# 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:** 13
**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 10, 2017, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/241 "2017-02-10T00:48:36Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > 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 > > 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. I can see how you think that, but I don’t care. I’d rather not murder a player whom, if not for the investigation, I have a town lean on. If the investigation didn’t happen, as some are saying, then I’d rather move my vote to someone who leans scum in my eyes. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/242 "2017-02-10T00:54:48Z")
I am also dubious of snfaulkner’s meta-gaming and seeming willingness to trust in the meta-gaming of others. ---
**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, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/243 "2017-02-10T00:55:43Z")
> [@Biotop](#): > > Idea: > > We could each take up a unique case… maybe on the next living player a\*\*\*\*lphabetically, and issue a report. It would give us conversation on a Day where the vote result seems almost assured anyway, thus keeping debate and thought alive. We assign everyone analyzing opportunities separately. This plan would also divide up the monumental chore of reviewing all the current players, force lurkers, Scum and Lutha to make cases and maybe help each player evaluate someone different, perhaps a player off their game radar. The report would be due by Sunday. For those who complain about homework, I’d just respond that analyzing one player would not be a heavy burden, and the benefit of these dozens of analysis might be surprising. > > I think the results could prove interesting and informative. What do you think? Would it be like herding cats? Would players give it a go? > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > Sorry, but this game has around 5000 posts - I’m barely keeping up with the threads of inquiry which strike my interest or ping me, let alone being assigned them. Didn’t somebody already suggest a plan like this on a previous Day? Total Lost proposed this on D3 I think… Sunny Daze and I agreed to it… I never received a challenge, I issued one to Total, and the whole thing went nowhere. If you want to challenge players to review other players, I’m always game… but I doubt this is going to get the lurkers to participate… and your proposed system would put Total Lost in charge of reviewing me… I highly doubt that would happen considering she didnt review ToeJam or Koldanar on D3 when I issued the challenge. Add to that my extreme post count, and I don’t think she would, or even could complete it. I’ll play your reindeer games though, Biotop. I think I could manage just about anyone on the list by Sunday… ---
**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, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/244 "2017-02-10T00:59:51Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > 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 Well, no one had bothered to gather his posts in one current location. Myself and others had mentioned needing to go back and review his posts. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/245 "2017-02-10T01:02:11Z")
> [@Plumpudding](#): > > On TexCat, go back to my case Day 2, then look at my follow-up Day 3. I find there’s very little of note, a vote-count placed squarely in the middle, and she seems much more concerned, and much more talkative, about other things than looking for scum and throwing her finger around. IMO. As a general policy, if you’re referring to a case, can you at least include a post number so we don’t have to hunt it down? Links are even better. (This is a general request and not specific to plum.) As to TexCat, I had my early reservations based on her posting habits (totally meta, nothing content related), but those have eased back significantly toDay and yesterDay. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/246 "2017-02-10T01:03:39Z")
\*\ ***Day 5 Vote Count** Professor P. (12) - Hawkeyeop(6), paulwhoisaghost(19), Lakai(50), bufftabby(57), sinjin(104), biotop(129), captainklutz(138), johnnybravo(142), cometothedarkside(192), khameleon(201), mhaye(224), lightfoot(230), Texcat(2) - Plumpudding(38), Hoopy(229) Paulwhoisaghost(1) - Texcat(22), Nanook(1) - sachertorte(225) Khameleon(1) - snfaulkner(231) Day ends on Sunday, February 12 , at 3:00. “Need to lay a foundation? Got a wall to repair? Suddenly have a use for a huge sepulcher tomb? We here at Chronos and Heirs are here for you. Chronos and Heirs, for all of your stoneworking needs.” Day ends on Sunday at 3:00. \*\* ---
