# 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:** 236
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-5/779271)._