# 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:** 46
**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:** [January 13, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/901 "2017-01-13T20:11:05Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > snippity-snip snip > 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? Okay. So what? What was the point of all that? Why, are you suddenly suspicious of the people who were suspicious of septimus? Were you suspicious of these people before septimus’s claim? or only _after_? Why does septimus’s claim suddenly make this set of people suspect? I recall some chatter about being suspicious about Colby voters because of the perceived idea that the case was weak and opportunistic scum would like to jump on a ‘slip.’ I do not recall any similar reasoning involving septimus. Do you feel the case was weak and opportunistic? Did you state so? I stand by my statements and opinions regarding septimus’s posts. Furthermore, we aren’t even sure septimus isn’t scum anyway! So here’s what I think is happening. Drain Bead is suspicious of people for _being wrong_ (or possibly wrong as the current case stands). This is terrible reasoning. I don’t have any information, so of course I could be wrong. If being wrong about someone is suddenly a ‘case’ against them then this will be a very long game indeed. If you had a problem with my commentary on septimus, why didn’t you comment on it then? Furthermore, I would point out that the best way for me (and everyone else) NOT to be wrong about anything is to shut the fuck up and not post diddly squat. That doesn’t seem like a good idea, now does it? ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/902 "2017-01-13T20:23:37Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > underlined part me- How is any claim " not counter-claimable"? Based on the context, I am 100% sure Pleo was referring to the sort of, sort of not, soft claim as not being counterable. Obviously a specific EMT claim is counterable in this game set up. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/903 "2017-01-13T20:28:41Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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.** You got what we got. You are more than welcome to run your own bots or keep your own diaries. ---
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/904 "2017-01-13T20:40:24Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > The shown votes are accurate. The numbers might not be. I’ll fix that in a few minutes with a full update. (I hope you realize the question you answered is not the question I asked.) ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/905 "2017-01-13T20:42:31Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > (I hope you realize the question you answered is not the question I asked.) NETA: I clicked Quote prematurely, not aware your reply was in two parts. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/906 "2017-01-13T20:49:08Z")
FWIW, I’ll be heading out of town in a couple of hours. I’ll have limited access to the game with my phone. I’ll try to keep up with reading - but doubt I’ll post. Unless Colby comes forward with something profound, I’m fine leaving my vote where it is. ---
**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:** [January 13, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/907 "2017-01-13T20:55:49Z")
The more I think about it, the more Drain Bead’s treating septimus’s claim like pure gold bothers me. If this were a normal game with just one scum faction, I’d be making a case against Drain Bead based on that, but with two scum factions, that messes up the reasoning. I recall games where scum were just a little bit too quick to accept a claim or some result that wasn’t mod-verified. The details are fuzzy, but the gist is lets say someone claims cop and names, names. Town don’t know if the cop is legit, but scum do so they know the claim is real and that the results are reliable. {Oh wait! We call it PIS - Perfect Information Syndrome, yay memory} Anyway, I get a little bit of that from Drain Bead in her treatment of septimus. The problem is, of course, that with two scum factions, even if Drain Bead is scum, she wouldn’t know if septimus is other-scum. In other words, she can’t show PIS because she doesn’t have perfect information. So I’m left with a more fuzzy interpretation of Drain Bead. I still don’t like it, but it isn’t as strong given the setup. ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/908 "2017-01-13T21:37:05Z")
