# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/321 "2017-02-10T19:24:16Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > It’s a very strange stance for you to take that you expect a cultist to say that we are a threat to the town. I mean, you are basically demanding it. It’s all very, trappy and damned if you do, damned if you don’t isn’t it? No, no it’s not. The vig is a threat to town because they’ll probably kill townies. Johnny Bravo is a threat to town because townies have imperfect knowledge and often build bad cases. The cultists are a threat to town because they win with any team and thus have no loyalty whatsoever. Do you see how this works? My problem with you is that you’re attempting to prove that the cultists are going to default to helping town win. I don’t buy it. Not for a minute. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/322 "2017-02-10T19:25:45Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > What makes you think that scum are more likely to kill only town without accidentally hitting a hidden cultists before we reach your 8/5/4 situation? Or that we won’t force a hidden cultist to claim under pressure of lynch because we thought they were scum? At the moment I’m not even convinced that there are five cultists. Or even that there are any cultists whatsoever. ---
**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, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/323 "2017-02-10T19:29:22Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > How is it reasonable for you to attribute pro-town motives to cultists who you supposedly have no communication with? If anything, their inability to communicate in private makes them less likely to be able to coordinate with scum. One of them would have to propose it and then all of the remaining would have to agree and then the scum could vote with them, but it’s a big risk to take when none of them know what the others are thinking. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/324 "2017-02-10T19:34:34Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > That’s your second post all Day. You can do better than that. > > Don’t be lazy. It’s pretty simple, you’re arguing incredibly vociferously for lynching claimed 3rd party players when that doesn’t look like it’s in town’s best interests. And I will be whatever I want and you will simply have to deal. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/325 "2017-02-10T19:36:48Z")
If we assume Sachertorte is being honest then I agree with his analysis. I think non-exclusive win third parties are pro-town, often significantly so. However I still have my doubts on the veracity of his claims. While I do think cultists exist, I question how many there are and whether they have a non-exclusive win. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/326 "2017-02-10T19:37:33Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > You keep bringing this up as if the cultists care whether one (or even a few of them) get killed by scum. They don’t care as long as they win. > That could be Days from now. We could just lynch sachertorte now and confirm that the cultists are real. We wouldn’t have to wait for anything. There are ways to prove that they are telling the truth without using our lynch. If your overall concern is that they are scum, and only 2 of them exist, then that isn’t what you have been arguing. As it is right now you have been arguing from a position that they are telling the truth and there are five of them but they could align with scum. Which is it? Are you voting them because you believe they are scum or because you think they are telling the truth but could potentially align with scum, and thus a threat? Because if it’s the latter, you aren’t making sense. The best way to ensure they don’t work with scum is to reduce the number of scum, preferable from mafia. Lynching the cultists gives scum answers they don’t already have, a pass on a lynch, a place to safely hide a vote, and a cycle where they can kill town without losing any scum. It helps them in numerous ways. You are being impatient. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/327 "2017-02-10T19:37:47Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > If anything, their inability to communicate in private makes them less likely to be able to coordinate with scum. Their inability to communicate makes them an unknown quantity. Dangerous. That’s the point I’ve been making all along. Sachertorte is making assumptions about the cultists as a group that are impossible to make unless he’s in communication with them. Let me be very clear (and reiterate what I’ve already said): if two of the remaining three hidden cultists were to claim, that would make me happy \*\*for now. \*\*Their votes would be in the open for town to analyze and they’d be able to keep one in hiding for end-game purposes. And, as Sachertorte has pointed out repeatedly, wasting a lynch or night-kill on a cultist is a bad move, right? So they’d be safe. ---
