# Mafia Reunion Day 5 **URL:** \ **Category:** Thread Games\ **Created:** [February 7, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271 "2017-02-07T20:22:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**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 9, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/221 "2017-02-09T20:12:20Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I don’t remember Ender switching votes yesterday. His case on Boozy was actually the one that convinced me to vote there, so I think I’d remember if he switched. I was willing to believe I missed a vote change, but I’m happy to see I didn’t. I agree that Ender’s take on B. Squid was excellent, and was also why I favored voting for Squid over Diggit. I would be very surprised if Ender is a wolf. > [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > If Johnnybravo is a wolf, then he bussed the shit out of Boozy. Boozy wouldn’t have been lynched if Johnnybravo didn’t switch his vote. That’s the kind of vote I highly doubt we are going to see. So I do consider it viable to assess someone’s alignment based on their votes. I can see a Wolfy Johnny Bravo bussing B. Squid in that instance. Not the most likely, but not unthinkable. B. Squid was going down. If not Day 4, then shortly after. There is no way Squid was making it to endgame. For scum, the goal is to keep alive whoever can win at endgame. It doesn’t make sense to sacrifice anything for someone who will be dead soon anyway. So bussing a damaged B. Squid is entirely in the cards for wolves. The main thing about J. Bravo is that he created the votes needed to achieve a double lynch. That was very pro-town regardless of B. Squid’s alignment. ---
**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 9, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/222 "2017-02-09T20:47:57Z")
Now onto the Pleonast thing and Prof. P thing. I had half a post yammering on about how I didn’t think that Pleonast’s unvote then vote for Prof. P (and Thing Fish) meant anything. But as I read though Pleonast’s posts I see it as a possibility, but a tricky one to put too much stock into. To me it looks like Pleonast unvotes and votes as part of the whole ‘multi-vote’ that Pleonast _loves_. Seriously, Pleonast and multi-vote not only have a room, they have multiple rooms. (Hi Pleonast 🙂 ) Anyway, the point I was going to make is that the unvote is because that is how Pleonast is. Pleonast is “multi-voting” even though only the first vote counts. So Pleonast unvoted all, then voted again with some changes to the multi-vote, but keeping Prof. P at the top. That sound entirely like something Pleonast would do. Given the Cop role, maybe Pleonast should have been more circumspect, which led me to the ThingFish thing. (Fish thing Fish. I’m hopped up on sugar right now, in case you needed to know that. I make kickass hot cocoa and it’s snowing.) Anyway, I was going to argue that vote-unvote-vote, happening to ThingFish AND Prof. P. is a bit of a crazy coincidence. I looked to see if Pleonast voted for ThingFish on Day One (before any investigations) and no, there isn’t such a vote. If anything, Pleonast probably had good ThingFish vibes on Day One due to ThingFish having a post that Pleonast quoted and said: > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/241): > > This is exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having. So do I believe Pleonast would investigate ThingFish? That’s where I have a harder time. But whatever, it could go either way. Then there is Prof. P: > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/1035): > > In reference to **Prof Pepperwinkle** , this was stated, > > This is an obvious Cultist breadcrumb. **AngeloftheNorth** has successfully investigated **Prof Pepperwinkle** as a fellow LUTHA. > > You two might as well publicly claim now. Some of us are willing to give the Cult time to confirm their claim. But by hiding from us you’re simply reinforcing the case that you’re not non-exclusive. So as of Day Three, Pleonast thought Prof. P was a cultist. But then on Day Four, Pleonast is voting for Prof. P. This shift could have happened since Prof. P went all ‘kill the cultists’ nutty, which kind of blows away the Prof P is a cultist idea. And no longer thinking cultist, I guess it is plausible that Pleonast investigated Prof P. I guess, Pleonast could have investigated Prof. P. But my personal take is no. Investigating someone who is likely to be lynched isn’t good play (Was Prof. P in danger of being lynched on Day 3? I can’t remember. I think he was). The evidence isn’t as strong as I thought it would be that Pleonast clearly did not investigate Prof P. My personal opinion is that investigation did not happen, but I can see why some think it did. ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/223 "2017-02-09T21:04:28Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I guess, Pleonast could have investigated Prof. P. But my personal take is no. Investigating someone who is likely to be lynched isn’t good play (Was Prof. P in danger of being lynched on Day 3? I can’t remember. I think he was). Yes, Prof was the second-placed lynch candidate with fourteen votes.Texcat (+278); jsgoddess (+332); Paulwiag (+343 -515); Pleonast (+345 -602 +602); Inner Stickler (+347); LightFoot (+354 -715); Hockey Monkey (+367-576); ToeJam (+408); bufftabby (+420); Biotop (+458 -533); Enderw24 (+588); Idle Thoughts (+590); sachertorte (656); Mhaye (+674); Cygnus42 (+818); Total Lost (+837, -874); Hoopy Frood (+877); ThingFish (+901); Hal Briston (+923); That’s my own vote count. It includes unvotes, from which you can see that Pleo did his vote / unvote on Day 3 too. I think you’re right, it’s to manage all the subsidiary votes. ---
**Author:** ![MHaye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MHaye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHaye)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/224 "2017-02-09T21:11:46Z")
Having said that, I continue being suspicious of Professor P for all the reasons I gave in the previous two Days, and the repeated votes by Pleonast add to my suspicion. **Vote Professor P**. ---
**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 9, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/225 "2017-02-09T21:13:18Z")
> [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > Mainly stems from these two posts. > > If you look over all his posts, there’s not a lot of other stuff there. Decent number of posts, but not a ton of meat. > [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > I didn’t study every single post no, I went back looking for the ones that I remembered as sticking out to me. Looking back over the Day around this post, I notice that you called it out as one you really liked, so I can see why you would want my thoughts. So let’s get to it. Hmmm. I don’t like this. The first quote talks about looking at all of Ender’s posts. The second explicitly says he didn’t study every single post. I mean, if I’m going to vote for someone for fluff, one should check for fluffiness. Looking at two posts that are fluffy doesn’t prove fluffiness, like at all. Right? So there’s a logic thing here that bothers me. It looks to me like Nanook is ‘going through the motions,’ sort of like he needs to to look Town. > [@](#): > > So to start, we now know that Boozy was a Wolf. At the time of the vote, Boozy only had one other vote. He would of course go on to be lynched. This would indicate to me that if EnderW is scum, he’s likely Mafia as there is no evidence of much bussing occurring, and the set up itself discourages it. > > For the rest of it, this seems like a situation of a disagreement in fundamental approach. That is, for some people the important part of Mafia is winning. For that type of person, being lynched doesn’t matter as long as their team wins. Anything that doesn’t strictly increase their odds of winning has no value. For others, Mafia is much more about the actual playing. Anything that lets them stay alive longer and play more is better. > > Obviously most people fall somewhere in between those two extremes. They want to win, but they also don’t want to die too early. Given the desire to survive so that one can keep playing, defensiveness makes sense. As such, I disagree with him that people shouldn’t care about cases made against them. I find that responding to cases and interacting with them is one of my strengths as a player, and if the case is about me all the better since I know my own motivations. > > Overall? It makes me think he isn’t a Wolf, but does not give me any reason to ignore the other posts he’s made, leaving me thinking he’s likely Mafia. But… but… what is it about “the other posts he’s made” make you think he is Mafia? Your ‘case’ is that there is a lack of content when Ender did have content. Hmm. Sloppy Townie? or Scheming Scum? I’m gonna round up to scheming scum. I really ought to re-read all of Nanook’s posts because I don’t have a strong recollection of Nanook. I wonder if Nanook falls into the fluffy category. Something for later. **vote Nanook of the North Shore** For accusing someone of lacking content after only selectively reading posts. ---
