# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 184
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/184 "2017-01-09T02:49:29Z")
I take a couple days away as the N0 comes to a close, and I find 4 or 5 pages worth of new material. I love/hate you all. I’m going to limit myself to a few posts per day so there won’t be fluff. I will put proportionately more meat on them. > [@Biotop](#): > > You’ve got players discussing the merit of a Patsy claim, game mechanic debate, players debating whether a question to the mod is fake or not, overnight posters being scummy or not, 37, switches, the whole editing brouhaha… and these are just off the top of my head. You have player posts before role reveal and after. Even if you don’t find any scumminess in all this, I don’t see why you seem so proud for ignoring it. Good summary of N0, and I’ll chime in on the major issues where I have thoughts. I lean towards the Patsy claiming. If it’s countered, we have an additional prime target and if it’s a mislynch, we get a bonus kill. One wrinkle is that (unless I’ve missed the rule) it is possible to have duplicates of any of the roles, including Patsy. We know that one Patsy exists, but we don’t know that two don’t. In the unlikely even that there are two Patsies, the counterclaim would be legit. I don’t see much (any) benefit to scum to fake the claim, so the potential for a misfire is mitigated, but it’s a wrinkle to consider. I still come down in favor of the claim. I think editing is bad, but not much of a tell. Scum have their boards. I doubt there’s anything to be gained from cross faction communication via edited posts. Given that it would require that both be online and reading at the same time (which cannot be coordinated), it’s difficult. Benefit is low. Risk of being seen by any of the numerous townies (or an unintended scum party) is astronomical. It won’t happen. I’ll add this to Biotop’s list of N0 topics: scum tells. I don’t think there are universal scum tells (short of literally saying you’re scum), but individual players may have them. I’ve seen some players peg regulars as scum for these tells, and I have a couple in my back pocket that I think are valid. I’ve been wrong about them as well. > [@septimus](#): > > I disagree with the 1st paragraph. Town Powers might want advice, but can’t ask for it directly. Yes, Scum might try to give bad advice but their bad advice will be attacked and put themselves in jeopardy. > > The 2nd paragraph may be good advice, but runs the risk of alerting Scum to countermeasures we may try. > > The 3rd paragraph seems odd given that off-thread communication is allowed at all times. Cautious players will refresh their private chatrooms before posting in-game. So it sounds like Pleonast is talking about a Wolf trying to send a message to a Mafia, or vice versa. Is that right? It still seems very odd. With so many players it’s more likely that a different player would see the secret message than it’s intended recipient. > > All in all, this post by Pleonast seems weird enough to merit an early loose vote. > **Vote Pleonast[COLOR]** (vote tags broken) I agree with septimus’s comments on Pleonast’s ideas, but not the vote. Bad ideas come from townies all the time. > [@TexCat](#): > > _[COLOR=“Red”]unvote: Normal[COLOR] > [COLOR=“Blue”]vote: Colby[COLOR] > \*\* > Bolding mine, above. This phrasing really stood out for me. I would have said, I think the fire is probably from one of the scum teams, or an arsonist. But Colby says the other team_. It sure sounds like he’s on one of the scum teams to me. (vote tags broken again- nested quote can be found at the linked post) As far as slips go, this is one of the most suggestive I’ve seen, but I can’t bring myself to vote for it. Bad phrasing is pretty par for the course. Colby’s slip could easily be unintentional bad phrasing. (Please see SNFaulkner for numerous examples of intentional bad phrasing.) > [@Mafia Reunion - NIGHT ZERO](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-night-zero/776315/412): > > **Sinjin, Guiri, Normal Phase** > Is there anything I can help to clear up on why you 3 find me suspicious? Sinjin had questions, so I can address those. The other two just snuggled up behind SJ, so I’ll be here waiting to hear from you guys. > > \*\* Sinjin \*\*: > Do you have issues with me thinking out loud? When I went through the paragraph ([here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19899462&postcount=258)you quote [it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19898969&postcount=218)), I showed my work. > > You quote portions of my statements, and ask why did I bring up the previous one- because I don’t want to leave them out. If I present only one side of an argument, that’s kinda scummy. I want to consider both sides (and as you pointed me pointing out- I even stated that one option is LESS likely, and the other is more likely). > > Now, you ask why would scum kill the Patsy (your third statement)? Because of what I said afterwards- The Scum factions ALSO have to deal with the WIFOM that the Patsy is a false claim. It’s not likely, but Each scum faction has to worry about the possibility that the OTHER scum faction might have done it. > That doesn’t really matter early game (especially for Town), but late game- the scum group is going to get antys about the idea of a False claiming Patsy, and since it’d add to their kills if it WAS a real patsy, and if it WAS a fake-claim, it’d be pro-Scum to take out the Patsy the further we get into the late game. > > It’s all WIFOM. But it’s more and more WIFOM for the Scum the later it gets into the game with an uncounterclaimed Patsy (who ideally should be town, because… as I noted, it’d be really really risky for scum to counterclaim and trade 1:1 that early in the game, putting them immediately behind the other scum group). Hence the Doc’s get to WIFOM if they want to protect a potential Townie role that ScumA might actually be thinking about killing. > > That’s what I meant by my lines on the matter. > Also, if you notice- I do at the end summarize my thinking aloud with what I actually DO think of the whole matter: \*Basically- all in all- i’m pro-Patsy claiming Day 1, and then we should NOT lynch the Poor patsy day 1 either though. \* > > That’s the takeaway. The rest of it is WIFOM if you’re scum, if you’re a doctor, and if you’re not town. Which is what I want to do. I want to pour WIFOM for scum. I’m not going to make it easier on them. And if you’re scum, you better continue to expect such WIFOM. > > If you’re town, just ask me to clarify, and I will clarify (or I’ll probably clarify on my own, as I did there in that post). > > So now, Sinjin, you’re fine. But **Normal Phase, Guiri**. What’s up? It’s rather easy to jump on and go “me too”, but if you’ve actually got Qs, I’m still alive. Otherwise, I’ll just keep your snuggling in mind for the future. > -R This feels way too snugly and inoffensive. I think I’m a non-combative player, but this is too kiddy-gloved for even me. It feels too universally snuggly and eager to be free of issues/baggage/scrutiny. “I’ve answered your questions. Please look elsewhere.” (Sunny Daze seems to be getting a similar vibe as well in Post 113 toDay.) [color=blue] **vote ToeJam** --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577)._