**Author:** ![Biotop](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biotop/32/321_2.png) [@Biotop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biotop)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/328 "2017-02-10T19:37:48Z")
Okay class, here is my report on **bufftabby** : Disclaimer: I made the suggestion for everyone to investigate the next alphabetical person at 3am while under the influence of Zolpidem Tartrate 10mg. At the time it seemed like a good idea to try to get a group effort into tackling our mass of data, and encourage more participation by low-post players. More clearheaded the next morning, my suggestion seemed naïve. But then **paul** said he would play along, so I figured I’d give it a try, especially since I couldn’t much remember anything about **bufftabby** ’s posts (this is not meant as a cut on **bufftabby** , but on me). I found this exercise extremely helpful in both getting a refresher on all five days and finding a few things I hadn’t noticed before. +++++++ Night 0: Noted posts: #397: Likes the multilynch, dislikes no lynch, likes LTL if we focus on lurkers who will provide the most info, is unintimidated by the power roles, is pro-Patsy claim, has no night 0 suspicions and is impressed that others do. #403, #439 Debates with Wolf **jsgoddes** s and **Chronos** about how you can get information if the lynch victim is actually a lurker. **jsgoddess** argues lynching lurkers is not the best policy if you want information. **bufftabby** says if you lynch a lurker, pick the one most likely to still give information. +++++++ My analysis: typical Night 0 discussion. Nothing of note other than the back and forth with wolf \*\* jsgoddess\*\*. +++++++ Day 1: #120: Discusses the **Colby slip. “I am really torn on this.” She doesn’t know what to think, but disagrees with Drain Bead** ’s complaint about “me too” voting, because what else can you say if you agree about the slip but “me too?” #255: Sends a FOS on **Johnny Bravo for his FOS of Meeko** posting in the wrong thread. #259: Votes **Johnny Bravo** for trying to turn an "anthill into Everest” regarding **Meeko** posting in the wrong thread. #267, #399, #523: The **JB/bufftabby** debate expands: **BT** finds **Johnny Bravo** more scummy for his response to her about the\*\* Meeko\*\* post and **JB** ’s “extremely flimsy suspicion” with regard to **Meeko**. #400: Vehemently dislikes my idea for looking at who is online and when to determine affiliation/motivation. #787, #876: Doesn’t understand\*\* Lightfoot\*\*’s concern that\*\* Lakia\*\*’s response was rehearsed. Thinks all players do/should rehearse posts to make sure they are saying what they want to say. #881: Says **Johnny Bravo** ’s FOS of **Meeko** is “a classic Scum tactic.” #1092: FOS to **Lakai** because he thinks defending on flimsy evidence is more suspicious than voting on flimsy evidence and because\*\* Lakai\*\* posted that “all votes have little evidence behind them.” #1094: Unvotes **Johnny Bravo** and votes\*\* Lakai\*\*. +++++++ My analysis: The **Johnny Bravo** / **bufftabby** debate is interesting, especially because both sides completely drop it after the start of Day 2. That I don’t get. I think the FOS of **Meeko** by **JB** was weird and I understand **bufftabby** ’s response. Then both sides then blow up the debate. The **bufftabby** vote switch to **Lakai** was understandable, because at EOD most of us focus attention on the candidates actually up for the lynch. I think it is worth noting that **Pleonast** has come out on **Johnny Bravo** ’s side in the **BT** / **JB** skirmish. Because Day 2 \*\*Pleonast \*\*changes his mind. +++++++ Day 2: #35:\*\* bufftabby\*\* comments on how odd it is that **Pleonast** went from suspecting her to **Johnny Bravo** in their debate, after he was feeling the opposite before Day 2. This is interesting. #373, #401: Votes/unvotes **Brewha** because, as is later determined, she thinks **Chronos** ’ vig plan was **Brewha** ’s plan. Then she realizes it was not. #622: votes **Brewha** again, because of the lie. #675, #681: Random speculations on **Crys** and the cultists. ++++++++ My analysis: Two things stand out to me. As **bufftabby** notes, _ **Pleonast** suddenly shifts sides in the **Johnny Bravo** / **bufftabby debate. I don’t think Pleonast would investigate Johnny Bravo, but it makes sense that he might investigate bufftabby**._ Could he have gotten a Town response on **bufftabby** , causing him to rethink the whole **bufftabby/JB debate. I don’t think that is an unreasonable deduction. Pleonast** switches suspicions off of \*\*bufftabby \*\* to **Johnny Bravo** in his very first post on Day 2 (#121). The second thing I note is that **bufftabby** completely drops the case against \*\*Johnny Bravo \*\*on Day 2, never to return. Yes there is new information, new deaths and the **Brewha** lie to contemplate after Day 1. But it seems odd this case is not ever followed up on again. +++++++ Day 3: #35: Sees no reason to lynch third party at this time, doesn’t understand what is going on with **ToeJam** and his voters. #420: Votes \*\*Professor Pepperwinkle \*\*for his much derided post listing suspicious lurkers but then instead voting **Sachertorte**. #422: Agrees with **Inner Stickler** about not focusing on the cult, finds **Idle Thoughts** absence suspicious. #442: At first skeptical of **ToeJam** ’s claim, but also thinks his craziness is **Roosh** -like play so she’d rather not lynch him now. #491: Disagrees with \*\*SNFaulkner \*\*about whether Scum would pre-approve **Professor Pepperwinkle** ’s play/defense. #847: Keeps vote on \*\*Pepperwinkle **despite the** Idle \*\*storm. #864: Agrees with **Total Lost** on lists not being hard for Scum to compose. #1063: Doesn’t understand why **Angel** thinks she might be 3rd party. +++++++ My analysis: **bufftabby** sticks with her vote on **Professor Pepperwinkle** despite the **Idle** meltdown. There are also posts where she argues with \*\*Angel \*\*over her"unshakable faith" in **Professor Pepperwinkle** , but nothing I see in her posts on Day 3 seem scummy. I am bothered again by her non-return at all to **Johnny Bravo** , but events on Day 3 spiraled out of control, so there’s that. +++++++ Day 4: #53: Correctly sums up the\*\* Idle \*\*situation. #197: Votes for\*\* Professor Pepperwinkle \*\*again. Is suspicious of his continually being self-deprecating and conciliatory. #198: Doesn’t like \*\*Professor Pepperwinkle’\*\*s vague suggestion we look at good scum hunters who are not already dead. #398: Agrees with **Captain Klutz** that **Koldanar** is ignoring the breadcrumbs when being suspicious of **Sachertorte.