**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 9, 2017, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/226 "2017-02-09T21:19:39Z")
> [@MHaye](#): > > Yes, Prof was the second-placed lynch candidate with fourteen votes.Texcat (+278); jsgoddess (+332); Paulwiag (+343 -515); Pleonast (+345 -602 +602); Inner Stickler (+347); LightFoot (+354 -715); Hockey Monkey (+367-576); ToeJam (+408); bufftabby (+420); Biotop (+458 -533); Enderw24 (+588); Idle Thoughts (+590); sachertorte (656); Mhaye (+674); Cygnus42 (+818); Total Lost (+837, -874); Hoopy Frood (+877); ThingFish (+901); Hal Briston (+923); That’s my own vote count. It includes unvotes, from which you can see that Pleo did his vote / unvote on Day 3 too. I think you’re right, it’s to manage all the subsidiary votes. Thanks for that. So my thinking is that at some point in Day 3, Pleonast thought Prof. P was a cultist. So he clearly did not investigate Prof. P prior to Day 3. He also voted/unvoted/voted Prof P on Day three, where I don’t think an investigation had occurred. Therefore, I reject vote/unvote/vote as a valid reason to think Prof. P. was investigated by Pleonast. Voting Prof. P for other reasons is ok. Apparently I did so on Day 3. ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/227 "2017-02-09T21:39:13Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Hmmm. I don’t like this. The first quote talks about looking at all of Ender’s posts. The second explicitly says he didn’t study every single post. I mean, if I’m going to vote for someone for fluff, one should check for fluffiness. Looking at two posts that are fluffy doesn’t prove fluffiness, like at all. Right? So there’s a logic thing here that bothers me. It looks to me like Nanook is ‘going through the motions,’ sort of like he needs to to look Town. You know you can click someone’s name, and it pulls up a big list of posts right, with a little bit of a recap? Then you can quickly scan through them. I had two posts in mind, I pulled up the full lists of his posts, then I skimmed through looking for the two I was thinking about. So yes, I both looked at all of his posts, AND didn’t study them all. Crazy how that works! That’s leaving aside the fact that looking over someone’s posts and studying them are not inherently the same. > [@](#): > > But… but… what is it about “the other posts he’s made” make you think he is Mafia? Your ‘case’ is that there is a lack of content when Ender did have content. > > Hmm. Sloppy Townie? or Scheming Scum? > I’m gonna round up to scheming scum. I really ought to re-read all of Nanook’s posts because I don’t have a strong recollection of Nanook. I wonder if Nanook falls into the fluffy category. Something for later. > > **vote Nanook of the North Shore** > For accusing someone of lacking content after only selectively reading posts. Let’s go back to where I first voted for Ender shall we? This was in response to the larger quote I posted earlier. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/28): > > I agree with Angel. That post and it’s reasoning is awful. If you’re so convinced it’s all a lie, the answer of what to do about it is fairly academic. If they aren’t neutral 3rd parties, which is part of the claim, they need to die, period, full stop. As it seems likely that Batman is turned off for at least the time being, and scum are unlikely to do it for us, that leaves lynching them. > > Of course, if you yourself are some flavor of scum, then you have an additional data point that they aren’t a member of your faction. That means it’s more likely they are telling the truth. And if they are telling the truth, then lynching them is good for your team since it’s effectively a mislynch for town. However, you probably don’t want to just come out and SAY “we should totally lynch them!” since if they do flip non-hostile or something it makes you look bad. So what is an enterprising scum to do? > > Oh yeah, try and sucker someone else into making the big push for you! Especially if you start mentioning lying, which has already lead to one town’s death this game, that should grab someone’s attention! > > Overall, pretty scummy and a good place for at least an initial vote. > > **Vote enderw24** I don’t see anything in there that says anyting about voting for him for being fluffy. I voted for him specifically because he posted something calling someone a liar, but wasn’t willing to actually DO anything about it. Very much “Lets you and him fight!” thing. And since you seem to have such an issue with it, here’s the rest of his posts since then. D4 119 - an apology, nothing else D4 102 - where he accused and voted for Boozy. I already covered it. Clearly not fluffy. D4 59 - Doesn’t like a boozy post. Probably leads to 102, but doesn’t have much here and now. This one should be quoted I think. > [@Mafia Reunion Day 4](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/42): > > I still don’t want to lynch a 3rd party. But I do have to FOS Crys for yesterDay. > > You’ve stated you’re non hostile. You’ve stated that your intention is to help Town. But you place a vote on me simply because I questioned your story’s legitimacy and then checked out the rest of the Day. That’s not helping Town. That’s being lazy. > > Sorry to see you go Angel and ToeJam. > I voted for ToeJam on Day 1. But each day I became more and more convinced you were Town. Alas. Still focused on 3rd party, but still not actually willing to do anything about it. Actually accuses other people of people lazy, which I just don’t even. And then ends with a “I totally knew ToeJam was town, yup I did, even though I voted for him. Woe is me” I kinda wish I had read deeper into his posts on my go back, since this one bothers me more than the second one I previously quoted. D3 1154 pure jokey fluff while waiting for Dawn post D3 1149 fluffy thanks D3 1131 comment on roles, no real value D3 1128 discussion on how 2 kills could have happened D3 933 comments on how he didn’t have a read on jsgoddess, and not much else D3 906 was some comments to Idle D3 907 was comments on the rules, regarding Idle The next couple were the ones I quoted originally, plus one with yet more discussion of 3rd party and some actual content regarding other players. There’s also a post in here about the difference between lurking and not being around. Then there’s this fun one, his first on D3 > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/13): > > **Drain Bead** seems like a good target as one of the top posters for Day 2. Pick off active Townies and the rest will sort itself out in time. > Sorry, Drain. As I said at Night, I’ll be stepping up and posting more. > > I’m going to take some time and look through Day 2. > > What’s been interesting thus far is that no wolves or mafia have gotten caught in each other’s crosshairs. I’m sure it’s helpful to be able to discuss it amongst yourselves but still, you’re playing with imperfect information. Killing the other faction is good, but not your number one priority. For either scum side to win, they just need to get down to 15 players and then pick off a single opposing faction. Unlikely? Sure. But the math says that going after Townies is the best course of action. Yeah, he’s really stepped up and posted more! I think that’s enough to get my point across. Other than his fascination with third parties and how convinced he is that you guys are lying, about something or other, and his target of Boozy, there isn’t a ton there. Finally, I didn’t say his other posts make me think Mafia. His posts make me think scum, and since I’ve already outlined why I don’t think he’s Wolf, by process of elimination he must be Mafia. Q.E.D. And you accuse me of selectively reading posts? Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/228 "2017-02-09T21:40:23Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Voting Prof. P for other reasons is ok. Apparently I did so on Day 3. You can’t even remember your own votes, and you have an issue with others not reading every single post? I can’t even. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/229 "2017-02-09T22:23:54Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > @Hoopy, who do you think needs to be getting more attention? I think the players still alive that I called out on Day 2, post 663 deserve more attention. Look how quickly the Crys train picked up steam. The first two votes were Mafia. And a Wolfy boozy smudged her. And a wolfy jsgoddess later voted her. That’s a huge concentration of scum on a train. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19937178&postcount=663](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19937178&postcount=663) > [@Biotop](#): > > Idea: > > We could each take up a unique case… maybe on the next living player a\*\*\*\*lphabetically, Good luck convincing **plumpudding** to go along with this.\* > [@TexCat](#): > > The problem is that now it’s going to be easy to vote Prof and blame it on Pleo. I doubt very much that Pleo investigated Prof. He would never be my target if I were cop. I’d be investigating the people who are forcefully expressing opinions and leading town; they’re the most dangerous. (Like you and Angel) Or I’d be investigating people who I thought were good players, but staying off the radar. (Like BillMc, Cookies, Hoopy). That’s the second time you’ve smudged me this game. (But this time you’re smudging me along with **cookies** instead of **paul**.) How exactly have I been staying off the radar? I may not be as prolific as I’ve been in previous games, but I mentioned going into this in either the sign-up thread or Night 0 that I probably wouldn’t be as prolific as previous games due to time constraints. I’ve made cases. I’ve voted. I’ve clearly drawn your attention enough that you’ve smudged me twice now. (And I like how you not-so-subtly throw a confirmed Wolf in with Cookies and I.) It was good enough for a mid-day vote yesterDay and it’s certainly good enough for one toDay as well. Especially with yet another smudge. And don’t forget, you were one of the Crys train as well. **vote Texcat** But hey, maybe I’ll go digging even more through your post history and see if I can convince others to join me. After all, I’m home from work early toDay because I had to get some gum work done. So I’m sore, full of Novocaine (I hate the feeling of it), and even though they gave me acetaminophen/codeine 300mg/30mg (which I believe is the generic equivalent of Tylenol 3) I get to look forward to having to be on the wagon for the next week or so because mixing alcohol with tylenol and codeine is a bad thing. So I’m in a bad mood and have plenty of time on hands. No beer and no TV make Homer…something…something… \*You know, because **paul** is the most prolific poster right now. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/230 "2017-02-09T22:26:51Z")
\*\* Vote Prof P \*\* this vote supercedes the speculation after \*\* Pleo \*\* flipped seer. And I feel I need closure on the issue. sure, D3 Pleo was unsure. What more reason do you need for him to investigate? I don’t recall what Pleo felt about LUTHA \*( which may have some bearing on my thoughts but I can’t find it) \*- if he thought LUTHA were Scum then even more reason. He was voting \*\* Prof \*\* when Mafia Day killed him. A damn good indication that they suspected him after him being right about a Wolf. – it makes sense to me anyway. The players that are reasoning away Pleo having a result on Prof. may deserve a good look- after we discover Prof’s alignment. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/231 "2017-02-09T22:52:01Z")
Lots of quotes re: Pleo’s investigation of Prof, spoilered for sanity: > [@TexCat](#): > > … > I voted ProfP on D3, so I can see the case on him. He has still not voiced opinions on much of anyone except lurkers. But as you noted above, when the wolves flipped, it looked like ProfP couldn’t be wolf. And with the Hockey vote, it’s looking less likely that he’s mafia. I’m not as convinced that he’s town as Angel was, but I’d have to guess town. > > The problem is that now it’s going to be easy to vote Prof and blame it on Pleo. I doubt very much that Pleo investigated Prof. He would never be my target if I were cop. I’d be investigating the people who are forcefully expressing opinions and leading town; they’re the most dangerous. (Like you and Angel) Or I’d be investigating people who I thought were good players, but staying off the radar. (Like BillMc, Cookies, Hoopy)… > [@Plumpudding](#): > > I’m not completely convinced on the Prof. case. Only going from my own experience, but I wouldn’t have investigated Prof. especially not if he was one of my main contenders for a lynch also getting heat from other people too. I’d investigate people I’m either unsure about, I find scummy and flying under the radar, contentious players etc. I also wouldn’t have crumbed my investigations, but that’s because I’m terrible at crumbing, I’m a terrible scumhunter and therefore I’m usually left alone until late game. This is why I asked earlier if Pleo is a crumber… > [@sachertorte](#): > > Now onto the Pleonast thing and Prof. P thing. > > I had half a post yammering on about how I didn’t think that Pleonast’s unvote then vote for Prof. P (and Thing Fish) meant anything. But as I read though Pleonast’s posts I see it as a possibility, but a tricky one to put too much stock into. To me it looks like Pleonast unvotes and votes as part of the whole ‘multi-vote’ that Pleonast _loves_. Seriously, Pleonast and multi-vote not only have a room, they have multiple rooms. (Hi Pleonast 🙂 ) > Anyway, the point I was going to make is that the unvote is because that is how Pleonast is. Pleonast is “multi-voting” even though only the first vote counts. So Pleonast unvoted all, then voted again with some changes to the multi-vote, but keeping Prof. P at the top. That sound entirely like something Pleonast would do. > Given the Cop role, maybe Pleonast should have been more circumspect, which led me to the ThingFish thing. (Fish thing Fish. I’m hopped up on sugar right now, in case you needed to know that. I make kickass hot cocoa and it’s snowing.) > > Anyway, I was going to argue that vote-unvote-vote, happening to ThingFish AND Prof. P. is a bit of a crazy coincidence. I looked to see if Pleonast voted for ThingFish on Day One (before any investigations) and no, there isn’t such a vote. If anything, Pleonast probably had good ThingFish vibes on Day One due to ThingFish having a post that Pleonast quoted and said: > > So do I believe Pleonast would investigate ThingFish? That’s where I have a harder time. But whatever, it could go either way. > > Then there is Prof. P: > > So as of Day Three, Pleonast thought Prof. P was a cultist. > But then on Day Four, Pleonast is voting for Prof. P. This shift could have happened since Prof. P went all ‘kill the cultists’ nutty, which kind of blows away the Prof P is a cultist idea. And no longer thinking cultist, I guess it is plausible that Pleonast investigated Prof P. > > I guess, Pleonast could have investigated Prof. P. But my personal take is no. Investigating someone who is likely to be lynched isn’t good play (Was Prof. P in danger of being lynched on Day 3? I can’t remember. I think he was). > > The evidence isn’t as strong as I thought it would be that Pleonast clearly did not investigate Prof P. My personal opinion is that investigation did not happen, but I can see why some think it did. > [@sachertorte](#): > > Thanks for that. > > So my thinking is that at some point in Day 3, Pleonast thought Prof. P was a cultist. So he