**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, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/247 "2017-02-10T01:04:51Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > Well, no one had bothered to gather his posts in one current location. Myself and others had mentioned needing to go back and review his posts. That doesn’t mean others were not doing their own homework. and again thanks for the post. But there was no need for the preface. ---
**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 10, 2017, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/248 "2017-02-10T01:05:15Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > 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… I don’t recall. Days kind of blur together after a while. I believe Day 3 was the Idle Thoughts fiasco. I sort of thought I voted for Idle Thoughts, but apparently I didn’t. I voted for Prof. P. That there is more than one person I could have voted for on a Day shouldn’t be too shocking. Other than ToeJam, none of my votes have been, “Oh yeah, I’m definitely voting for that guy.” ---
**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, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/249 "2017-02-10T01:13:35Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > 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. After doing my own analysis, I think you have this bit twisted. Prof P had already posted the kill all cultists stuff before Pleo accused him and Angel of being cultists. I think it is possible that CaptainKlutz has it right and Pleo thought that Angel was trying to drop a cultist breadcrumb and defend Prof, when Pleo had a scum result on Prof… but I still don’t see why Pleo would have investigated Prof on N2. Who knows… the whole thing is a mess and there are missing result(s) with seemingly no crumbs. It’s too bad Pleo was so against players posting town leans, or he might have been able to crumb a town investigation result before getting killed. All in all, I was suspicious of Prof, Angel defended him so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and my suspicions have only grown since. I think Pleo voting him two Days in a row is good evidence coming from a seer, but even without it, I want resolution on Prof, he’s dodged the lynch long enough without posting anything that convinces me that he isn’t scum. ---
**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, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/250 "2017-02-10T01:25:56Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > 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) > > Good luck convincing **plumpudding** to go along with this.\* > > 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. I’ll look at your list and do some sleuthing tomorrow and Saturday. I subbed in for WinstonSmith, according to the player list Total Lost would get the delight of doing my analysis. 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 10, 2017, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/251 "2017-02-10T01:30:17Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > 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. I don’t follow… if we reduce the number down to 2 wolf or mafia, why do we need to lynch one of the 2 claimed cultists? I mean, I could see it as an ultimatum for a third to claim at that point… but a third claim would preclude them being of that faction. I’m sure Prof is going to flip Mafia… that would make it at most 3 wolves and 4 mafia going into D5. At that point I would be happy if all cultists would claim, as it would preclude them being mafia and it would greatly reduce the pool we need to fish in. 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 10, 2017, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/252 "2017-02-10T01:33:42Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I don’t recall. Days kind of blur together after a while. I believe Day 3 was the Idle Thoughts fiasco. I sort of thought I voted for Idle Thoughts, but apparently I didn’t. I voted for Prof. P. That there is more than one person I could have voted for on a Day shouldn’t be too shocking. Other than ToeJam, none of my votes have been, “Oh yeah, I’m definitely voting for that guy.” Ok. I just wanted to be sure I wasn’t missing something. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/253 "2017-02-10T01:52:59Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Could you remind me why? Here’s the post that put him on my radar: > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Three](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/16): > > I want to look up Sach’s history a bit more. The 3rd party play would be a very ballsy gambit, I agree. But what purpose did it serve at the time of claiming? Were they both under that much pressure to break down like that on Day 2? That seems very hasty for something that could massively backfire. > > Currently, I’m opposed to wasting a lynch on known or suspected 3rd party. That may change. > At the same time, I’m almost certain Crys is lying. > > First of all, even in a game this size, having Town, Wolves, Mafia, AND a FIVE person 3rd party? That’s almost as large as each scum team. That’s not a 3rd party, that’s a fourth faction! And