** #461, #469: Doesn’t know how we could find one brand of Scum over the other. #535: Unvotes **Professor Pepperwinkle** but votes **Diggit** to put the 14th vote on him (the number that guaranteed a **Diggit** (or any player) lynch). +++++++ The vote on **Diggit makes sense in one way, but the whole posting of the current vote count in #535 to make sure we understand why pings me. Yes 14 votes insures a lynch, but wouldn’t a vote for Boozahol, who was farther behind at the time, be more likely to lead to a double lynch? If she was wolf, however, then she would probably vote for Diggit** to protect **Boozahol**. She had never expressed an opinion on \*\*Diggit \*\* before and now votes him for “maximum information.” Why not vote for **Boozahol** to bring the votes closer and see what happens for “maximum information?” I’d like more of an explanation from \*\*bufftabby \*\*on her vote here. +++++ Day 5 #57 votes **Professor Pepperwinkle**. +++++++ Summation: Most of\*\* bufftabby’\*\*s play has been Townlike to me. She is active and participating and putting thought into the game. I think there is a very good chance that **Pleonast** investigated her and got a Town result, which would lead to **Pleonast** ’s switch of suspicions from \*\*bufftabby \*\*to the one she was debating on Day 1, **Johnny Bravo**. She has been reasonable on the cult issue. On the downside I do not understand why **bufftabby** has ignored **Johnny Bravo** since Day 1 after finding him so scummy. That makes her suspicions seem insincere. I think her Day 4 vote on \*\*Diggit \*\*deserves a second look. I find no record of **bufftabby** having an opinion on either **Diggit** or \*\*Boozahol \*\*before this vote. If I am wrong on this (or anything else in my analysis of your postings) please correct me **bufftabby**. ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/329 "2017-02-10T19:39:45Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > If we assume Sachertorte is being honest then I agree with his analysis. I think non-exclusive win third parties are pro-town, often significantly so. However I still have my doubts on the veracity of his claims. While I do think cultists exist, I question how many there are and whether they have a non-exclusive win. Why would they have lied about how many of them they are if they are not scum? Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/330 "2017-02-10T19:42:27Z")
And everyone seems to be forgetting that we have a serial killer out there! How easy would it be for the serial killer to hide among the cultists? ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/331 "2017-02-10T19:49:45Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > Why would they have lied about how many of them they are if they are not scum? > > Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Because it helps them with their win condition. I’ll admit I’m having trouble figuring out what that condition could be. I can think of more reason to under report than over. 5 just seems a lot given that we haven’t had any evidence of them other than Sach and Cry’s claims. I don’t think they are scum though. It would be an incredibly risky strategy for scum to try. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/332 "2017-02-10T19:53:23Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > And everyone seems to be forgetting that we have a serial killer out there! How easy would it be for the serial killer to hide among the cultists? Hard… either the cultists are ruse and they are scum or they can investigate each other to confirm. A serial killer claiming LUTHA wouldn’t last long. Unless they are LUTHA, in which case they wouldn’t be hiding among the cultists, they would be a cultist. 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 10, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/333 "2017-02-10T19:53:49Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > [spoiler]Again, this doesn’t make sense to me. If there are 5 LUTHA, than we know they aren’t wolves so all of them claiming would prove they aren’t wolves right now, once the existing claimed cultists check and confirm two of the others > Right now there are 5 mafia. If all of the other LUTHA claimed, they numbers would be 5 and 5. How is that different that 2 and 2? Your solution is to lynch one of the LUTHA in order to rule out scum. I say, lynch scum and when the number of scum is less than the supposed LUTHA, they all claim and verify each other and it proves that they can’t be of that faction. > > Even if there were only 2 wolf and 2 scum left, why would that mean that LUTHA couldn’t prove they aren’t scum? There are supposed to be 3 other LUTHA out there still… either they get killed without claiming and we KNOW that LUTHA isn’t a scum ploy, or they somehow survive to see a situation with 2 wolves and 2 mafia remaining without losing even one of their members and then can claim to prove they aren’t scum. [/spoiler] > > **What you are saying only makes sense if there are only 2 cultists in the game.** Spoiler added BINGO! \*\* there are only 2 claiming.