clearly did not investigate Prof. P prior to Day 3. He also voted/unvoted/voted Prof P on Day three, where I don’t think an investigation had occurred. Therefore, I reject vote/unvote/vote as a valid reason to think Prof. P. was investigated by Pleonast. > > Voting Prof. P for other reasons is ok. Apparently I did so on Day 3. > [@LightFoot](#): > > \*\* Vote Prof P \*\* > > this vote supercedes the speculation after \*\* Pleo \*\* flipped seer. And I feel I need closure on the issue. > > sure, D3 Pleo was unsure. What more reason do you need for him to investigate? > > I don’t recall what Pleo felt about LUTHA \*( which may have some bearing on my thoughts but I can’t find it) \*- if he thought LUTHA were Scum then even more reason. > > He was voting \*\* Prof \*\* when Mafia Day killed him. A damn good indication that they suspected him after him being right about a Wolf. – it makes sense to me anyway. > > The players that are reasoning away Pleo having a result on Prof. may deserve a good look- after we discover Prof’s alignment. Ok, so I still kinda/sorta/maybe think Prof is town from what I know of Prof from past games. I have never played a game with Pleo before, but his vote-unvote-voting of Prof twice then flip as investigator really screams that he did indeed investigate Prof. If you guys, with previous experience with Pleo, are saying that Pleo probably didn’t, then that makes my vote on Prof stupid. **Unvote Prof. Pepperwinkle** I do understand why people would find him scummy regardless of the Pleo predicament. Hell, I might even go back to Prof if his “last stand” is rubbish. But for now… \*\* Vote Khameleon\*\* ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/232 "2017-02-09T22:52:14Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Now onto the Pleonast thing and Prof. P thing. > > I had half a post yammering on about how I didn’t think that Pleonast’s unvote then vote for Prof. P (and Thing Fish) meant anything. But as I read though Pleonast’s posts I see it as a possibility, but a tricky one to put too much stock into. To me it looks like Pleonast unvotes and votes as part of the whole ‘multi-vote’ that Pleonast _loves_. Seriously, Pleonast and multi-vote not only have a room, they have multiple rooms. (Hi Pleonast 🙂 ) > Anyway, the point I was going to make is that the unvote is because that is how Pleonast is. Pleonast is “multi-voting” even though only the first vote counts. So Pleonast unvoted all, then voted again with some changes to the multi-vote, but keeping Prof. P at the top. That sound entirely like something Pleonast would do. > Given the Cop role, maybe Pleonast should have been more circumspect, which led me to the ThingFish thing. (Fish thing Fish. I’m hopped up on sugar right now, in case you needed to know that. I make kickass hot cocoa and it’s snowing.) > > Anyway, I was going to argue that vote-unvote-vote, happening to ThingFish AND Prof. P. is a bit of a crazy coincidence. I looked to see if Pleonast voted for ThingFish on Day One (before any investigations) and no, there isn’t such a vote. If anything, Pleonast probably had good ThingFish vibes on Day One due to ThingFish having a post that Pleonast quoted and said: > > So do I believe Pleonast would investigate ThingFish? That’s where I have a harder time. But whatever, it could go either way. > > Then there is Prof. P: > > So as of Day Three, Pleonast thought Prof. P was a cultist. > But then on Day Four, Pleonast is voting for Prof. P. This shift could have happened since Prof. P went all ‘kill the cultists’ nutty, which kind of blows away the Prof P is a cultist idea. And no longer thinking cultist, I guess it is plausible that Pleonast investigated Prof P. > > I guess, Pleonast could have investigated Prof. P. But my personal take is no. Investigating someone who is likely to be lynched isn’t good play (Was Prof. P in danger of being lynched on Day 3? I can’t remember. I think he was). > > The evidence isn’t as strong as I thought it would be that Pleonast clearly did not investigate Prof P. My personal opinion is that investigation did not happen, but I can see why some think it did. I still haven’t done a thorough read through of Pleo and Prof from D2 and 3, by my assumption was that Pleo investigated Prof on N2 and voted for him on D3 and 4. As for Thingfish, I believe in the validity of a cop investigating people they think are town so as to set up a pool of confirmed town upon their death. If he thought Thingfish was town based on the post you quoted, it makes sense to me that Pleo would investigate Thingfish looking to gain an early confirmed town. When the results came back scum Pleo voted for him. The only thing I am missing is why Pleo would investigate Prof. I think that it is the combination of Pleo voting for Thingfish and then voting for Prof P that got him killed. I think the mafia caught on faster than we did. If he hadn’t been Daykilled, I would probably be less suspicious of ProfP. So there are a number of things pointing to Pleo having results on Prof P. 1. The unvote revote thing was done to both Thingfish and ProfP. 2. He voted for Prof on D3 and 4. 3. He only voted ThingFish on D2, Thingfish and Prof on D3 and only Prof on D4. 4. He was Daykilled the second Day that he voted for Prof P. Suggesting that Prof P is mafia. 5. Thingfish was Daykilled on D3. The second Day that Pleo had voted for him. The mafia may have suspected that Pleo was a cop and knew Thingfish was scum. They know Thingfish isn’t on their team, which would make him a wolf if they are right about Pleo. They kill Thingfish and on his reveal they are sure that Pleo is a cop. D4 they kill Pleo. What points to him not having results on Prof P? 1. He multivotes, it’s a habit of his and unvoting to change his list isn’t out of the realm of possibilities. 2. The post you quoted where Pleo accuses Angel and Prof of being cultists implies he didn’t have results at that time. 3. Am I missing any thing else? I’m leaning toward Pleo having investigated Prof, and his sticking to his votes on scum got him killed. If he didn’t investigate Prof on N2, then either he got a non-scum result on another player or was blocked N2. 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 9, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/233 "2017-02-09T22:56:53Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Voting Prof. P for other reasons is ok. **Apparently I did so on Day 3.** I don’t understand what you mean by that last part. Apparently? Do you not recall it or do you think it isn’t true? The wording is odd, it reads sarcastic… Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/234 "2017-02-09T23:05:22Z")
and speaking of LUTHA I would like the claimed cultists to weigh in on this idea. Before you lose your window, how do you feel about encouraging at least one of your cult claiming? If we get down to only 2 Wolves or 2 Mafia- You have no way to prove you are not Scum. and We Will Have to Lynch one of you. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/235 "2017-02-10T00:14:17Z")