a 3rd party with (multiple?) power roles that’s completely off the radar in regards to Role PMs? > > And why does 3rd party need power roles anyway? If the win condition is just to survive, why the hell would they need to investigate anyone? Lynch them all! Who cares as long as they stick around. > > And why would their win condition be to just survive to the end? Why would the mods have so much explanation in the rules about potential exclusive win conditions for 3rd party if there wasn’t one in the game? > > No. Nothing about Crys’s claim makes a lick of sense. > It’s all a lie. > > But I just don’t know what to do about it. Since then, he’s been much more…sane…and I feel like Nanook is molehill mountaineering. Especially so since it doesn’t come back to Ender’s nonsense post. **vote Nanook** I’m still sold on Prof P’s apology. Narrowly, since he’s been going back to bad ideas like voting third parities, but I believe it’s bad townie ideas. It seems that Pleonast hadn’t investigated Prof by D3, and I an not convinced he investigated him N3 to draw the vote (again). ---
**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, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/254 "2017-02-10T01:58:34Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > I don’t follow… if we reduce the number down to 2 wolf or mafia, why do we need to lynch one of the 2 claimed cultists? I mean, I could see it as an ultimatum for a third to claim at that point… but a third claim would preclude them being of that faction. > > I’m sure Prof is going to flip Mafia… that would make it at most 3 wolves and 4 mafia going into D5. At that point I would be happy if all cultists would claim, as it would preclude them being mafia and it would greatly reduce the pool we need to fish in. You are claimed not LUTHA \* I did address the idea to cultists \* How the claimed LUTHA react to my idea may gain some knowledge. If Lutha is real it could help them. I see no reason to lay it all out- \* just now \* ---
**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 10, 2017, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/255 "2017-02-10T03:04:05Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > 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) > > Good luck convincing **plumpudding** to go along with this.\* > > 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. It seems I can’t even mention you without “smudging” you. I said you were a good player flying under the radar. You’ve posted enough to not show up on Prof’ s lists, but haven’t expressed many strong opinions. I don’t see you disputing that, but you think I’m smudging. ---
**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 10, 2017, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/256 "2017-02-10T03:04:28Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > After doing my own analysis, I think you have this bit twisted. Prof P had already posted the kill all cultists stuff before Pleo accused him and Angel of being cultists. If that is the case, then I got nuttin’. I still think assuming Pleonast investigated Prof. P. is a mistake. > [@](#): > > All in all, I was suspicious of Prof, Angel defended him so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and my suspicions have only grown since. I think Pleo voting him two Days in a row is good evidence coming from a seer, but even without it, I want resolution on Prof, he’s dodged the lynch long enough without posting anything that convinces me that he isn’t scum. Fair enough. I kind of want to see if he’s gooy on the inside too. I just don’t like the Pleonast justification. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/257 "2017-02-10T04:26:03Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > I started looking at those records with the idea that bussing in a game with two scum teams is of much less value than in a one scum team game. If scum busses their own, it advances both the town and other scum team toward their win condition, puts the bussing team behind the other scum team for player count, and doesn’t clear the bussing team (e.g. Wolves) of being the other team (e.g. Mafia) until that other team is eliminated. Unfortunately, we’ve only lynched Squid as scum, so it’s not as helpful as I’d like. D3 is almost useless as an indicator because of the Idle meltdown. I suspect the exercise may be more useful in a couple of Days. Pretty perversely, I just spent three hours with a goddamn spreadsheet trying to see if the timing of votes in addition to the finals gleaned any more information–spoiler alert, it didn’t. Day 4 MIGHT have provided some insight–had anyone switched off Boozy once it became clear we were going to have a double lynch–but that only could possibly point to **HookerChemical** as I read it, and frankly I think they switched so early that it was anyone’s vote at that time so it’s not likely to be a subtle attempt at a wolf save. I’ve been having trouble mustering the effort to slog through