# Mafia Reunion - Day One **URL:** \ **Category:** Thread Games\ **Created:** [January 7, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577 "2017-01-07T22:01:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 45
**Author:** ![bufftabby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bufftabby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bufftabby)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/881 "2017-01-13T17:54:11Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > **vote bufftabby** for a lousy vote in D1.259. Care to elaborate? **Johnny Bravo** specious suspicions are, to me, a classic scum tactic. I mean really, for posting in Night Zero instead of Day One?! ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/882 "2017-01-13T17:57:46Z")
> [@Plumpudding](#): > > You add the qualifier “under pressure”. I said my reaction would depend upon the circustances. You can’t foresee a circumstance where the Patsy claims unprovoked later in the game, while having advocated for a Day 1 claim, where such a claim could be believable? I can, but again it depends on the circumstances, not only later in the game, also earlier in the game. It is not intended as a qualifier- and no If ANY player says " role X should do Y on Day#" ( holding that opinion throughout Day#)and later claims to be role X who did not do Y on Day #" They should be lynched Not saying anything either way is fine BUT holding an absolute and then contradicting it is lynchable. - and before you re ask- If on Day# role X posts at some point- " it is possible that role X should not do Y on Day# now that I re think it" or some such- then they have removed the absolute and should be considered case by case. \* ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/883 "2017-01-13T18:01:29Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > We were pretty clear on what a valid vote was and was not. Sorry. The rules are there not for capriciousness but because it’s hard enough to count votes (note the fact that I get it wrong pretty much every time) when everything is formatted correctly. > > But we ain’t mad attcha. I tried to use [vote] tags- they didn’t work and I lost the word vote in the edit \*\*\*\*unvote all Vote Lakai * * * ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/884 "2017-01-13T18:11:43Z")
Trying to catch up. I see we have traveled a bit of a road wrt Septimus and prompted a claim. I am inclined to give that claim the benefit of the doubt and plan on settling a vote on one of the folx who were floating some dubious votes his way earlier in the Day that I remarked about at the time accusing him of running away from a flimsy bandwagon. I have tied some yarn to my belt loop before I go crawling back into this mess to solidify my vote. Please pull me out if you don’t hear from me by Dusk. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/885 "2017-01-13T18:13:26Z")
As we enter the home stretch of D1, I’m still comfortable with my vote on ToeJam. TJ has not posted since my earlier case (D1.568), and I think the case warrants a D1 vote. Captain Klutz mentions Captain’s earlier vote on TJ for derpclear, which I haven’t factored into my evaluation and I think I will continue to leave it out. It’s D1, and one of my typical discussion topics is the number of scum, which could easily be construed as derpclear. (That’s not a topic this game since we know the numbers, obviously.) Regarding the vote leaders: Colby: I have a history of mislynching Colby. I get the case on him for the slip, but it’s an easy case to hide behind. I don’t think his flip will tell us much about his teammates. (I’m not sure how informative any early flip will be given that scum has the opportunity to scum hunt the opposing scum team.) (Also, to those that watched scum Hooker say similar things about scum Colby in the recent Thing game, we didn’t know we were scum until N1 that game.) ToeJam: As stated, I think this is the strongest scum candidate toDay. I’m voting both my strongest lean and a viable candidate and I think a switch from that candidate is unlikely. I’ve self-evaluated for tunnel vision and found myself more convinced that there’s a scummy smell around ToeJam. Septimus: In the absence of a counterclaim, I will not vote for septimus. With a counterclaim, I would likely vote for one of the two claimants. Angel: I don’t find the case against her convincing. Which is good for her, because her defense of “I wouldn’t do that as scum” isn’t convincing either. (Angel, you’re canny enough to do something too scummy to be scummy then hide behind it. I’m not saying you did, but you would.) Her clearing of septimus and his subsequent claim is consistent with some of her previous town play, and his subsequent claim makes me lean town on her, if not strongly. I agree that her late reading of the rules was anti-town, but anti-town is not always scum. Sometimes it’s lack of bandwidth (to use Pleonast’s word, because it’s good). Lakai: I’m getting a ping here, but it’s weak. This is probably where I’d end up if there were a reason to unvote ToeJam, though I’d reevaluate Colby as well. I want to snuggle Thing Fish and Chronos here a little. I find the two of you posting a lot of the strategy I might otherwise post. I agree with a lot of their points and am reminded that Thing Fish is responsible for the Anatomy of a Clusterfuck post ([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18558712&highlight=clusterfuck#post18558712](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18558712&highlight=clusterfuck#post18558712)). They’re highest on my “most likely to be town” list, but it’s way too early to put anybody higher than about a 2 out of 10. And a FOS to Squid and Johnny. I find your cases (against Angel and Meeko) to be molehill mountaineering. These cases have taken up a lot of bandwidth based on very thin evidence. Rereading their posts doesn’t change the opinion that both are making federal cases out of what should be a minor infraction. I don’t think either is viable at this point and I won’t be moving my vote there toDay barring incredible events because they don’t seem viable toDay. Even then, it wouldn’t be without the kind of reread I have ToeJam. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/886 "2017-01-13T18:20:33Z")
Below is the first vote on **septimus** , from **Enderw24**. Just in case the nested quote doesn’t come up, he’s replying to Post 85. > [@Enderw24](#): > > I’ve been away most of the weekend. So I’m still reading through the thread and I got to this one and wanted to comment. > > With the exception of Masons, Town doesn’t have a board to communicate which means it’s all out in the open. So unless an individual Townie wants to run a gambit on their own, there’s no way to discuss strategy without alerting Scum. You just need to take into consideration who will potentially respond to your ideas. > > As to your next paragraph, anyone who is scum would already know they have a means of communicating. They’d also know that trying to fool people into thinking they didn’t would be ridiculous because we all have access to the rules and the setup. Pleonast sounds more like a Townie who hasn’t read through the rules. This also sounds like an easy and lazy way to latch on to someone on your part. > > **Vote septimus** **septimus** was responding to a **Pleonast** post about editing, wherein Pleo said “And speaking of coordination, I’ll consider post editing extremely suspicious. Mafia, Wolves, and Third Parties have no easy means to coordinate. Putting a message in a post when another player is known to be online and then editing it before anyone else is likely to see it is a possible gambit.” I think it’s pretty clear here that in post 85, **septimus** was asking a question to make sure he understood **Pleonast** ’s point. What it seemed he was getting at was that while each individual Scum team can communicate amongst themselves, they can’t communicate with one another, so an edited post could be an attempt to do so. And it was clear from **septimus’** question to **Pleo** that he got it. As such, **Enderw24** has a strange vote here. He seems to not be understanding the point of that line of questioning at all. As an aside, **Enderw24** has not yet unvoted, but it appears he hasn’t been online to see the claim yet. The next vote on **septimus** was from **Normal Phase** , in 322. The “Agreed” portion was to the portion of the **sachertorte** post quoted directly below NP here. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Agreed, and I hate to say it because septimus sent me a very nice sort of welcome back PM before the game started and I really don’t want to suspect him. But the scum board bit is so backwards. You’re voting the guy, Septimus my dear. Why are you asking whether copying from a scum board is “the case” against him? You know it isn’t you voted him. It makes no sense. > > **unvote** > **vote: Septimus** > [@sachertorte](#): > > I don’t like this post and unvote. septimus is clearly running away from the Colby bandwagon, but gives very weak reasons. The chatter about the scum board strikes me as particularly disingenuous. So **septimus** unvotes **Colby11** in post 231. In that unvote post, he says “Although Colby’s possible slip is the biggest ping I’ve got right now, it’s very weak. Is the theory that he prepared a message on a scum board and copied it here without reviewing it? Unlikely. I’ve seen a few scum slips like this, but IIRC never from Colby.” This is probably a misstatement of the theory, because I think the theory was more along the lines of he DIDN’T prepare a message ahead of time, and just slipped up with his wording in a post. I can understand the reasoning behind the **sachertorte** post (and NP vote) a little better than I can the **Ender** vote, as the latter came before the scummy-looking unvote of **Colby** I don’t have a problem with **Normal** ’s vote here. But when this bandwagon comes up again (and it will), remember that despite decent reasoning, **sachertorte** put the bus in gear but wasn’t the one who started driving it. Incidentally, it appears that **Normal Phase** decided to unvote **septimus** in 714 without having read the hard claim, because she cited post 345 as her reasoning. Post 345 is the post in which **septimus** made the soft claim. What’s unclear (I’ll have to go look at the timeline to make sure) is whether NP was around and posting during the “was it or wasn’t it a soft claim?” debacle with **Total Lost**. Moving on, the next vote for **septimus** was two posts after his “soft claim,” in 347. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > Making a weak vote, and then unvoting for weak reasons, is scummy all by itself. It does not actually depend on Colby’s alignment. > > **Unvote ToeJam** > > **Vote septimus** Speaking of weak vote, this one’s pretty weak to me. First off, reasonable minds may disagree on just how weak the vote for **Colby** is. He’s been the consistent lynch leader all Day for a potential slip, which is probably more than most early Day One votes have to go on (I’m already on record as disagreeing about the nature of most of these types of “slips”, but I can see the other side of that argument and don’t have a problem with it). The unvote was for weaker reasons than the vote, for sure, but I don’t necessarily think that the vote itself was weak. What’s interesting here is that it was the first vote for **septimus** after the soft claim, and it was a really fast vote, but in terms of time, it took a while. **septimus** made the post with the soft claim at 5:29 AM, board time. The **Captain Klutz** vote was at 7:08 AM. Now, I’m not sure what time zone everyone is in, but I’m sure that if someone on a Scum team woke up and saw that **septimus** post, and noticed the same thing that **Total Lost** did, they’d have posted it on their Scum boards. And it’s possible that in that intervening hour and a half, one of the Scum who noticed decided to make a quick run at getting a bandwagon started. A deeper view into **Captain Klutz** may be in order here. The next vote is from **Hoopy Frood** , in 480. > [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > **Unvote Capt. Klutz** > > **Vote septimus** > > My reasons are as folllows. (I know I’m repeating some arguments some others have already pointed out.) > > In post [231](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19907308&postcount=231), he changes the lead in vote tallies from 3 votes to 2 (Colby leading ToeJam). It’s early in the day, and it’s not like it’s an end of Day swing in momentum, but his main reason is that he doesn’t want to be on a bandwagon. But so what? It’s early. There’s no real lynch danger yet. The vast majority of players haven’t even voted. > > He then in post [345](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19907308&postcount=345) mentions his suspicions of Lakai, Johnny Bravo, and ToeJam as well as still being suspicious of Colby. Yet he votes none of them, doesn’t really go into detail as to why he’s suspects them, besides Colby, who he was so suspicious of he unvoted him with no replacement. Votes are cheap. Why be afraid to put yourself on the record? Townies shouldn’t fear screwing up. > > septimus, you ask what your scummy motivation would be. It’s to hide in plain sight. To look like you’re playing as a townie, but to not actually commit to anything that could come back and bite you in the ass. > > You also say Colby’s possible slip is the biggest ping you’ve got right now. That implies you have other pings. What are they? What exactly pings you in other posters? This, to me, reads as a good Townie post. In-depth, well-reasoned, supported by links, and pressing the person he’s voting for with more questions, to try to see if the answers deepen the case or not. I’m okay with this one for now. Hoopy, incidentally, was the second person to unvote **septimus** (see post 736) and the first to mention his hard claim in doing so. Incidentally, the **Total Lost** question about the soft claim comes 10 posts after the **Hoopy Frood** vote, in 490. I mentioned earlier a question about **Normal Phase** and whether she was around for the soft-claim stuff. She posts in 512, but it’s only a short post asking **Pleonast** to answer a question she’d previously posed. She then follows up on his answer, in 562. She posts an apology for being tied up with another game in 632. In 681, she asks **Hockey Monkey** if she’d seen the other votes for **Colby** at the time she made her vote. In 682, she mentions **septimus** and says “I’ve seen some comments about Septimus here and there and his maybe playing like this as town. My own memory/experience has him playing in one game with me where he was likewise crazy scummy from day one; when we lynched him on day 2 or 3 guess what, he was scum. So there’s that.” No mention of the soft claim