Since no one has bothered yet, and its seems to be in high demand… here are Pleo’s posts D2,3,and 4. I didnt bother with D1 because he wouldn’t have had results. Just putting it out there… I’m remembering why I thought Pleo was scum… I know he wasn’t, but I still don’t like a lot of his posts. YMMV. D2 > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/121): > > Omnibus post again. Sorry I can’t participate more frequently, but I want to make the contributions I do make useful. > > I’m reading through Day and Night One afresh, with the knowledge of the alignment of the dead. If my notes are correct: > Town: > **Lakai** > **Normal Phase** > **septimus** > **Suburban Plankton** > **colby11** > Gah, this still pings me badly. There is no threshold above which being helpful to Town is too much. Calling out players for being helpful to Town is by definition anti-Town. I’m having trouble seeing any Towny motivation for this. > I missed something when I first read this, probably because I was distracted by the aggressiveness. There seems to be some underlying “perfect” information that only Scum would have. > > First, what is meant by “this particular strategy”? I don’t see what it’s referring to. Second, the “scum advising your teammates on how to play and/or hinting to them that you are that seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat”. While Scum roles do not include teammate information, we have no indication whether or not their secret boards include teammate information. But **Thing Fish** does know that. > On re-read, this post really bothers me. It’s too defensive and misrepresents what **bufftabby** said. > I apparently missed this before. Taunting another player for calling them out for anti-Town behavior. Votes, and reaction to votes, is the best info we have in the early game. Why be so aghast for being called out for not engaging? > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > This is taking to long… Going to have skip ahead to Night 1. I’ll try to finish reading Day 1 later. > Yes. All I have to offer is my analyses, so I’m going to make them as clear as possible. Plus, I find having an explicit list prevents me from getting tunnel vision. I think too many players find someone to vote for and park it there. That’s lazy and does little to help us. If it makes you feel better, I’ll not color them blue. > I hate meta-arguments, but this exact one has been bothering me. > I appreciate **jsgoddess** doing so. They were reiterating their suspicions from the previous Day. Calling out one’s own mistakes is not anti-Town. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > My votes, in no order except most suspicious first: > **unvote** > **vote Thing Fish** for knowledge about secret Scum boards in D1.253. > **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. > > **What players will potentially be subjected to moderator action at the end of Day 2 due to lack of participation?** > > I see no good reason to lynch anyone on that list. On the other hand, I do see good reason to lynch anyone who’s participating little and not on it. (Yeah, I’m probably subject to that; so be it.) > > **vote Idle Thoughts** for participating just enough to avoid the mod-hammer but otherwise contributing almost nothing for us to work with. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/149): > > Please reread my argument: > > We _do know_ that each Scum team has a secret board in this game. We _do not know_ what information is contained there. **Thing Fish** has implicitly stated that each secret Scum board _does not state_ who is on that team. It is impossible for anyone not Scum to know that. Thus, **Thing Fish** is Scum. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > Repeating for better signal to noise: > **What players will potentially be subjected to moderator action at the end of Day 2 due to lack of participation?** > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/154): > > **_ToeJam_ did not post in Night 1. If they do not post in Day 2, shouldn’t they be mod’d at beginning of Night 2?** > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/222): > > If it’s past a certain point on Day 1, I haven’t read it yet. (I want to finish Day 1 later today). And do you mean **ToeJam**? > I feel there is a significant difference between voting for someone who participates little once they’re under imminent threat of lynch and voting for someone who is participating little in general. If **colby11** had played the game, by commenting on other issues and making cases against other players, I never’d have voted for them. > Calling it skimming if you like, but I didn’t notice **Johnny Bravo** ’s reaction the first time through. Note that I’m still suspicious of the votes on **Johnny Bravo** , but they don’t rise above my vote threshold at the moment. > There’s no information in saying that someone who does not read a secret board gains no information from it. That’s basic deduction: a player cannot know what’s on a secret board they haven’t read. And that deduction is completely independent of what’s on the board. Whether or not there’s information on the secret board, the player not reading it gains no information. > > **Thing Fish** has implicitly stated something else: that a player who has read the secret board does not know a particular piece of information. How can anyone who has no knowledge of the secret board know this? The information gained from reading a secret board is extremely dependent on what’s on that board. The only possible conclusion is that **Thing Fish** has knowledge of what’s on that board. > > This is a clear-cut case of perfect information. It’s probably clear-cut enough that we should leave it to the Vigilante to take care of, since we’ll gain little information from lynching a self-revealed scum. But it’s good for an early vote in the Day. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > On multi-lynching: I’m in favor of it. We get information from lynches and voting records. I am not in favor of forcing players to move votes to make it happen. Players must be responsible for their own votes. > > For myself, when I put someone on my voting list, that means I’m willing to see them lynched. While I put my most suspicious vote first, I have no problems switching to anyone on my list. And that means you should hold me accountable for any vote on my list, even if it isn’t counted by the mods. > > I think it’d be helpful for us if everyone did the same, but it’s non-productive to try to enforce it. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/510): > > I’m trying to catch up on posts ToDay now, but I’ll have no more computer access after a few minutes until Monday. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1164): > > Yeah, I’m not going to catch up, am I? Still haven’t finished Day 1, and Day 2 has even more to read. I’ll do what I can… > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1237): > > I’ve skimmed everything now. > > I’m willing to trust the claimed third parties, at least until we’ve lynched a few Scum. To increase trust, it’s best that they all claim. Multiple reasons: 1) They can act as a pseudo-Mason bloc. 2) We can hold them accountable because their votes will be publicly known to that bloc. 3) They can confirm each other and prevent Scum from slipping into the bloc. > > I realize they may be feel vulnerable doing this. But I’m willing to lynch anyone who publicly advocates lynching a third party who is a confirmed member of this group. But that guarantee can’t extend to players who claim while on the way to being lynched. Claim early if you want to be trusted! > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > Let’s see if I can do the numbers correctly. We had 54 players, with 7 Town dead. That leaves 47 players, of who 14 are Scum. Leaving a 33-player buffer before we lose. Each Day and Night the buffer is reduced by 1, unless there’s a cross-kill. Each mislynch or mid-Vig reduces it by 1. So that converts to something like 8 Days until we lose, worst case (33/4 = 8). > > Conversely, we need to get 14 lynches correct to win. > > I can’t see Town being required to lynch 5 more third parties on top of that. But, we really need to see those players publicly claim so. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1321): > > Well that is the dilemma. But if they have a win condition that can interfere with ours, that means we do need to lynch them before we lynch all the Scum. Thus increasing our lynch burden substantially. That doesn’t seem plausible if there is 5 of them. But what if there’s fewer, maybe 2? Then eliminating them is not unreasonable. > > This is the reasoning why Town needs to see all LUTHA claim sooner rather than later. Having 5 players saying “yes, I’m LUTHA” and cross-confirming each other would completely remove them as a threat, in mine eyes. Five is the number claimed and so having five actually claiming would virtually confirm them (just like claimed Masons, one would have to die at some point to confirm the group as a whole). I’d advocate lynching anyone trying to lynch LUTHA at that point, since they’d be threatening only to Scum at that point. > > But either fewer or more than that indicates someone is lying. And we’d have to start lynching claimed LUTHA once we have a few Scum eliminated. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1327): > > If the Vig is killing confirmed third parties, they are playing to lose, by advancing the Scum win conditions and not advancing the Town win condition. Yeah, it’s possible the Vig could sabotage us, but I wouldn’t base my tactics around it. (Also note that one player alone has the switch for the Vig now. It’s quite possible we’ll see no more Vig kills.) > > But when players say “there’s 5 of us” and yet only 2 have been produced, that greatly weakens your claims. Are you lying about your numbers? We can’t tell. Your actual numbers is the part of your claim that can be verified. The longer it remains unverified, the more it looks like you’re lying to us. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1330): > > I agree completely. Lynching or Vigging them is a huge mistake at this point in the game. However, if by midgame, we’ve found no evidence about them beyond the two who’ve claimed so far, I think the possibility that those two have lied to us will be great. And while our win condition doesn’t require us to eliminate third parties, allowing two claimed third parties who are likely liars to survive looks untenable to me. Which is why I’ll really need to be able to count exactly five LUTHA players at some point (to confirm a claim they make) before I’ll consider them a non-threat after midgame. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1332): > > I’ve been skimming, but I though **brewha** had the Vig switch. Am I confused, or you? D3 > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/141): > > Still skimming. I hate it, but there’s no alternative. > Terrible idea. There’s is no benefit to us in knowing who the Vigilante is or who they targeted. > :smack: Every singleton Town role is valuable because a false claim of that role can be counter-claimed by the actual holder. That is, effectively a Mason group of one. Unless you’re advocating a mass claim, there is no advantage to exposing our counter-claimable roles to targeted killing by Scum. > If there’s five of them and they exclude us from winning if they meet their win conditions, we’re going to lose unless Scum start killing each other and the third party, because there’s no way we’ll be able to eliminate 19 players in time. > > There’s no hurry to eliminate the third party now, but unless they can verify they are non-exclusively-winning third party or their numbers are the 5 they claim, we will have to eliminate them. > Yes, I agree with my post. Do you disagree with any part? > > Is there a reason for your vote? > There’s Day-kills, too. > Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to. > Sorry, I’m not up to date on Mafia terms. What is SNF? > Yeah, more unexplained acronyms. What’re WOW and ISO? > > Is it so hard to type things out? Doesn’t your phone have auto complete? Don’t turn **Meeko** on us. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > My votes, in no particular order, except the firstest is the mostest. > **vote Thing Fish** for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253. > **vote Idle Thoughts** for the meta-reason of typically lurking when scum. > **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. > **vote Meeko** for admitting that they deliberately want their posts to be difficult to parse. > > I have no real opinion on **ToeJam**. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/149): > > Okay, I don’t have a problem with that, except that I think it’s too early to actually _lynch_ them. I’m hoping that Scum kill a few them for us, which is probably made more likely by them not claiming. 😃 > Thanks. I was referring to the unknown acronyms. > Ah! I always bold poster names, so I didn’t even consider you were referring to a player. I was trying to figure what Saturday Night Fever could mean in mafia terms. 😛 > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/169): > > Welcome to the game of mafia! But seriously, I’m spending as much time as I can on this game. I either post after skimming, or not post after skimming. > **Thing Fish** said “It reads to me like you could be scum advising your teammates on how to play and/or hinting to them that you are that seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat”. That implicitly states that Scum do not learn the identity of all their teammates on their secret board. Otherwise, why would a Scum player need to hint they were the seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat? > > Only a player who has read a secret board would know it doesn’t reveal all their teammates. It’s not stated anywhere in the rules. Thus, **Thing Fish** has revealed they’ve read a Scum secret board, and so must be Scum. This is a slam-dunk case of perfect information slippage. > > Of course I started the conversation! That’s the whole point of discussing Scum–so that they inadvertently make mistakes when discussing themselves. > > I’m not sure why you’re trying to downplay evidence from an earlier Day. > Lynching claimed cultists ToDay is anti-Town, because even if they’re lying they can’t win now and we really need to eliminate Scum. Anyone advocating lynching them ToDay is not helping us, but could be Scum or misguided Town. > > Lynching cultists when 1) at least one has been alignment-verified, 2) exactly five players are known cultists, and 3) they can cross-confirm membership so no Scum could falsely claim membership, would be anti-Town and extremely pro-Scum. Anyone advocating lynching them at that point is definitely Scum. > > If one or more of the conditions in the previous paragraph has not been met, and we’ve eliminated a good number of Scum (maybe half of them, but we’ll be in a better place to evaluate later), then we’ll have to start considering that their claim is false. And likely start lynching them. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/183): > > Yes, **Thing Fish** was talking about what I said, but gave information that I did not. Information that only someone who’s been reading a Scum board would know. > I’m not discounting anything. I am making my cases based on Day One reads. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/187): > > Why are you so confident no one else will vote for you? > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/307): > > A perfect encapsulation of how scum think: the important thing about a vote is how many players will follow it. > You’ll have to elaborate, because I’m not understanding you. > Would explain what you think the case is? > **Oh no! Did you survive?** > > (Really, once a game starts, you should only take questions via PM.) > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/345): > > This post makes me feel better about **Meeko**. Not that I necessarily agree with poky votes, but it shows pro-Town engagement. > That’s good enough for me. > > **unvote** > **vote Prof. Pepperwinkle** for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339. > **vote Thing Fish** for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253. > **vote Idle Thoughts** for the meta-reason of typically lurking when scum. > **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. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/352): > > A general comment: I appreciate players giving their opinions on the whole list of players. But I find it weird to consider someone to be “leaning Town”. I divide players into two groups: 1) those I’m currently willing to vote for, and 2) everyone else. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/602): > > (Thanks for the better wording.) > > Why do you say I’m not taking into account later posts? My vote list has been changing. Compare my first votes list: > > To my latest: > > That’s an overlap of one vote. Despite the references to D1 posts, some of those votes were first made after Day One. > I think you accurately describe their fears, but it’s only going to get worse for them if they don’t all claim. Until they get to the point where their claim of exactly 5 members has been verified and they explain their investigative-chain-of-trust that eliminates the possibility of a Scum insertion, their lynch threat is going to increase. > > Assuming they’re telling the truth: if they’re too cautious, they’re going to end up with three or four dead (from Scum or other kills) and one or two survivors who’ve wasted their investigations on dead cultists. And so they won’t even be able to confirm each other, let alone convince us there’s not a Scum pretending to be a Cultist. And so we’ll have to lynch the rest of them. They lose, because they refused the chance to confirm themselves while they were all still alive. And they’re likely to take us down with them if we don’t have the mislynches to spare. > This post pings me every which way wrong. Are you so incredulous that someone might play the game differently than you? I don’t think so. I think you’re simply trying to smudge a Town power role. > > And **ToeJam** , quit filling the thread with long posts defending your actions. Either you’re what you claim which is enough to justify yourself, or you’re lying Scum jamming the signal. Spend your limited game time on something helpful. > Hugh, is that you? > Lynching third party is simply handing a free mislynch to Scum. You need to make a case why **Crys** is Scum. > I think this is exactly why **Idle** popped up. I’m all for their lynch, but I’m going to keep my vote where it’s currently at. > I’ve voted you for being irritating while you were Scum, too. My vote on you now is because you’re derailing the lynch on **Prof Pepperwinkle**. > > And note that I loathe using grudges and other types of meta information from previous games. The only reason I’d use it here is because you hit us over the head with it. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > **unvote** > **vote Prof. Pepperwinkle** for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339. > **vote Thing Fish** for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253. > **vote Idle Thoughts** for derailing the lynch train on **Prof Pepperwinkle**. > **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. > > I’ll likely not have time to post again until Monday. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/1035): > > In reference to **Prof Pepperwinkle** , this was stated, > > This is an obvious Cultist breadcrumb. **AngeloftheNorth** has successfully investigated **Prof Pepperwinkle** as a fellow LUTHA. > > You two might as well publicly claim now. Some of us are willing to give the Cult time to confirm their claim. But by hiding from us you’re simply reinforcing the case that you’re not non-exclusive. Continued next post due to size limits. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/236 "2017-02-10T00:15:21Z")
D4 > [@Mafia Reunion Day 4](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/121): > > 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). > [@Mafia Reunion Day 4](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/142): > > I agree with this. > 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. > Being suspicious is a Towny tell. I tend to be more suspicious of players who are not suspicious of me. > Speak for yourself. 🆒 > 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). > [@Mafia Reunion Day 4](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/246): > > I don’t care whether or not you like how I find Scum. And I don’t care to collect “Town cred”–avoiding the lynch is the goal of Scum, not Town. My goal is to maximize the expected damage to Scum even as I am lynched or killed. > > Here’s a hint: Scum often play very well. They may show their Scummy intentions only once or twice. Find that mistake and you’ve got them. Looking at the “big picture” simply allows Scum to cover their mistake with lots of pro-Town activity. > > Players say how Towny **Thing Fish** looked. Of course! Scum do play pro-Town, except when they make a mistake. That’s why the whole concept of “Town cred” is a waste of effort. To find Scum, find the accidentally revealed Scummy intentions. > > So when I highlight a post in my vote list, it’s because I think that player has showed Scummy intentions and that I’m confident enough in that accessment that I’m willing to lynch them. To the first order, it does not matter what they posted earlier or later. To a higher order, I may change my assessments, which will be reflected in my updated vote lists. > Posting a list of players and stating I will move my vote to any of them to get them lynched is rather the opposite of “not getting my hands dirty”. I’m putting my hands in many pots. As well as explicitly aggravating each player I’ve listed. > [@Mafia Reunion Day 4](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/344): > > Deja vu! We get another Day 3 lynch! > > And I’m not sure what time zone **storyteller0910** is in, but I count more than 48 hours until Dusk. > Surely you can set your verbosity level somewhere between 1% and 110%? > > Please tell us why you voted. > > Which reminds me: > > So, did you ever explain exactly what the case against me you liked was? It’s quite possible I missed it if you did, so please link to it. Otherwise, please justify your vote on me. > I strongly agree with this. We lynch our best shot at Scum. There’s no point to arguing what flavor of Scum they are. > I’m perfectly happy with **Boozahol Squid** ’s lynch, but you are wrong in this quote. Players should be more concerned with the capabilities of their opponents. Figuring out how to counter Scum is the best thing we can talk about. It makes us aware of possible gambits they may take. And it forces Scum to talk about things they know that we don’t. (Hence the mistake **Thing Fish** made.) > Exactly. Players talking about Scum but showing little concern about them is one of those things we can catch them on. > And why would a Townie be thinking about other Town? Unless you’re a power role thinking about your own actions, there is little reason for Townies to think about their own team. Scum is what we should be looking for, and Scum is what we should be thinking about, and Scum is what we should be talking about. > [@Mafia Reunion Day 4](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/355): > > I understand. I am denying that talking about Scum is more likely done by Scum. It’s more likely done by Town. > > And talking about Town is more likely to be done by Scum. Because they have a lot to gain while we do not. > [@Mafia Reunion Day 4](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-4/778699/361): > > It’s bad because we have to lynch them all. Maybe I’m missing a case, but in any situation where it matters what flavor of Scum we lynch, Town will no longer be a majority of players. So Scum will control the lynch at that point, even if they haven’t won yet. That is, we will have lost, even if the game is not ended. I don’t fancy picking winners between the two factions. > > While there’s nothing inherently wrong with discussing end game scenarios, we’d do better by lynching any Scum at all rather than discerning if they’re the better flavor. So what did I find? Nothing… a headache… but nothing else. I found no obvious breadcrumbs about investigation results. He states explicitly that town should be looking for scum and no one else, which discounts that he would have investigated ThingFish. I thought it possible that he investigated Crys or Sach on N2 because his D2 content was all ThingFish and cultists… and on D3 he does seem to word his posts a lot differently. Suggesting that they are telling the truth about being 3P and not lying scum, but he still thinks that they all need to claim to prevent scum from sneaking into their midst… so it is possible that Pleo investigated Crys or Sach and found them to not be scum. Here’s where things get frustrating. Pleo didn’t leave any hint that he would be investigating Prof P on N2, but on D3 he posts, > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/345): > > This post makes me feel better about **Meeko**. Not that I necessarily agree with poky votes, but it shows pro-Town engagement. > That’s good enough for me. > > **unvote** > **vote Prof. Pepperwinkle** for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339. > **vote Thing Fish** for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253. > **vote Idle Thoughts** for the meta-reason of typically lurking when scum. > **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. You cant see the quoted post, but it isnt Meeko, it’s Prof P advocating a cultist lynch. Which would support that Pleo had confirmed one of them was 3P… but it also could be that Pleo had investigated