this game. The posts are moving way too damn fast for my available free time, and it has resulted in me shutting down–for which I apologize. Probably going to limit my play to 20-or-less player games in the future, though. (not being able to play at work, which I used to do in my heyday, has NOT been helping.) That all said, we have a solid clue today for a vote, one that I’ve like before but is only more affirmed by Pleo’s actions: vote ProfP ---
**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 10, 2017, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/258 "2017-02-10T04:46:34Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > If that is the case, then I got nuttin’. I still think assuming Pleonast investigated Prof. P. is a mistake. > > Fair enough. I kind of want to see if he’s gooy on the inside too. I just don’t like the Pleonast justification. I’m imagining prof being the pilsbury dough boy. ---
**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 10, 2017, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/259 "2017-02-10T04:47:36Z")
…and everyone is poking at him. ---
**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 10, 2017, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/260 "2017-02-10T04:53:35Z")
My WoW on Texcat: Day 1 1.29 Votes Normal for jokingly editing. 1.91 Votes colby for possible slip of “other team.” She’s the first to point this out. 1.187 Says Patsy should role-claim. 1.315 Recaps posts where people addressed the colby issue without voting 1.359 Tells **Biotop** she will not consider the approach of using login evidence to determine if people are actively lurking. 1.452 Defends people voting **Angel** for not reading the rules. 1.510 Meta-discussion about abbreviations and Meeko’s avatar. 1.586 More **Angel** not reading rules discussion 1.624 and .625 Draws **Guiri’s** attention to **Angel** ’s other handle on Giraffe board. 1.713 Expresses confusion over Day/Night roles and powers. 1.759 Calls out **colby** for lurking. Tells **prof** that he could get two-for-one with that since prof is all about LtL. 1.760 Defends **Colby** vote to **scathach** who had voted her for her colby vote. Claims vote is better than LtL or voting Angel for not reading rules. Mentions she’s doubling-down on her vote for colby. 1.765 Calls **scathach** out for having issues with Colby vote in spite of scathach saying that it looks like a slip. Scathach says that Colby is always doing things like that. She tells scathach to place his vote with the things he finds “far more suspicious”. 1.788 Call scathach out to tell him her colby vote reasoning is sure better than jsgoddess’ reasoning for voting Lakai for “breathing weird”. 1.865 Wonders which wolf placed a NAF-Ad. 1.874 More patsy discussion, still favors claim 1.947 Claims she’s not third party. Says she’d vote colby again for misrepresenting brewha’s post. 1.1269 Comments that Lakai looked scummy even though he came up town. Comments that she kept her vote on colby because he looked scummy as well. 1.1276 Tells watcher to leave breadcrumbs. 1.1315 Thinks it was peeker who first coined the nickname “burby” for suburban plankton. Day 1 Analysis: Taken in isolation, the pointing out of Colby’s (Town) possible slip and voting for him is a null tell. However, Texcat has a history in this game of going for easy cases. There’s not a lot of analysis of other posters from her in general, even of myself, who she keeps drive-by smudging. Wanting the Patsy to claim is in my opinion a pro-scum move. However, there were townies, IIRC, that agreed the Patsy should claim as well, so I’m not going to hold this against her. I think they’re wrong, but that doesn’t mean scummy. However, at the same time, it certainly doesn’t help her case. I’m not sure I get the context of 713 where she explains her confusion of the Day/Night power mix. It really didn’t add anything to the general discussions. It came out of left field with no context, just a “hey, I’m here and I’m helping by stating my confusion. I see a bit of a contradiction between her defending the Angel (Town) voters earlier, but then saying how her vote on Colby is so much better than the Angel voters reasons she’s “doubling down” on it. Calls out jsgoddess’ (Wolf) vote on Lakai (Town at the time) for being bad, but still claims that Night she found Lakai scummy as well. Once again, it doesn’t mean much in isolation (since, let’s face it, “breathing weird” which was jsgoddess’ reason is a horrible reason to vote for someone), but it continues the pattern of equivocation. Scum like to equivocate. Day 2 2.42 Posts unvote record 2.48 Defend her vote on Colby again when Sunny Daze (Mafia) calls out Colby’s death as being a bad thing. Nervous about ToeJam (Town) wagon. 