# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 222
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271)._