Prof and was needing a reason to vote for Prof. It’s too vague. The really confusing part is here > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/1035): > > In reference to **Prof Pepperwinkle** , this was stated, > > This is an obvious Cultist breadcrumb. **AngeloftheNorth** has successfully investigated **Prof Pepperwinkle** as a fellow LUTHA. > > You two might as well publicly claim now. Some of us are willing to give the Cult time to confirm their claim. But by hiding from us you’re simply reinforcing the case that you’re not non-exclusive. Pleo accuses Prof and Angel of being cultists together. Why? It makes no sense. It implies that Pleo had no results on Prof. Not just that, but if he thought that Prof was a cultist, why had he voted for Prof for advocating lynching the cultists? And then continued that vote on D4. I suppose it is possible that he investigated Prof on N3, and was sure of him on D4 to not be swayed when he added me to his list. The whole thing is so confusing… he votes for Prof because Prof advocated lynching the cultists before scum, then he thinks Prof is a cultist, then he votes for Prof again. D4 he posts a lot more about the cultists, and toward the end about whether or not we should try to disseminate wolf from mafia… I still disagree with him… I disagree with a lot of his posts though, town or not. We seem to have very different town play styles. All in all, reading all of his posts didn’t clear anything up for me… it just made things murkier. I am no longer convinced that Pleo was pointing to Prof P because he had results on him from N2… he gave no indications of that and even undermines it on D3. He could have results on Prof P on D4, supported with him not moving his vote to me. But I just don’t know anymore. I think it is just as possible he had no results or N1 results on ThingFish and maybe N2 results on one of the cultists… but at this point, it doesn’t give us a whole lot to go on. And I’m off to check and see what I said in D4.20 and D4.131 that he considered scummy intentions. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/237 "2017-02-10T00:18:43Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Lots of quotes re: Pleo’s investigation of Prof, spoilered for sanity: > > Ok, so I still kinda/sorta/maybe think Prof is town from what I know of Prof from past games. I have never played a game with Pleo before, but his vote-unvote-voting of Prof twice then flip as investigator really screams that he did indeed investigate Prof. If you guys, with previous experience with Pleo, are saying that Pleo probably didn’t, then that makes my vote on Prof stupid. > > **Unvote Prof. Pepperwinkle** > > I do understand why people would find him scummy regardless of the Pleo predicament. Hell, I might even go back to Prof if his “last stand” is rubbish. But for now… > \*\* > Vote Khameleon\*\* I dont blame ya… for me the Pleo thing was the smoking gun… but I was thinking scum before the Pleo thing came up… After Sach’s assessment and my own… both concluding that Pleo probably didnt have results on Prof… I’m not as sure, but still think he’s the best shot at getting scum. Khameleon… I have to take another look at. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Klutz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captain_klutz/32/4993_2.png) [@Captain\_Klutz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Klutz)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/238 "2017-02-10T00:26:26Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Pleonast > > In reference to Prof Pepperwinkle, this was stated, > > > > This is an obvious Cultist breadcrumb. AngeloftheNorth has successfully investigated Prof Pepperwinkle as a fellow LUTHA. > > > > You two might as well publicly claim now. Some of us are willing to give the Cult time to confirm their claim. But by hiding from us you’re simply reinforcing the case that you’re not non-exclusive. > > So as of Day Three, Pleonast thought Prof. P was a cultist. > But then on Day Four, Pleonast is voting for Prof. P. This shift could have happened since Prof. P went all ‘kill the cultists’ nutty, which kind of blows away the Prof P is a cultist idea. And no longer thinking cultist, I guess it is plausible that Pleonast investigated Prof P. > > I guess, Pleonast could have investigated Prof. P. But my personal take is no. Investigating someone who is likely to be lynched isn’t good play (Was Prof. P in danger of being lynched on Day 3? I can’t remember. I think he was). > > The evidence isn’t as strong as I thought it would be that Pleonast clearly did not investigate Prof P. My personal opinion is that investigation did not happen, but I can see why some think it did. I had a different take on that **Pleonast** post. He had found **Prof P.** was scum, so he called out **AngeloftheNorth** to give her a chance to hang herself. If she claimed to have actual knowledge of Prof P’s alignment (as either town or third party) then he would have caught another scum. So no, I don’t agree that this shows that Pleonast thought Prof P was LUTHA. There is also this post from Day 3, talking to **Idle Thoughts** : > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/602): > > I’ve voted you for being irritating while you were Scum, too. My vote on you now is because you’re derailing the lynch on **Prof Pepperwinkle**. So Pleonast was indeed very keen on a Prof P. lynch. I do agree that Prof P is an unusual target for a cop investigation (it’s not one that I would have chosen). But the evidence is that he did investigate. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/239 "2017-02-10T00:39:04Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > **Since no one has bothered yet** , and its seems to be in high demand… here are Pleo’s posts D2,3,and 4. I didnt bother with D1 because he wouldn’t have had results. > > Just putting it out there… I’m remembering why I thought Pleo was scum… I know he wasn’t, but I still don’t like a lot of his posts. YMMV. All investigative /theory posts are appreciated, but your opening statement is…well… off putting. keep in mind though his D1 suspicions could point to who he investigated I thought Pleo was Scum as well. but now we know better ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/240 "2017-02-10T00:42:15Z")
Pleo had to know how his votes would look. You can try to parse his posts however you like, but a detective voting for a player twice in a row i about as good evidence you are ever going to get in this game. And has been mentioned, there are plenty of other reasons to be suspicious of Prof > [@snfaulkner](#): > > Lots of quotes re: Pleo’s investigation of Prof, spoilered for sanity: > > Ok, so I still kinda/sorta/maybe think Prof is town from what I know of Prof from past games. I have never played a game with Pleo before, but his vote-unvote-voting of Prof twice then flip as investigator really screams that he did indeed investigate Prof. If you guys, with previous experience with Pleo, are saying that Pleo probably didn’t, then that makes my vote on Prof stupid. > > Unvote Prof. Pepperwinkle > I do understand why people would find him scummy regardless of the Pleo predicament. Hell, I might even go back to Prof if his “last stand” is rubbish. But for now… > > Vote Khameleon Is FOS what the cool kids say these days? FOS snfaulkner then. Here is what I believe you are thinking. Your scum buddy Prof has a solid case against him, so you jumped on early assuming he would be lynched. But it turns out the case might not be universally believed, so maybe you can save your cohort. Thus you need a reason to change your vote. Ah how about Pleo’s play style. As a newer player, you can’t know it, so it is a perfect excuse to change your vote. When Prof does up scum, well how could you know. Or you can just move your vote back once it becomes inevitable. Here is the thing though. Other then a little bit from Sach, none of the quoted posts mentioned Pleo’s play style. Most of them talked about how they would handle being a detective, nothing specific to knowing Pleo better then you. I’m not buying your reasoning. If/when prof comes up scum, I think snfaulkner deserves a long hard look. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271.md?page=13)