# Mafia Reunion - Day Three **URL:** \ **Category:** Thread Games\ **Created:** [January 24, 2017, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068 "2017-01-24T20:43:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**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 25, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/141 "2017-01-25T15:33:15Z")
Still skimming. I hate it, but there’s no alternative. > [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > An idea just occurred to me that might be a worthwhile pursuit, and would potentially give a lot of information regarding toejam. > > There’s at least a reasonable possibility that Batman would have targeted toejam last night. There is furthermore a reasonable possibility that one of the scum teams holds Batman’s other switch, meaning they can turn him off at will. Together, this indicates at least the possibility that scum turned off Batman to protect toejam. The question then becomes is there any way to confirm or otherwise pull more information out of this situation? > > What if Batman were to claim today, and tell us who he or she targeted last night? If it was indeed toejam, that would be a strong indication that the logic presented above is true, at which point lynching toejam is extremely compelling as it is very likely he is in fact scum. > > The downside of such a plan of course is that Batman is now exposed. But how much of a downside is it really? If scum do in fact hold the other switch, Batman isn’t really any better than vanilla at this point, and won’t stop being so until/unless the other switch holder dies. And since we have clearly seen that switches are not revealed on death, the only people who will know when Batman is unleashed again will be the scum team that holds the switch. Even Batman won’t know for sure, since there’s no way for him or her to know if the target died to him or her, or if it was just coincidence. > > Thoughts? Terrible idea. There’s is no benefit to us in knowing who the Vigilante is or who they targeted. > [@LightFoot](#): > > this makes sense- AUBatman is neutered at this time. ( if Scum hold the switch) odds are they do. > > If the switch is held by a Townie though… which one should claim? :smack: Every singleton Town role is valuable because a false claim of that role can be counter-claimed by the actual holder. That is, effectively a Mason group of one. Unless you’re advocating a mass claim, there is no advantage to exposing our counter-claimable roles to targeted killing by Scum. > [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > But we don’t know their wincon. We don’t know if it is for them to complete a chain of all 5 of them having investigated another without dying or if it’s something really crazy like fulfilling a list of unlikely to survive tasks… who knows. If they aren’t telling the truth it could be anything and without knowing what we have no clue when it will be achieved. If it’s before town or scum meet their wincon, then they win. > > But I’m going to proceed with leaving them alone for now and hoping they toe the line and act in towns best interest. If there’s five of them and they exclude us from winning if they meet their win conditions, we’re going to lose unless Scum start killing each other and the third party, because there’s no way we’ll be able to eliminate 19 players in time. There’s no hurry to eliminate the third party now, but unless they can verify they are non-exclusively-winning third party or their numbers are the 5 they claim, we will have to eliminate them. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1321): > > I was looking back at N2 and found this a bit interesting. I missed it the first go through, but knowing that by the numbers scum gain progress toward their wincon by killing 3P, town do not consider this post > > > [@Mafia Reunion - Day Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/1321): > > > > Well that is the dilemma. But if they have a win condition that can interfere with ours, that means we do need to lynch them before we lynch all the Scum. Thus increasing our lynch burden substantially. That doesn’t seem plausible if there is 5 of them. But what if there’s fewer, maybe 2? Then eliminating them is not unreasonable. > > > > This is the reasoning why Town needs to see all LUTHA claim sooner rather than later. Having 5 players saying “yes, I’m LUTHA” and cross-confirming each other would completely remove them as a threat, in mine eyes. Five is the number claimed and so having five actually claiming would virtually confirm them (just like claimed Masons, one would have to die at some point to confirm the group as a whole). I’d advocate lynching anyone trying to lynch LUTHA at that point, since they’d be threatening only to Scum at that point. > > > > But either fewer or more than that indicates someone is lying. And we’d have to start lynching claimed LUTHA once we have a few Scum eliminated. > > Pleo, do you still feel this way? > > I’m liking this as a reason for Lynch better than my reasoning against DiggitCamara or the case against ToeJam. Unless Toejam feels the same way. I’ll have to go look. If he does it tips the scales for me. > > I am also suspicious of… > > Thing Fish, but I feel I may be letting myself become OMGUS biased. > > Prof P. for previous discussed reasons > > Koldanar for only really participating in D2 by calling out non-participants. > > But I haven’t had the opportunity to look very closely at them yet. So… > > \*\* Vote Pleonast \*\* > > But I’m gonna keep looking at others. Yes, I agree with my post. Do you disagree with any part? Is there a reason for your vote? > [@BillMC](#): > > if that is the case then it is very selfish to commit ritual suicide rather than let someone else sub in; if it’s a case that they couldn’t find a sub, then then that does kinda suggest sario was the least valuable of the roles needing a sub - which paints a big target on our new subs. to put a positive slant on it, sario could have used the power n1 and/or n2, and actually saved some from a nk There’s Day-kills, too. > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > Lynching Sachertorte may or may not net us scum, but it will **definitely** not result in a town lynch\* and it will **definitely** give us hard facts that we do not currently have. Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to. > [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > Your impression is consistent with his early town game. I feel pretty good about SNF right now. Sorry, I’m not up to date on Mafia terms. What is SNF? > [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > Zeriel, besides me who else are you suspicious of? I’m not capable of doing a WOW on my phone but I just looked at your ISO and I see nothing but fluff, negativity towards me, general policy stands and comments on mechanics. It’s entirely possible that I’m missing something trying to read this way, so if so please correct me. Yeah, more unexplained acronyms. What’re WOW and ISO? Is it so hard to type things out? Doesn’t your phone have auto complete? Don’t turn **Meeko** on us. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ My votes, in no particular order, except the firstest is the mostest. **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. **vote Meeko** for admitting that they deliberately want their posts to be difficult to parse. I have no real opinion on **ToeJam**. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/142 "2017-01-25T15:36:58Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to. As I’ve already said upthread, more LUTHA claiming would remove the need to lynch Sachertorte. It would also put town in a much stronger position. But they clearly aren’t going to claim without more pressure, and I think town should apply some. ---
**Author:** ![Scathach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Scathach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scathach)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/143 "2017-01-25T15:37:38Z")
As noted previously, I’m away on holidays and have no computer and limited internet. I have two problems with the cultists, 1. Their win condition seems too easy and requires basically no effort on their part. It’s a role with zero motivation to participate in the game which seems unlikely. I feel like there’s more to it than meets the eye. Also the more accepted it gets the more it becomes a viable scrum fake claim. 1. Toejams reaction to being a lynch candidate for lurking doesn’t seem like a townie one. Claiming to be shocked that anyone would lynch a lurker seems a bit overly defensive. [Color=blue]Vote toejam[\color] I haven’t caught up fully on the votes for ender or paulwhoisaghost Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/144 "2017-01-25T15:42:00Z")
> [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > Here’s Zeriel’s ISO for anyone who is interested. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=13856022](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=13856022) THE LINK doesn’t work FYI ---
**Author:** ![AngeloftheNorth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/angelofthenorth/32/19559_2.png) [@AngeloftheNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AngeloftheNorth)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/145 "2017-01-25T15:45:13Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Still skimming. I hate it, but there’s no alternative. > Terrible idea. There’s is no benefit to us in knowing who the Vigilante is or who they targeted. > :smack: Every singleton Town role is valuable because a false claim of that role can be counter-claimed by the actual holder. That is, effectively a Mason group of one. Unless you’re advocating a mass claim, there is no advantage to exposing our counter-claimable roles to targeted killing by Scum. > If there’s five of them and they exclude us from winning if they meet their win conditions, we’re going to lose unless Scum start killing each other and the third party, because there’s no way we’ll be able to eliminate 19 players in time. > > There’s no hurry to eliminate the third party now, but unless they can verify they are non-exclusively-winning third party or their numbers are the 5 they claim, we will have to eliminate them. > Yes, I agree with my post. Do you disagree with any part? > > Is there a reason for your vote? > There’s Day-kills, too. > Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to. > Sorry, I’m not up to date on Mafia terms. What is SNF? > Yeah, more unexplained acronyms. What’re WOW and ISO? > > Is it so hard to type things out? Doesn’t your phone have auto complete? Don’t turn **Meeko** on us. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > My votes, in no particular order, except the firstest is the mostest. > **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. > **vote Meeko** for admitting that they deliberately want their posts to be difficult to parse. > > I have no real opinion on **ToeJam**. WOW is Wall of Words. It’s an analysis of every post a player has made prior to the WOW. ISO is In Search Of. It’s the search you do in order to do a WOW. I’m not sure if your comments about being on the phone were in reference to acronyms or the actual WOW or ISO. I will try not to use more acronyms without explaining them. I absolutely cannot do a WOW on my phone and I did figure out how to do the ISO. ---
**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 25, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/146 "2017-01-25T15:46:37Z")
SNF - snfaulkner WOW wall o words ISO - I’m guessing " in search of" - that is, a search of just their posts? ---