**unvote Koldanar** Since he’s joined in the game. As per usual, my attempts at LtL have met with mainly blank indifference. I’ll be voting on one of the lynch leaders closer to EoD. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/909 "2017-01-13T21:40:09Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > **unvote Koldanar** > > Since he’s joined in the game. > > As per usual, my attempts at LtL have met with mainly blank indifference. I’ll be voting on one of the lynch leaders closer to EoD. using low post count alone will not get a following. However the low posters with Scummy tendencies easier to build on. And you really should vote who you think is Scum even if they are not in the top lynch pool ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/910 "2017-01-13T21:43:34Z")
:smack:OOPS forgot to bleach quote= sorry about that, bean counters ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/911 "2017-01-13T21:45:37Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > So here’s what I think is happening. Drain Bead is suspicious of people for _being wrong_ (or possibly wrong as the current case stands). This is terrible reasoning. I don’t have any information, so of course I could be wrong. If being wrong about someone is suddenly a ‘case’ against them then this will be a very long game indeed. If you had a problem with my commentary on septimus, why didn’t you comment on it then? I think it’s easy (and I am very not immune) to get irritated with someone being wrong and then let that irritation lead to a bad feeling. I need to assess if that’s what I did with Total Lost. I do think if people **leave** their votes on septimus now and **add** votes now and the worst happens and he’s lynched and is Town, I’d have some strong accusing thoughts about that. But being wrong in the absence of data is, as you say, a function of not knowing what the hell is going on. We’re going into a quiz without being able to study our notes beforehand. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/912 "2017-01-13T21:55:47Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think it’s easy (and I am very not immune) to get irritated with someone being wrong and then let that irritation lead to a bad feeling. I need to assess if that’s what I did with Total Lost. > > I do think if people **leave** their votes on septimus now and **add** votes now and the worst happens and he’s lynched and is Town, I’d have some strong accusing thoughts about that. But being wrong in the absence of data is, as you say, a function of not knowing what the hell is going on. We’re going into a quiz without being able to study our notes beforehand. I THINK that might be what happened with me for Total Lost. I allowed myself to get a bit irked that she didn’t see how asking for ambiguity to be cleared up makes a soft claim a bit firmer, and it came across as scummy. For tight now, I will \*\*Unvote Total Lost \*\* but I am going to re-read and try to figure out where my vote should be. Sigh. That’s a whole lotta posts to go through again. ---
**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, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/913 "2017-01-13T22:04:24Z")
> [@Koldanar](#): > > You guys post too damn much. While I catch up, I can at least answer the Prof here. > > I don’t trust these mods, flat out (Love you guys…don’t trust you guys!). I’ve been hunting for something hidden in plain sight - the way they structured the roles, I thought I had caught something. The wizard role using A instead of The fit right into my suspicions. I’m not sure how I missed the line stating one of each role excepting Masons - I read too fast. As much as I hate to string along this Conspiracy Theory, there’s a very slight chance you could be on to something here… We have seen the Role PMs for all Town and Scum roles. We have not been given any information from the Mods about any Third Party roles. It is \*possible \*that there is “another Wizard” there. And if we assume for the moment that is indeed the case… …it really doesn’t help us at all. > [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > **unvote Koldanar** > > Since he’s joined in the game. > > As per usual, my attempts at LtL have met with mainly blank indifference. I’ll be voting on one of the lynch leaders closer to EoD. You’ve placed two votes so far today. Both were based entirely on post count, and both were one-off votes. Do you plan to place a vote based upon anything that’s actually gone on in the game so far, or should we just put **Inner Stickler** , **Precambrianmollusc** , and **Red Skeezix** in a jar, shake them around, and pencil you in for whichever one falls out? ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/914 "2017-01-13T22:09:39Z")
NETA: Another question to Prof. Pepperwinkle: I see you have promised to be “voting on one of the lynch leaders closer to EoD”. Does that mean you’re going to do some analysis, or simply wait until just before EoD and pick someone who’s already ‘in the mix’, so as to avoid any complications that might come from taking a stand for something? There are at least 14 players in this game who are “anti-Town”. That means that a least 11 of those are not currently “one of the lynch leaders”. Perhaps you could spend a bit of time trying to find them, rather than just counting posts and votes. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/915 "2017-01-13T22:11:22Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > using low post count alone will not get a following. However the low posters with Scummy tendencies easier to build on. > > And you really should vote who you think is Scum even if they are not in the top lynch pool First off, I wish you and Mr. Foot a much better year in 2017 than you had in the last one. I stand by a statement which I have posted a number of times toDay: D1 is inevitably a crapshoot. I don’t see anything that particularly sets one player apart from another (which is why I was going with LtL). Everyone’s potential scum (excepting, of course, myself and the Modkilled Dante G). So over the next couple o’ days I will be examining the cases on the top 4 or 5 lynch leaders, and place my vote on whoever seems the scummiest. A singleton vote this early on should only be cast if the poster has at least a moderate degree of confidence in the culpability of the lynchee. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/916 "2017-01-13T22:13:26Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > NETA: > > Another question to Prof. Pepperwinkle: I see you have promised to be “voting on one of the lynch leaders closer to EoD”. > > Does that mean you’re going to do some analysis, or simply wait until just before EoD and pick someone who’s already ‘in the mix’, so as to avoid any complications that might come from taking a stand for something? > > There are at least 14 players in this game who are “anti-Town”. That means that a least 11 of those are not currently “one of the lynch leaders”. Perhaps you could spend a bit of time trying to find them, rather than just counting posts and votes. Analysis, for certain, as far as that will take me. Apparently you disagree with my thinking D1 is a crapshoot, but I haven’t seen anything in my last year-and-a-half of playing to think a successful Town lynch on D1 is anything but luck. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/917 "2017-01-13T22:24:31Z")
> [@](#): > > [Quoth **Captain Klutz** : > > 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. That’s actually a good thing, for purposes of later vote analysis. It’s easy for a Scum to park a vote on a teammate to build up credibility when that teammate is in no actual danger. It’s a lot harder to actually lynch a teammate for credibility. That said, though, I’m not sure how often we’ll even have the opportunity for that third kill: We’ll only get that if we have three Townies die in one Night, and given the roles we know about, that would require three out of five of the Wolf kill, the Vigilante, the Hitman, the Patsy’s revenge kill, and the Wizard using up his last protection. There’s probably some third party that Night-kills, too (we’ll know soon enough, I suppose), but even with that, it’d be pretty hard for there to not only be that many Night deaths, but for three of them to hit Townies. In other news: I think I may have actually found a genuine Scum slip. It’d been bugging me for a while, but I finally got the time to go back and look for the exact post and who made it. In [url=“[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19899878&postcount=292](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19899878&postcount=292)”]N0.292]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19916806&postcount=799](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19916806&postcount=799)), **Thing Fish** was summarizing the known roles. > [@](#): > > Understudy – one-shot use of the power of any Town power role killed Day or Night One Except that the Understudy isn’t one-shot: They completely assume the role they’re replacing. But the Mook and the Whelp are. This might mean that **Thing Fish** read the Mook/Whelp role first, before the Understudy, skimmed, and assumed that it worked the same way. And why would he have read a Scum role before a Town one? Possibly because he got it in a PM, possibly because he scrolled down to check his own team’s roles before reading Town’s. That’s good enough for me, on Day 1. **Unvote jsgoddess** (though I still suspect her) **Vote Thing Fish** (and yeah, I’m a bit uncomfortable about talk of snuggling connecting me to **Thing Fish** , but what can you do?) ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/918 "2017-01-13T22:25:04Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Analysis, for certain, as far as that will take me. Apparently you disagree with my thinking D1 is a crapshoot, but I haven’t seen anything in my last year-and-a-half of playing to think a successful Town lynch on D1 is anything but luck. I agree with you that Day 1 is mostly a crapshoot. I don’t fully agree that a successful Day 1 lynch is “anything but luck”…but I can’t blame you too much for feeling that way. But whatever you think about Day 1, your apparent strategy of “analysis doesn’t matter” is flawed. This is not a One Day game/ Analysis on Day 1, even if it does not help us Today, may prove useful later. Things that do not seem terribly significant on Day 1 may turn out to be part of a pattern after additional analysis - but only if they are pointed out in the first place. Scum who make statements on Day 1 are forced to stick to them in subsequent Days, often to their detriment. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/919 "2017-01-13T22:25:48Z")
NETA: [Fixed link for **Captain Klutz** ’s post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19916806&postcount=799) ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/920 "2017-01-13T22:33:02Z")