2.88 More defense of her colby when Plumpudding calls her out and votes her because they both are aware that colby does these supposed slips all the time as town. Says colby’s lurking afterwards is why she kept her vote on him. Tells jsgoddess, who had FOS’ed her for a policy vote, that her vote on colby wasn’t policy vote so jsgoddess should remove the FOS. 2.133 After clarification from jsgoddess that the FOS was for Texcat’s vote on Normal Phase editing (Town), says she understands the FOS now, but her vote wasn’t on Normal for very long and she didn’t plan on leaving it there anyway. More back and forth with plumpudding over the colby metagame. 2.179 Comments on Drain Bead’s (Town) post where Drain Bead mentions how there were two people who called out Colby without voting him: Angel (Town) and BillMc (Wolf). Drain Bead feels her case against BillMc was being ignored, and was interested in others opinions of both of them since she found them both rather scummy. Texcat mentions that she though Drain Bead’s point was good, but after colby flipped town it seemed to be less good. Examines BillMc’s posts. Agrees with Drain Bead that Bill claiming in one post not to see a ToeJam case but later citing a post that occurred before his “I don’t see a case” post as a reason to “see a case” is suspicious. Votes BillMC for the behavior. 2.224 Asks Brewha if his switch posts mentions other people with switches. 2.232 Thanks biotop for linking to the rules where it mentions switches. Says brewha’s description of his switch doesn’t seem to match. Asks mods if switches are revealed upon death. Tells diggit that his vote colors are reversed. 2.301 Says Batman should aim at scum, not at town. (This is in regards to brewha’s odd idea that he should flip Batman’s switch and Batman should target him thus confirming that brewha holds the switch (you know, unless the other guy flips his switch as well….)) 2.303 Adds note that you should never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. 2.542 More discussion in regards to the Normal Phase/colby/policy vote thing, this time in response to sachertorte. Points out that multi-lynch is not the equivalent of two days of lynching because there’s no Dawn flips in-between. 2.544 Fluff 2.564 Responds to jsgoddess’ wondering if brewha hadn’t gotten the switch PM yet which might explain the lie. Says that Brewha probably didn’t want to claim yet and can’t see any reason for a scummy brewha to have lied. Alternately concludes brewha could have just made a mistake. Responds to sachertorte saying she’s not against a double-lynch but thinks that a lynch-flip-lynch-flip is better than lynch-lynch-flip-flip. Especially because it gives time to claim/counterclaim. 2.569 Asks Crys what type of investigation she got back Night 1, as in what the results say about alignment. 2.605 Points out to Diggit that he’s wrong in thinking crys’ win condition makes no sense according to the rules because crys claimed her win was not exclusive and the rules clearly state only exclusive third-party win conditions are checked last. 2.612 Calls out crys for her belief that she can sort out the brewha mess since vrys only gets LUTHA/non-LUTHA results, unless of course crys thinks brewha is LUTHA, in which case, why? 2.633 Unvotes BillMc, votes snfaulkner for editing his posts and joking that the edits were secret scum communication. Says edits could be secret LUTHA communication to crys. Responds to raven’s question about whether or not mason’s can communicate outside of game thread by saying in some games they can and in others they can’t. This game seems to fall under the latter case. 2.639 Unvotes snfaulkner and votes crys, with the reasoning that why would she vote for a suspected cultist when she could vote for a claimed cultist. 2.654 Fluff 2.665 Overall vote count 2.670 Top two vote count 2.725 Sums up her crys case in response to and in support of Capt. Klutz’s summary of his crys case: crys claimed to save brewha but won’t explain why she thought brewha was cult; crys won’t explain why she thought Drain Bead was a cultist either; crys did claim hunch, but you don’t claim like that on a hunch; crys must be hiding something and is evil cultist; other cultists haven’t claimed because they know crys is lying and don’t want to get lynched like she will be when her lies are exposed; believes crys is hostile third party and a perfect use for second lynch 2.810 Vote correction notice to moderators 2.968 Another vote correction notice to moderators. Wonders why Johnny Bravo thinks a sachertorte lynch is better than a crys. Is reconsidering her vote on crys now that sachertorte has claimed and confirmed crys’ statements. 2.980 Fixed vote count 2.986 In response to Drain Bead trying to figure out why brewha would have lied and not just stayed quiet, Texcat mentions that he was trying to correct Chronos’s impression that switches were always held by opposing factions, though he didn’t have any solid evidence to that, only that he had a switch. Sees townie motivation to nip bad assumptions in the bud. And saying that you don’t have evidence when you’re not ready to claim isn’t much of a lie in her opinion. 