issue. In 689 she responds to an unrelated **Boozahol** post, and 690 is the **septimus** hard claim. **Normal Phase** , had you noticed any of the discussion about **septimus** potentially soft-claiming in post 345, before you used it as the reasoning for your unvote of him in 714? And just as importantly, had you seen the hard claim when you unvoted? Backtracking a bit while moving on, I’m headed to discussing the **Pleonast** vote for **septimus** in post 511. He cites post 488, so I threw it in there, too. > [@Pleonast](#): > > I don’t have time to do a post-by-post reply, so I’ll simply comment on some players, in no particular order. > > **colby11** : I’ve voted for slips in the past, but I don’t see the scum motivation in their posts here. I can’t really complain about the votes here, though. > > **Johnny Bravo** : the votes here do bother me. I can’t see any validity for these votes. > > **septimus** : I was undecided about them until I noticed their vote on **Bravo**. I still have to decide if the other cases here are valid, but I’m happy to put my counted vote here for now. > > **Meeko** : I don’t know what happened, but I’m getting a Townie vibe here. Probably means they’re not Town, but I have no case to make. > > My votes again. > **unvote** > **vote septimus** for a lousy vote in D1.488. > **vote bufftabby** for a lousy vote in D1.259. > **vote Normal Phase** for daring us to vote for them in D1.27. > **vote Chronos** for snuggling up to **Meeko** in D0.442. > **vote Scathach** for scolding a player for being a “helpful townie” in D1.35. > [@septimus](#): > > I’m still suspicious of **Colby11** , but I’ll cast a vote for the other top suspect: > > **Vote Johnny Bravo** > > (Applications for explanation will be considered only if accompanied with clarification: _Is explanation intended to help assess Johnny’s Scummitude? Or my own?_) Yeah, post 488 is a weak vote, but from someone who is now a claimed town power role, and who made what we now know was a soft claim in 345. I don’t view this one with quite as much side-eye as I do **Captain Klutz** , but it’s probably 1B to CK’s 1A, in that it seems to be a drive-by smearing of a lot of folks, but the ultimate vote went for **septimus** , and is the only vote for **septimus** made AFTER **Total Lost** specifically asked whether or not he was soft-claiming in 490. I’d like to think that a Town **Pleonast** would have known better than to vote for someone whose soft claim was already pointed out, knowing that it gets that person one vote closer to feeling as if they have to claim. **Pleonast** , had you seen **Total Lost** ’s post in 490 before you made this vote? If so, why did you still make the vote for him and not one of your other front-runners? If not, why did you not consider unvoting him and voting for one of your other suspects after you saw it? **Pleonast** unvoted in post 841. In that, he said that **septimus** ’ full claim was pro-Town, and that there should always be doubt over a soft claim (so I suppose that sort of answers my above questions, although I would like him to go a bit more in-depth on it). I’d like to hear what he has to say about that before I decide what to do. So from all this, I think we should give a harder look at **Captain Klutz** and **sachertorte**. I’d like **Pleonast** and **Normal Phase** to comment a bit more about the soft-claim situation, and what you knew and didn’t know about it when you made your votes and unvotes. **Hoopy Frood** looks very Town here. Okay, that was over an hour of work, and all I did was just make more work for myself :smack:. What do you all think? ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/887 "2017-01-13T18:28:30Z")
What happened to ToeJam? Silence? Is Lakai a noob or not? Yes, it makes a difference Sunny Daze; is this really your first game? ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/888 "2017-01-13T18:31:20Z")
Before I go in-depth again (not sure when I’ll get the time, but right now my meeting is running late, so there’s that), I figured I’d go ahead and get a vote on the table that I reserve the right to change after I actually go look at his posts. **unvote Meeko** **vote Captain Klutz** ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/889 "2017-01-13T18:32:25Z")