**Author:** ![AngeloftheNorth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/angelofthenorth/32/19559_2.png) [@AngeloftheNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AngeloftheNorth)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/147 "2017-01-25T15:46:48Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > THE LINK doesn’t work FYI Okay, thanks. Should anyone want to see what I’m seeing you just click on Zeriel’s name in his post and view all posts. ---
**Author:** ![AngeloftheNorth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/angelofthenorth/32/19559_2.png) [@AngeloftheNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AngeloftheNorth)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/148 "2017-01-25T15:48:01Z")
> [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > WOW is Wall of Words. It’s an analysis of every post a player has made prior to the WOW. > > ISO is In Search Of. It’s the search you do in order to do a WOW. > > I’m not sure if your comments about being on the phone were in reference to acronyms or the actual WOW or ISO. I will try not to use more acronyms without explaining them. I absolutely cannot do a WOW on my phone and I did figure out how to do the ISO. Sorry, missed one. SNF is not a Mafia term, he’s a player. SNFaulkner. ---
**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 25, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/149 "2017-01-25T16:13:10Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > As I’ve already said upthread, more LUTHA claiming would remove the need to lynch Sachertorte. It would also put town in a much stronger position. But they clearly aren’t going to claim without more pressure, and I think town should apply some. Okay, I don’t have a problem with that, except that I think it’s too early to actually _lynch_ them. I’m hoping that Scum kill a few them for us, which is probably made more likely by them not claiming. 😃 > [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > WOW is Wall of Words. It’s an analysis of every post a player has made prior to the WOW. > > ISO is In Search Of. It’s the search you do in order to do a WOW. > > I’m not sure if your comments about being on the phone were in reference to acronyms or the actual WOW or ISO. I will try not to use more acronyms without explaining them. I absolutely cannot do a WOW on my phone and I did figure out how to do the ISO. Thanks. I was referring to the unknown acronyms. > [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > Sorry, missed one. SNF is not a Mafia term, he’s a player. SNFaulkner. Ah! I always bold poster names, so I didn’t even consider you were referring to a player. I was trying to figure what Saturday Night Fever could mean in mafia terms. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/150 "2017-01-25T16:14:47Z")
> [@Crys75](#): > > OK. So you want to look up sachertorte, but your positive I’m lying…Well wouldn’t that mean sachertorte is lying also. Talk about not making any sense. I have to look more into your posts and participation. If my memory serves you have been rather lurky until you started coming down on me. If I wasn’t on my phone I would vote for you right now. Perhaps after dinner when I can return to my PC. > > Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk I’m back this morning and wanted to respond to this before reading through the rest of the thread. First, it’s very probable that **sachertorte** is lying too. What I meant by look up the history is just that: look up what sachertorte’s claim was. I wasn’t lurky YesterDay. I was just not participatory. I make no excuse for it. It is what it is. But what it means is that I did see your claim and think through it but I haven’t actually seen Sach’s claim. So I need to do that. I still know you’re lying. And I’m (right now) not gonna bother doing anything about it. Let’s see how the game progresses. ---
**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 25, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/151 "2017-01-25T16:21:06Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > I’m back this morning and wanted to respond to this before reading through the rest of the thread. > First, it’s very probable that **sachertorte** is lying too. What I meant by look up the history is just that: look up what sachertorte’s claim was. > I wasn’t lurky YesterDay. I was just not participatory. I make no excuse for it. It is what it is. But what it means is that I did see your claim and think through it but I haven’t actually seen Sach’s claim. So I need to do that. > > I still know you’re lying. And I’m (right now) not gonna bother doing anything about it. > > Let’s see how the game progresses. What is the difference between lurky and non-participatory? ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/152 "2017-01-25T16:23:02Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Still skimming. I hate it, but there’s no alternative. so you are forming opinions with out actually having all the evidence- \* brilliant !\* so your following comments will now be flawed > [@](#): > > Terrible idea. There’s is no benefit to us in knowing who the Vigilante is or who they targeted. > :smack: Every singleton Town role is valuable because a false claim of that role can be counter-claimed by the actual holder. That is, effectively a Mason group of one. Unless you’re advocating a mass claim, there is no advantage to exposing our counter-claimable roles to targeted killing by Scum. IF the vig is now neutered (which is highly likely) there \* are\* potential benefits to a claim, as previously discussed- that should not be discarded out of hand > [@](#): > > If there’s five of them and they exclude us from winning if they meet their win conditions, we’re going to lose unless Scum start killing each other and the third party, because there’s no way we’ll be able to eliminate 19 players in time. > > There’s no hurry to eliminate the third party now, but unless they can verify they are non-exclusively-winning third party or their numbers are the 5 they claim, we will have to eliminate them. If the 5 of them can pull off a win with the number of other factions at play- I would tip my hat > [@](#): > > ~snip > Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to. Are you argueing with yourself? > [@](#): > > Sorry, I’m not up to date on Mafia terms. What is SNF? > Yeah, more unexplained acronyms. What’re WOW and ISO? > > Is it so hard to type things out? Doesn’t your phone have auto complete? Don’t turn **Meeko** on us. What have you done with Pleo and who are you? SNFaulkner is SNF- WallOfWords (nt sure about ISO > [@](#): > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > My votes, in no particular order, except the firstest is the mostest. > 1- **vote Thing Fish** for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253. > 2 **vote Idle Thoughts** for the meta-reason of typically lurking when scum. > 3 **vote Scathach** for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35. > 4 **vote Johnny Bravo** for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265. > 5 **vote Plumpudding** for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401. > 6 **vote Meeko** for admitting that they deliberately want their posts to be difficult to parse. > > I have no real opinion on **ToeJam**. votes 1- what? how do you get that from [This post?