# 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:** 920
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577)._