Holy shit balls people. Take a little while to look at the rest of the Board and three pages fly by! > [@LightFoot](#): > > I don’t quite follow you. > > I assume you are talking about the players that are unvoting \*\* Colby \*\* \* at least I think that is what you are referring to \* :smack: Yes. I had a really long post that quoted each post where the player in question stated their reason, then I just shortened the whole thing, because I thought it would be kinder. I also thought maybe I was over-analyzing. Looking at all of this, I can see that I should just lay it all out there in future. > [@](#): > > reason for moving > > 1" _only scum would jump on a slip_ " do you mean they are unvoting Colby because they did what only Scum would do and calling themselves on it? This was meant to a be summary of **Septimus** ’s stated reason for moving, I’m having trouble with the many layers of multi-quoting: Post 231, **Septimus** quotes > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Captain Klutz View Post \ > 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. The bolded bit appeared to be why **Septimus** un-voted **Colby**. _My_ interpretation of the bolded remark is that only scum would vote based on a slip. I found that strange. And I find the justification for the un-vote also strange. **Septimus** has claimed, and no one has counter-claimed, but I find I have a niggling doubt about **Septimus**. I hope I’m wrong. > [@](#): > > 2" _only scum argue for the person who slipped_ " do you mean they are unvoting Colby to vote for someone who disagreed with the reasoning used to vote Colby? post 264 **DiggitCamara** > [@](#): > > So, as I read on, I see that a Colby bandwagon has formed. I am the first to admit that my eye is still on him/her, however this post is actually a better candidate for suspicion. **I find that a defense of another player is usually given whenever the culprit actually has superior information about the other player.** So, I will > > unvote Colby > > and > > Vote snfaulkner Here, my reading of the bolded portion is that **DiggitCamara** is stating that defense of another player would only occur if you knew something others didn’t. On Day 1 there aren’t very many sources of information. I may have read too much into this, but I don’t think so, so that means that you are therefore scum if you defend. Between the first two arguments, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Also, I note that **DiggitCamara** still has his (her) eye on Colby, but they are moving their vote anyway. This starts to be a theme. Candidly, taking a quick detour here, Colby’s “slip” on its own, is not to me what is damning. What is damning is the larger context, especially as the week goes on and he says very little. If he had followed up his initial explanation with normal game play, he could have made a case for an honest slip of the tongue. Now, it’s hard to see it that way. I return to the comments. > [@](#): > > 3"_and a very detailed analysis of the posting history of one particular poster_" are you referring to a player that did a posting history of a player and found them scummier than Colby so changed their vote? Yes, sort of. That is what they stated. It seemed weak to me. Let’s look at it. The final vote change. **Suburban Plankton** , Post 541. This was a very long post. He did go and look at the entire posting history, and list it, of **PlumPudding**. There was a longer bit preceding this that pertained to other posts, so this is a shortened post. > [@](#): > > There was something about this post that bugged me, but I couldn’t figure it out…until I took a good look at Plumpudding’s posting history in this game. > 209 comment about Colby > 214 comment about being on vacation > 215 comment about the Patsy role > 342 comments about editing, color, the Patsy…has no suspicions > 344 comment about town mechanics > 358 comment about playstyle > 365 comment about being logged in to the board > 372 comment about page refreshes on the board > 384 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 386 comment about the Patsy > 401 defense against not having voted yet > 408 comment about a previous post > 412 vote for Biotop (for being “chatty”? It’s hard to tell for certain, because he refers to a previous comment by Guiri, but doesn’t link the specific post he is referring to) > 414 comment about the Patsy > 415 continuance of post 414 (I think ) > 422 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 423 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 425 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 426 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 430 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 432 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 435 comment about Investigative roles and the Patsy > 440 off-topic joke post? > 458 joke post > 470 unvote Biotop (understands his (Biotop’s) real-life participation issues) > 472 vote for Prof. Pepperwinkle (for not participating in the conversation) > 473 correction of typo in post 472 > > That’s 27 posts, almost all of which are discussions of mechanics, playstyle, game