Pleonast[841] > [@Lakai](#): > > for the reasons mentioned above. I added our fallen Angel’s posts to show she supported the idea and because she can no longer post to support it toDay. "(I mean, it could be other people too, but he’s the first place I’d look.) " is not “Lynch Hooker” > [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > That leaves a Wolf kill on **Angel** , which I admit looks like a real smear on me. Why would the wolves want to do that? Well, I imagine because it’s an attempt to save one of their own: which means I’m thinking the most obvious candidate is **Prof.Pepperwinkle**. Can you explain this a little more? They killed Angel to save Prof.P who she was defending and proclaiming as town? ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/133 "2017-02-01T17:22:41Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I think this is a super-scummy thing to say. Angel-vouched or not, I really want to vote for you. I’m not disagreeing with you, but can you explain why you think it is a scummy thing to say? And why you want to vote for Prof, but didnt? Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/134 "2017-02-01T17:26:24Z")
Post 127 Because Town’s lack of success so far is making me feel a bit led around by the nose. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/135 "2017-02-01T17:28:08Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > I’m not disagreeing with you, but can you explain why you think it is a scummy thing to say? And why you want to vote for Prof, but didnt? > > Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Never mind… we cross posted and you did expand… thank you. But why no vote if you are wanting to vote Prof? Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/136 "2017-02-01T17:31:29Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > My count is 39. > > Pfui! Another Doc and the one person who believed I was Town! Pfui, pfui, pfui! This post makes me really want to Lynch you. But as I type that out, I recall there being a guy in the handful of games that I watched or played in during the last few years who I really, really felt was screaming scum, but wasn’t. Was that you? I think it might have been you. Still makes me want to Lynch you though. > [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > Well… I will be against any suggestion that we Lynch Prof.P. toDay. Will Angel’s reveal, we know her defense of him was honest. And while she couldn’t KNOW that he is town, I trust her judgement and intuition on these matters more than the case against him. I have a weird reaction to this. I find it very difficult to change my opinion on unknowns based on the death reveal of a vanilla townie. Angel didn’t know anything more about Prof. P, so why would her opinion sway me simply because she is revealed to be Town? The only way that makes sense is if one thought Angel was lying scum and was deliberately being dishonest to protect Prof. Pepperwinkle, which also doesn’t really make sense. I don’t know, the logic just isn’t meshing in my head. I will leave this here and maybe, someday, I’ll bother to re-read and figure it out. Something doesn’t feel right here. > [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Here we are at the start of D4. > > If this was a regular-sized game, we would definitely be looking at some players just because they are famed scum-hunters and haven’t been killed yet. But this game, being 3 times the size of a regular one, may warrant this takes a later look. Especially since Scum have gotten unreasonably lucky with their kills of power roles. > > Anybody think we need to be looking at this? Or is it really too soon? Wha? If you want to look at it look at it. Strangeness again. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > I’m a bit surprised that **ToeJam** actually was truthful. He was almost certainly self protecting last Night, so he was probably a victim of the Hitman. **Angel** was probably the wolf kill, so again there was no vig kill. It looks like our vig is indeed out of action. This is where I’m super confused. It certainly looks like both septimus and ToeJam got themselves killed by self-protecting, but I keep needing to reject that line of reasoning because that is basically giving scum free kills, which as Town, they wouldn’t do. Normal Phase laid this all out in an effort to convince septimus to NOT self-protect. The Hitman and Wolf-hitman can collectively 3 people (each one can only kill 2 of those 3, I think). Allowing them to do that only helps scum. septimus and ToeJam must have realized this, right? So if we assume ToeJam… well I guess Sario committed suicide, so septimus and ToeJam suiciding isn’t off the table is it? Nevermind. > [@Lakai](#): > > Vote HookerChemical for the reasons mentioned above. I added our fallen Angel’s posts to show she supported the idea and because she can no longer post to support it toDay. The Pleo thing is a bit squishy isn’t it? The theory hinges on “Thing Fish, jsgoddess, and HookerChemical all conspired to vote for Pleo because of… reasons,”? Those reasons are kind of important in order to evaluate the complicitness of HookerChemical. Are you suggesting that ThingFish, jsgoddess and HookerChemical all decided to gang up on a non-wolf? Or are you saying they all decided to gang up on a known wolf (bussing)? It sort of matters. If anything, I would expect wolves to NOT want a bunch of wolves on the same vote. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/137 "2017-02-01T17:31:37Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > What was he thinking? Farewell, Angel too. > e case against him.[/QUO.TE]I can agree with this argument, a point in his favor. Something got borked here. I broke the middle quote tag to make my quote work, but your post doesn’t make sense at that bit. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/138 "2017-02-01T17:39:36Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > I thought I was done tonight. I lied. > > Between this and your previous post I flagged for follow up, I’m getting all sorts of pings from you here. > > You know, when someone dies in this game, my first thought isn’t “well shit. This totally implicates me, doesn’t it?” And my first action isn’t to come online and try to explain to people how this totally doesn’t implicate me. > > First, because the thought would never occur to me to do so. But second, because I know I’m innocent, so why would I need to bother trying to justify or premtively explain anything? If someone wants to make a case, let them. I’m innocent. > > But these don’t look like the actions of an innocent guy. You sure are trying to spend a heck of a lot of time justifying what should be a complete non- > > **Vote Boozahol Squid, P.I.** I like this post so much I’m quoting it in a post all by itself. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/139 "2017-02-01T17:48:25Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > This post makes me really want to Lynch you. But as I type that out, I recall there being a guy in the handful of games that I watched or played in during the last few years who I really, really felt was screaming scum, but wasn’t. Was that you? I think it might have been you. Still makes me want to Lynch you though. > > I have a weird reaction to this. I find it very difficult to change my opinion on unknowns based on the death reveal of a vanilla townie. Angel didn’t know anything more about Prof. P, so why would her opinion sway me simply because she is revealed to be Town? The only way that makes sense is if one thought Angel was lying scum and was deliberately being dishonest to protect Prof. Pepperwinkle, which also doesn’t really make sense. I don’t know, the logic just isn’t meshing in my head. I will leave this here and maybe, someday, I’ll bother to re-read and figure it out. Something doesn’t feel right here. > > Wha? If you want to look at it look at it. Strangeness again. > > This is where I’m super confused. It certainly looks like both septimus and ToeJam got themselves killed by self-protecting, but I keep needing to reject that line of reasoning because that is basically giving scum free kills, which as Town, they wouldn’t do. Normal Phase laid this all out in an effort to convince septimus to NOT self-protect. The Hitman and Wolf-hitman can collectively 3 people (each one can only kill 2 of those 3, I think). Allowing them to do that only helps scum. septimus and ToeJam must have realized this, right? So if we assume ToeJam… well I guess Sario committed suicide, so septimus and ToeJam suiciding isn’t off the table is it? > > Nevermind. > > The Pleo thing is a bit squishy isn’t it? The theory hinges on “Thing Fish, jsgoddess, and HookerChemical all conspired to vote for Pleo because of… reasons,”? Those reasons are kind of important in order to evaluate the complicitness of HookerChemical. Are you suggesting that ThingFish, jsgoddess and HookerChemical all decided to gang up on a non-wolf? Or are you saying they all decided to gang up on a known wolf (bussing)? It sort of matters. > > If anything, I would expect wolves to NOT want a bunch of wolves on the same vote. Hi Sach, if you want Prof’s lynch, go for it. I am against his lynch, but I don’t expect anyone else to have the same trust of Angel’s gut. The last game she correctly called out a number of players both scum and town before I subbed in for her on D2… I think it was D2 anyway… in retrospect it was almost eerie. I’m against Prof being lynched toDay because Angel thought he was town. With her reveal I know that was honest, though she had no extra info. So like I’ve told him, I’m satisfied with giving him enough rope to hang himself and let him establish more of a post and vote record for us to review. If you think it’s enough for a D4 vote, I can’t stop you, but I think it would be more wise to look at other options and give him a chance to create more evidence of his guilt or innocence. If you still think it’s odd, I can’t offer a better explanation. He could be mafia, but if that’s the case I suspect the wolves will want him dead soon enough. They are down by two and need to even that out if they don’t want to lose as the game gets smaller. I wouldn’t be surprised if their next kill was Prof or Lakai. Prof because it seems likely he is either mafia or town, lakai because she seems to be hunting for wolves specifically. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/140 "2017-02-01T17:50:43Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Who asked you to do that? Unless you confirm him, Sachertorte could be a scum pretending to do be a third party. I don’t think it is likely, but I see no reason not to confirm. I think it was Captain Klutz. But I can explain the reasoning… yet again. Crys was first to claim and quoted the entire role PM. It’s going to be harder for other cultists to handshake over the role PM now, because Crys made it fully public. I submit breadcrumbs that predate Crys’ claim. Those breadcrumbs show knowledge of the cultist role PM that predate the publicly available information. Crys and I both have claimed unique cultist roles that could be counter-claimed by a real cultist. All this without Lynch pressure. Do you honestly think scum would do such a thing? (And if you say scum would do anything, I will kill a small furry mammal.) Crys’ confirming me won’t give you information you don’t already have. I’ve already killed a small furry mammal this morning; it was a rat [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699.md?page=8)