NETA: This is why I hand-format. **vote Captain Klutz** ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/890 "2017-01-13T18:35:55Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Bah, I say, bah. There’s 12 scum in this game right now, not to mention third parties. There’s no need to stick like glue to your first scum read – or even to vote for them at all – if there are already 12 other people voting there, and it’s pretty much the opposite of anti-town to behave in a way that encourages people to have to weigh in on more suspects as opposed to less. > > I feel you have not thought this through. I feel like you’re arguing against something I didn’t say. My point - which perhaps I didn’t do a good job of explaining - was that you should vote for who you think is Scum…and that you shouldn’t avoid voting for someone _for the sole reason_ that “everybody else is voting for them”. There can be many other reasons for not voting for someone who you suspect. Indeed, I changed my vote off of \*\*Colby \*\*earlier even though I am pretty certain he’s our best lynch Today, to make a point of calling out \*\*Plumpudding \*\*for what I saw as anti-Town behavior. I probably wouldn’t have changed my vote if Colby hadn’t been the runaway leader at the time…but under the circumstances I felt it was ‘safe’ to turn my gaze elsewhere. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > I’d forgotten about the switches, but this has possible repercussions for the current EMT situation. Not sure I’d lay my own life on the likelihood of switches going the right way, but it’s a thing. All switches are “on” at the moment. Per the rule correction in [Post 664](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19915014&postcount=664), switches may be flipped at Night only, so all Day Powers for \*\*Today \*\*are active, and can’t be switched off. I think. > [@sachertorte](#): > > I disagree. We aren’t talking about logic or strategy or some clue that needs to be deciphered. We’re talking about _intentional ambiguity_. The ambiguity was part of the point. It just so happened that septimus wound up claiming a Town Power, but what if he was vanilla and was trying to be ambiguous to make scum think he was a Town Power? There was a whole bunch of possibilities. All gone because ambiguity needs to be stamped out. Why? That’s been my central question. Why? > Essentially it was because Total Lost wanted to know, which to me, isn’t good enough. \*\*septimus \*\*mad a statement which was (intentionally or not) ambiguous. **Total Lost** wanted to know if the statement was intended to be ambiguous or not. All septimus needed to do was respond to the inquiry, either to give a clarification, or to say that he had no further clarification he wished to give at the time. I personally didn’t have a problem with septimus’ original statement as it was written. I also didn’t have a problem with Total’s question. This is a game of incomplete information; there are times when it is appropriate to give it, and times when it is appropriate to question it. As for the eventual hard claim - nobody and nothing ‘forced’ it. The state of the game was such that there was no necessity for a claim at that point. It served no useful purpose. > [@snfaulkner](#): > > There is no Prof. Periwinkle. There’s only Prof. Pepperwinkle. Please make a note of it. That’s going to cause a little confusion. Mind if we call them ‘Bruce’ to keep it clear? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/891 "2017-01-13T18:57:29Z")
Call me anything but late to dinner. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/892 "2017-01-13T19:01:22Z")
I’ve grabbed every CK post in the thread, I think. If I missed one here or there, I apologize. My meeting is about to start, so I will have to analyze them later. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > “I can’t possibly be scum, I don’t even know if they have their own board”. I’ve seen scum try this tactic, although not quite this blatant. > > **Vote ToeJam** > > This one was not as bad, but **FOS Boozahol Squid** > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > Another consequence of multiple scum groups: > > A scum under lynch pressure may claim a town power role, in order to provoke a counterclaim. However, there is less need to counter, as by claiming they have made themselves a target for the other scum group. So just leave them be and allow the other scum to take care of them. > > Although a downside to not countering is that town protective roles may waste their ability on someone who is actually scum. So I suggest that, if scum do claim your role, consider whether staying hidden would be better than immediately counterclaiming. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > It is different. In a normal game, if scum fake a claim then they are safe from nightkill , as scum are obviously not going to target their own. However, to a separate scum group, the claim looks totally legitimate, and the player is therefore a target. > > Yes, it leads to dilemmas for both town and scum. Should townies protect? Should scum target them? If scum do get scared off, then that is actually a gain for town. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > In regard to **Colby’s** apparent slip, I’ll wait until he explains what he meant. > > Also, I strongly suggest that everyone read the Night 0 thread. It was not just fluff, there was also discussion about the setup. Also, toward the end, people were posting with knowledge of their roles. > [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > I don’t like this vote at all. It’s pretty apparent that Roosh/ToeJam was responding to Pleo’s post of scum having no easy way to coordinate. Which was a rather badly worded statement that seemed to have confused a few others as well. > > **vote Captain Klutz** > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > I think the Patsy should not immediately claim. There is a reasonable chance of scum cross kills, but that chance greatly diminishes if there are obvious targets for them. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > **Colby’s** explanation looks reasonable. Interesting thing about apparent scum slips is that, while town and scum do them, scum react to them about 100% of the time. > > These are the Colby voters: > **Texcat, Guiri, Septimus, Meeko, Toejam, Hockey Monkey, Lakai, Suburban Plankton** > > FOS to the lot of them. My vote is already on one them, so I’m happy with that. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > Multiple scum teams makes no difference. Even with one scum team, scum will happily vote for an apparent slip. They will also vote for a genuine slip (yes, if they see a teammate slip they will vote for them. I am speaking from experience). > > In this case I think it is likely that scum from both teams is on this wagon, regardless of Colby’s alignment. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > Making a weak vote, and then unvoting for weak reasons, is scummy all by itself. It does not actually depend on Colby’s alignment. > > **Unvote ToeJam** > > **Vote septimus** > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > Okay Colby, this phrasing does look odd. What thought process leads to calling the Town “your team”? > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > **unvote septimus** > > I’ll reinstate my original vote > > **vote Toejam** > > This vote was originally for the derpclear in Night 0, but his subsequent posts are even worse - see #568 for an analysis by **HookerChemical**. > [@Captain\_Klutz](#): > > This will need a larger than usual crowd of confirmed town, as scum get 2 kills per cycle rather than just 1. So multilynching will be essential. > > In regard to multilynching, I am a bit concerned about the third lynch, as this will only need a small number of votes. For example, when we are down to 20 players, the third lynch will need just 2 votes. If the votes finish as 7-7-2-1-1-1-1 then that third lynch could have easily been any of 5 different people. ---
**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:** [January 13, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/893 "2017-01-13T19:05:20Z")
**Folks, we’re doing our best. It really is quite a large game. Bear with us as we make our mistakes.** ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/894 "2017-01-13T19:05:30Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > … I have tied some yarn to my belt loop before I go crawling back into this mess to solidify my vote. Please pull me out if you don’t hear from me by Dusk. Do remember to go back and fetch Becky Thatcher, Tom! > [@HookerChemical](#): > > Septimus: … With a counterclaim, I would likely vote for one of the two claimants. Obviously. But _ **which one?** _ > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > What do you all think? I think you’re very Townie, very smart, and hard-working. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/895 "2017-01-13T19:12:51Z")
> [@Plumpudding](#): > > Q: Then why not just _not_ do it? Seems like you’re playing a circular WIFOM-game with yourself, more than anything else. > > Apart from that, it binds you to a claim, which can undermine a claim further down the road. It also gives scum something to read into, as in trying to determine if you look like you’re posting from the perspective of vanilla/not-vanilla or not. To boot it introduces an unneccesary guessing game for your fellow town, if your town. Again, why not keep the page blank? Why should anyone post anything, when we can simply vote? Because this is a game based on interacting with posts. > [@bufftabby](#): > > Care to elaborate? **Johnny Bravo** specious suspicions are, to me, a classic scum tactic. I mean really, for posting in Night Zero instead of Day One?! I think it’s unreasonable to find Scum motivation in complaints about mis-posts. To use your own words, the votes on **Johnny Bravo** feel specious to me. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Yeah, post 488 is a weak vote, but from someone who is now a claimed town power role, and who made what we now know was a soft claim in 345. I don’t view this one with quite as much side-eye as I do **Captain Klutz** , but it’s probably 1B to CK’s 1A, in that it seems to be a drive-by smearing of a lot of folks, but the ultimate vote went for **septimus** , and is the only vote for **septimus** made AFTER **Total Lost** specifically asked whether or not he was soft-claiming in 490. I’d like to think that a Town **Pleonast** would have known better than to vote for someone whose soft claim was already pointed out, knowing that it gets that person one vote closer to feeling as if they have to claim. **Pleonast** , had you seen **Total Lost** ’s post in 490 before you made this vote? If so, why did you still make the vote for him and not one of your other front-runners? If not, why did you not consider unvoting him and voting for one of your other suspects after you saw it? > > **Pleonast** unvoted in post 841. In that, he said that **septimus** ’ full claim was pro-Town, and that there should always be doubt over a soft claim (so I suppose that sort of answers my above questions, although I would like him to go a bit more in-depth on it). I’d like to hear what he has to say about that before I decide what to do. > > So from all this, I think we should give a harder look at **Captain Klutz** and **sachertorte**. I’d like **Pleonast** and **Normal Phase** to comment a bit more about the soft-claim situation, and what you knew and didn’t know about it when you made your votes and unvotes. **Hoopy Frood** looks very Town here. I value soft claims about as much as the photons they’re printed on. I saw the soft claim and immediately filtered it into the “irrelevant” bin. The only claims that I consider to be useful are 1) counter-claimable, or 2) verifiable, or 3) unintentional. **septimus** ’ claim is certainly not counter-claimable nor verifiable. It felt very intentional to me, but that was apparently inobvious to at least one player. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/896 "2017-01-13T19:27:50Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > What happened to ToeJam? Silence? > > Is Lakai a noob or not? Yes, it makes a difference > > Sunny Daze; is this really your first game? I’m almost certain I played with Lakai back when the werewolf games started in like '07. I don’t know if he’s been active or has recent experience - but I’m pretty sure he’s not a newb. ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/897 "2017-01-13T19:30:09Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > ~Snip~ > I think it’s unreasonable to find Scum motivation in complaints about mis-posts. ~snip~ wait what? Scum would not jump on a mis-post you say? umm really? > [@](#): > > I value soft claims about as much as the photons they’re printed on. I saw the soft claim and immediately filtered it into the “irrelevant” bin. The only claims that I consider to be useful are 1) counter-claimable, or 2) verifiable, or 3) unintentional. **septimus** ’ claim is certainly not counter-claimable nor verifiable. It felt very intentional to me, but that was apparently inobvious to at least one player. underlined part me- How is any claim " not counter-claimable"? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/898 "2017-01-13T19:31:25Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Do the Mods maintain a complete journal of votes and unvotes similar to the one Prof. Pepperwinkle posted? It really would be convenient to have a voting record, e.g. as printed by Giraffe’s robot. **I have no objection to Mods answering the quoted question.** ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/899 "2017-01-13T19:35:32Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Obviously. But _ **which one?** _ Until we have that counterclaimant, I can’t possibly determine which is more likely. There are about 50 people who could counter and I haven’t ranked them all. ---
**Author:** ![Koldanar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@Koldanar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koldanar)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/900 "2017-01-13T19:57:29Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Okay. Do you have any probable suspects? Probable suspects, on day 1? More like mild suspicions, really, but here. Let me pretty up the notes, for now. Day 1 Septimus – voting fast on Pleo TExCat, post 91 – Agree with assessment for now. Septimus – 106 – quick switch to colby11 (even though I agree with the logic) Captain Klutz – post 203 – Err, defending Colby? Post 257 – look at Lakai’s vote. Lynching mob? WTF? Post 311 – Bad lakai excuse? I stopped taking notes after that, and just had to keep up with the readings. I wasn’t liking septimus’s posts at the start - he was agressive to start, he switched his vote rapidly, at first. Nothing he said after that removed suspicion, until his claim. At this point, without a counter claim, I have to trust he is the EMT. Right now, I’m pointing a finger at lakai. Post 257 quoted lakai as wanting to jump on a lynching mob, against Colby11. Colby’s post does read as off, but for me personally, that’s not enough for a day 1 vote. But someone happily jumping on a bandwagon? I’ll not be able to post most of this weekend, as life is too damn busy, so I need to at least vote today. With a lack of better evidence until I re-read (or something changes in the next two days) **vote Lakai** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577.md?page=46)