setup, etc. The only real ‘substantive’ posts are the ones in which he places votes. Interestingly, both votes are based on the player in question posting “fluff” or not participating fully…while Plumpudding himself has basically spent the Day doing exactly that. Also of note is that both votes are one-offs; the players in question are in absolutely no danger whatsoever of being lynched Today. > > In short, Plumpudding has ‘good statistics’ toDay: lost of posts, a couple votes…but nothing with any actual weight. Just like Scum would want to do, so that they ‘look good’ while taking no chances of posting anything that might come back to haunt them later. > > unvote Colby > vote Plumpudding > > I still think that Colby is Scum, and I’m suspicious of septimus as well. I’m placing this vote in order to get it on record, but should my potential vote on either Colby or septimus become ‘significant’ near EoD, I will change it. This post really nags at me. **Suburban Plankton** states that he still thinks that **Colby** is scum, but he’s moving his vote anyway. He’s moving it to a person who almost certainly will not get enough votes to actually get lynched. I am new at this but the very elaborate nature of this vote move struck me as most likely to be scum trying to protect a teammate, while hiding behind numbers and statistics. ## My gut call here now is that **Colby** and **Suburban Plankton** are both scum. It wouldn’t surprise me if **Plumpudding** was too. > [@](#): > > " _even if many Day 0’s would see more movemen_t" do you mean Day 1 here? > > Yes. Sorry. > [@](#): > > " _a relatively solid reason to vote for Colby_. " can you elaborate your definition of this? I did a bit above. The slip in phrasing with “team” which has been followed by almost total absence of **Colby**. I would guess that many people started the week thinking that the slip was as good a reason as any on DAY ONE (I will get this, I will get this) to place a vote. **Colby** himself never gave them a reason to change it. **Septimus** was a contender, but he has claimed. Unless that claim is proved false, the cheese stands alone. (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist.) * * * > [@](#): > > and finally "_I think the moves we see tell us more about the people making the moves, generally speaking, than they do about the vote recipients"_ Hopefully, I’ve expanded enough above that my statement is clearer. Let me know if not, and I will. > [@](#): > > You can think about voting like finding pretty rocks on a beach, but you can only keep one. > > some players pick up the first one they see and then continue to exchange the one in hand for a prettier one when they see it. > > And some look until they find the right one ( to them) and stop there. > > it may /may not have anything to do with their alignment.( since both Town and Scum may play either way ) > > If my comments do not reflect your intent, feel free to explain it to me. True, thank you. I’m learning as I go. 🙂 > [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > I’m not sure what the point of this post is. The real EMT wouldn’t have any thought process like mine, since they would know septimus was lying. It doesn’t matter to them whether he’s Wolf or Mafia. A Mafia player very likely could have had this thought process, but why would I bring it up if I’m Mafia? “Hey guys, I have this idea for a great fake claim. Now that you’ve used it, I’m going to explain to Town exactly why it’s a great claim!” I’m not sure what the logic there is for Wolf though. A Wolf wouldn’t know that septimus was lying anymore than a non-EMT Town would. (All of this is working from the assumption that septimus is fake claiming Mafia of course) > > What you seem to be ignoring however is that Town _should_ be skeptical of role claims. Skepticism doesn’t mean disbelieve, nor does it mean we shouldn’t unvote him. It just means to be aware that there exists the possibility that he’s lying. To do otherwise is to beg to be led around by the nose by scum. Thank you for bringing this up/expanding on this. I have been wondering what happens with a fake claim. Wouldn’t the real EMT say something though? Or does that expose the real EMT to un-necessary risk too early in the game? > [@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? Oh yes, really my first. I watched the last one here. There were what, 10 players? I thought, oh, I can do that. Looks like fun. (Really, it is fun. But just reading this thread is a full time job!) Day One (I am spelling these out so I stop fucking them up) is closing. I am torn. I am still convinced by my ToeJam vote. ToeJam will not swing this time unless something drastic happens. I am more and more convinced that Colby is also scum. I ask you, my brothers and sisters, what to do? Should I move my vote to Colby? It’s not needed, but it won’t be useful where it is now. Or should I leave it on ToeJam in order to keep in place a solid second candidate in case something strange happens late in the Day? All advice greatly appreciated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577.md?page=45) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577.md?page=47)