2.1313 Philosophical discussion on trust lists and leans and such Day 2 Analysis: I don’t understand why in post 279 colby’s town flip would make Drain Bead’s case less good. I don’t like the reasoning for the vote on snfaulkner. She clearly has been indicating her suspicion of crys so far. She also claimed earlier in the day that she prefers voting people she finds scummy over policy votes in one of the discussions regarding her earlier vote for Normal Phase. Yet, here she is voting on a policy vote couched in a “he could be secret cultist” with no evidence, yet she leaves her vote off the person she’s been hounding the most so far. It wasn’t until later she actually votes her suspicion. Maybe she realized how scummy her snfaulkner vote looked. She doesn’t really explain her reasons until after I called out the people on the train. Day 3 3.73 Comment on Wizard death and asks if we get two lynches out of it 3.163 Examines brewha voters. Mentions it’s easy for scum to hide there because of “lynch all liars”. Doesn’t see anyone standing out more scummy than anyone else, but finds sachertorte’s vote odd and agrees with ender that the cultists seem funny. 3.278 Votes professor p for posting a lot without really giving any opinions and it’s Day 3 now. 3.380 In response to diggit says she’s more than happy at this point to leave the cultists to scum/vig. Advantage to remaining cultists not claiming is scum might hit one of them while targeting town power roles or vig might hit one of them while targeting scum. Either way, town saves a lynch on them and benefits from the death reveal. Wonders why they wouldn’t claim now, though if they are truly innocent survivors. 3.440 Wonders why ToeJam is still up for lynch consideration when if we’re not willing to lynch a claimed third party, why would we consider lynching a claimed town power role who could be counterclaimed. 3.453 States to Lightfoot that the dustup between Lightfoot and paul in regards to the latter’s “lie” about addressing a point in a previous post and then not doing it is really much ado about nothing 3.456 Fluff 3.874 Unvotes prof and votes Idle for not knowing the number of scum in the game. Says she’s still suspicious of prof regardless of what Angel thinks about him. Asks prof what he thinks about Angel. 3.884 Defends her Idle vote after I call her out for switching off of someone she finds scummy (i.e. prof) and on to someone who clearly is not paying attention to the game or his own PMs. Mentions that his 5-7 argument could be scum trying to downplay that they’re scum by only being vaguely aware of the number of scum on their team. 3.899 Comment on Idle’s posting of link to screen shot of PM should be against the rules if it isn’t. 3.908 Switches back to prof. 3.948 Discusses third death at Dusk, potatoes, and that Pleo and ToeJam are likely not wolves but could still be mafia. 3.1092 Says that she, like snfaulkner, also thought that all cult have a “find your own kind” investigative power. 3.1145 Speculates that potato power might be delayed kill Day 3 Analysis: Interesting that she’s so willing to vote prof for apparently not giving any opinions, but won’t vote me though she thinks I’m being under the radar. Her vote switch to Idle while still finding prof scummy was opportunistic and for a bad reason. Her defense mitigates it a bit, but Idle was talking about total scum in the game, not just on his team, so he was way off. This isn’t downplaying, this is “not playing”. Then she switches back to prof, after idle has a comfortable lead near end of day, which means her switch back really serves no purpose. It’s an interesting tack to leave yourself on the record as voting for someone at end of day without actually endangering them for lynch. It allows for appearingly consistent play (i.e. I always though Prof was scum) without taking any real risk. It’s like a setup for a long-term bus. Day 4 4.32 Discusses extra lynch option. Good with either using the second lynch on a scum suspect or a third party. Willing to give Prof P a pass now due to the cross voting with ToeJam [Hoopy Frood Note–I think she meant ThingFish here] and jsgoddess. Inclined to think he’s not a wolf, but might be mafia. Suspects paul might be a cultist because he doesn’t think the extra death at Dusk 3 came from the cultists. 4.66 Discussion over whether or not cultists will have their hostile/non-hostile status revealed upon death because even though moderators said only alignment is revealed upon death, crys’ PM shows hostile/non-hostile as part of alignment 4.77 Calls out Hal for calling out the people who voted Idle after he posted his screenshot. Says that it’s hard to assign scum motivation to any Idle voters. Unless Hal is saying that people voted Idle to save prof. 4.129 Links to Guri’s vote/unvote record of all players 4.193 Asks paul who he think is responsible for the third kill on Day 3 if not a third party. 