# Mafia Reunion Day 4

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 142

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/142 "2017-02-01T18:19:43Z")

</div>

> [@Inner\_Stickler](#):
>
> 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.

I agree with this.

> [@LightFoot](#):
>
> 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.

Yes. Which is why they should be claiming earlier rather than later. Or they risk being killed by Scum so they cannot verify each other–which means we’ll be forced to lynch them. And increasing our lynch burden that way makes it that much easier for Scum to win.

> [@paulwhoisaghost](#):
>
> No comment on Lakai’s strategy to lynch people for being suspicious of you?

Being suspicious is a Towny tell. I tend to be more suspicious of players who are not suspicious of me.

> [@Inner\_Stickler](#):
>
> Because Town’s lack of success so far is making me feel a bit led around by the nose.

Speak for yourself. 🆒

> [@sachertorte](#):
>
> > [@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.

You know, this articulates something that was bothering me as well. Add to that **paulwhoisaghost** ’s post D4.131, which feels like a “let’s you and them fight”, and I’m ready to vote.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

**unvote**  
**vote Prof. Pepperwinkle** for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339.  
**vote paulwhoisaghost** for scummy intentions in D4.20 and D4.131.  
**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).

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699)._