\*\* You are Assuming there really are 5 LUTHA They could be two brave Scum wearing bedsheets with holes cut out! My suggestion gives them a chance to prove they are not without lynching them. - and at this time it is NOT ‘my’ solution to lynch one \* ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/334 "2017-02-10T19:56:50Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > If we assume Sachertorte is being honest then I agree with his analysis. I think non-exclusive win third parties are pro-town, often significantly so. However I still have my doubts on the veracity of his claims. While I do think cultists exist, I question how many there are and whether they have a non-exclusive win. If there is any number besides 5- then we were lied to by a cultist. and we know what happens to liars. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/335 "2017-02-10T20:04:10Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Because it helps them with their win condition. I’ll admit I’m having trouble figuring out what that condition could be. I can think of more reason to under report than over. 5 just seems a lot given that we haven’t had any evidence of them other than Sach and Cry’s claims. > > I don’t think they are scum though. It would be an incredibly risky strategy for scum to try. I think I understand. You are saying with 5 of them, 3 hidden, what are the odds that one of them hasn’t been hit in the cross fire. I agree that it makes it look more like they are being dishonest, but if you were a survivor what would you be doing right now? I would be participating enough to not get modkilled or LtL lynched and not much else… so it makes sense if all of the kills so far have been specific targets and not killing blindly. 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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/336 "2017-02-10T20:08:57Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > Spoiler added > BINGO! > \*\* there are only 2 claiming.\*\* > > You are Assuming there really are 5 LUTHA > > They could be two brave Scum wearing bedsheets with holes cut out! > My suggestion gives them a chance to prove they are not without lynching them. > > - and at this time it is NOT ‘my’ solution to lynch one \* Ok. But I think the nominal option would be to eliminate one more mafia and then press for them to claim. If there are more than 2 of them that would prove they aren’t scum, if there aren’t it makes so that they can’t come up with 3 more to claim. If we push them to claim with all 5 we would still have to lynch one to be sure they aren’t mafia as long as there are 5 mafia. I’m not suggesting we wait until there are only 2 mafia remaining. I’m saying their claiming would benefit town more if there are fewer remaining mafia or wolves than their claimed amount of cultists. So 1 more mafia. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Koldanar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@Koldanar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koldanar)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/337 "2017-02-10T20:11:06Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > If there is any number besides 5- then we were lied to by a cultist. and we know what happens to liars. They get lynched, and turn up town? 😃 Kidding aside, any lies on their part now would certainly turn everyone in the game against them. ---
**Author:** ![Biotop](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biotop/32/321_2.png) [@Biotop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biotop)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/338 "2017-02-10T20:11:43Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > Why would they have lied about how many of them they are if they are not scum? > > Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk I don’t think I’d give the truth about member numbers if I was 3rd party. What’s in it for them to do so? I think 3rd party would be helping Town if their win condition is survival. But they could have easily lied about their membership count regardless. ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/339 "2017-02-10T20:13:03Z")
I’ve been commenting on this alot, but I gotta say… What the heck guys, we get a taste of mafia blood, have a solid case on someone going into the Day and instead of using the free time to look for other scum we are debating the cultists… we are wasting a lot of time if they aren’t scum. So unless you think that it is all a ballsy scum ploy, you are wasting time you could spend hunting for scum. If you think it is a scum ploy, then I feel you are jumping the gun. We haven’t reduced scum enough just yet to reach a logical conclusion without lynching one of the claimed cultists, and doing so would not motivate the remaining 3 to come out if they exist. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Koldanar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@Koldanar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koldanar)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271/340 "2017-02-10T20:16:47Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > There’s no hmmming from me. > > **Vote Johnny Bravo** I’ve been trying to build a case today, reviewing posts from others, but so far it hasn’t panned out. I’m not fully on the Prof P isn’t great voting that we have now, and I want to review. But so far, and I would need to re-view posts here, Johnny B has been nothing but vicious towards the cult. I am still on the side of things being bad for removing them via lynch. We NEED scum; mafia would be great. Maybe, as paul keeps advising, they would come out if the team drops below 5; who knows. What I do know is I still see this as anti-town. I’m going to review you next. On the other hand, Inner, thanks for all the info in your post? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271.md?page=18)