4.294 WoW on Khameleon. Analysis amounts to how she thought Khameleon was cult as of Day 2, but by Day 3 wasn’t sure since Khameleon found 5 cult as being too may. Wants to look at Koldanar next. 4.295 Fluff 4.310 WoW on Koldanar. Prods him about his stances on third parties in general and LUTHA in particular, especially with a third-party killer out there. 4.313 Calls out Guiri and I for our discussions about targeting specific scum factions for lynch. Cals the discussion disingenuous. 4.319 Responds to my vote for her. Explains she doesn’t see the point in the discussion and can’t imagine why I would. 4.339 Tells paul she doesn’t think Koldanar is a cultist and wasn’t prodding him to claim. She just saw what seemed to be a shift in his position on third parties and wondered what might have caused it. Asks paul: “Why are you being so protective of him? What gave you the idea that I was trying to force a claim? Why are you confronting me? What’s wrong with asking questions to both town and scum? Am I supposed to magically find scum first, and then start asking questions?” She then thanks Koldanar for addressing her questions. 4.342 Fluff 4.374 Doesn’t know why everyone is insistent the killing team can’t be LUTHA. 4.394 Calls out paul for postulating wolves might change their strategy now that there down in numbers to mafia. Death of mafia helps wolves case regardless so why would they concentrate harder on mafia just because their down a couple. 4.429 More discussion as to why she thinks paul’s premise is wrong and the whole discussion of which faction should target which and when is ridiculous in response to nesta FOS’ing her. 4.471 Votes paul for strategy talk without any scumhunting. 4.478 In response to paul showing why he’s scumhunting, saying that he’s not voting currently and sent the prof on a wild goose choice. 4.485 Admits she missed that paul was actually voting for Diggit when she called him out for not voting, but accuses him of not mentioning diggit again since his vote, until just now when he pointed out the vote to her. Says paul is wrong when he mentions that she was in favor of lynching both leaders. She was never in favor of lynching Diggit 4.486 Tells paul her vote was on prof the day before, but reiterates she’s giving him the benefit of the doubt today because jsgoddess and ThingFish were voting for him. Tells paul that if his intention was not send prof on a wild goose choice, where is paul’s analysis of prof’s results. 4.525 Unvotes paul. Votes Boozy. Diggit and Boozy tied at 11 votes each 4.660 Supports sachertorte in his callout of paul hijacking sachertorte’s inquiry of biotop. Day 4 Analysis: She’s still flip-flopping with whether or not she wants the cultists lynched. I also don’t like that she suddenly gives her scummiest suspect a pass now that she claims he’s not likely a wolf. Smudges me because she doesn’t like my discussion of lynch strategies without actually saying what’s wrong with it. Apparently discussion of strategy should only happen if it’s Texcat approved. Calls out other people for not scumhunting, when she herself has spent most of her time discussing LUTHA, colby, paul, and prof. pepperwinkle. Pot. Kettle. Black. Day 5 5.22 Votes paul for same reasons as previous Day 5.54 Remains convinced that prof p. is not a wolf. If he’s scum, he’s mafia. 5.177 Calls out snfulkner, raventhief, and Johnny Bravo for voting prof p even though they all agree that Johnny B’s list of lurkers has some suspicious people on it. 5.178 Points out to paul that Johnny B added scathach to his list after the original post in response to paul asking why scathach wasn’t on the list 5.183 Realizes she made a mistake and raventhief wasn’t voting for anyone. Points out to Johnny B the irony of a person who just made a list of lurkers and their suspicions voting someone who is the king of LtL strategy. 5.212 Tells paul she doesn’t remember ender ever switching his vote yesterDay and how it was ender’s case that caused her to vote for boozy. Now is leaning town on prof p. Says it’s going to be easy for people to vote prof now and blame it on Pleo, thus avoiding responsibility. Doubts Pleo investigated prof. Says she’d investigate those providing opinions and leading town (like Angel or paul) or good players staying off the radar (like Wolfy Boozy, Cookies, and me). Suspects that the Brewha D2 train and Prof D5 train are no doubt full of scum. Less sure of vote on paul now. 5.255 Thinks she can’t mention me without me claiming she’s smudging me. Says she doesn’t see me disputing her contention that I’ve been flying under the radar. Day 5 Analysis: Other than the lumping Cookies and I in with a confirmed scum, not much to add to the case. And it’s interesting she calls me out for being under the radar when my vote history is larger than hers is. And I’ve pressured more people than she has. And I called out everyone who quickly jumped on the crys bandwagon (including texcat) and a higher than random percentage have been revealed to be scum. But sure, I’m not expressing any strong opinions…. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271.md?page=14)