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19907997&postcount=253) and you started it 2-fair 3- on D3 you are voing for a post D1 post 35-- nothing better since? 4-5-- see 3, really nothing better has come up? 6- meh it appears all your Scum leans are based on Day One- it is Day Three. [snark redacted] ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/153 "2017-01-25T16:33:07Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > As noted previously, I’m away on holidays and have no computer and limited internet. > > I have two problems with the cultists, 1. Their win condition seems too easy and requires basically no effort on their part. It’s a role with zero motivation to participate in the game which seems unlikely. I feel like there’s more to it than meets the eye. Also the more accepted it gets the more it becomes a viable scrum fake claim. > > 1. Toejams reaction to being a lynch candidate for lurking doesn’t seem like a townie one. Claiming to be shocked that anyone would lynch a lurker seems a bit overly defensive. 1.staying alive in this game until the end is not going to be an easy task who signs up for a game where they don’t \*want \* to participate? 2. is a reference to ToeJam what does that have to do with the cultists? ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/154 "2017-01-25T16:40:22Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > I’m back this morning and wanted to respond to this before reading through the rest of the thread. > First, it’s very probable that **sachertorte** is lying too. What I meant by look up the history is just that: look up what sachertorte’s claim was. > I wasn’t lurky YesterDay. I was just not participatory. I make no excuse for it. It is what it is. But what it means is that I did see your claim and think through it but I haven’t actually seen Sach’s claim. So I need to do that. > > I still know you’re lying. And I’m (right now) not gonna bother doing anything about it. > > Let’s see how the game progresses. you KNOW \*\* crys \*\* is lying? . Not going to bother doing anything about it now? what part is the lie? are you soft claiming something? ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/155 "2017-01-25T16:42:34Z")
> [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > I agree with Angel. That post and it’s reasoning is awful. If you’re so convinced it’s all a lie, the answer of what to do about it is fairly academic The problem is that it’s not. What I’m convinced of is that Crys is lying. What I’m not convinced of is what to do about it. There’s simply no way for me to figure out WHAT Crys is lying about. Maybe there are only two Cult members and he’s being truthful in his win-con. Maybe there’s 5 Cult members and the win-con is exclusive and can be stolen from Town. Maybe something else entirely. But here’s what I know: Town’s win condition is to kill off all scum. Period. Game ends there. So lynching someone I believe to be 3rd Party does not help Town get closer to its end goal. Leaving them alive has the possibility of biting Town in the ass later on. But because I don’t know HOW it will bite us in the ass, I’m not sure what to do to play around it. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > Allow me to add my voice to those saying this assessment makes no sense. > [ol] > [li]The purpose of sachertorte’s claim seems pretty clear to me. Crys was under severe pressure for claiming a very unusual role and being third party. Sachertorte’s claim could at least corroborate the existence of the cult.[/li][li]How would Crys be lying if sachertorte can corroborate her role PM? The only way that works is if scum have the third party PMs and Crys fake claims third party with real third party sachertorte coming to corroborate her. I suppose that’s technically a possability, but it seems so improbable that I don’t think it’s worth considering. I suppose they could both be scum in an elaborate plan to fake claims of a switch and two third party players but that seems like a very high risk/low reward play, and I’m not considering it at this point.[/li][li]Finding your teammates isn’t much as power roles go. At best, it gives them a slightly better chance of not shooting each other.[/li][li]Survival is a fairly well established win condition for third parties. It’s not unreasonable to change it from an individual goal in a smallish game to a team goal in a game of this size.[/li][/ol] As I mentioned before, I haven’t actually read Sach’s claim. I need to do that. Probably before going further in this thread. But Crys can be lying even with corroboration because if there are two people on the same team working towards the same goal, of course they’re going to corroborate each other’s stories…even if those stories are completely made up. I’m also not arguing with you about the “finding teammates” power or “survival” wincon as possibilities. You’re right. They’re pretty well established win conditions. What I’m asking is this: When you have a faction of 7 Mafia and a faction of 7 Wolves, does an additional 5 person third party make sense? That’s not a small number of people. Right now I’m going with the theory that the only reason two people have stepped forward as members of this “cult” is because that’s all there are in this game. I also put “cult” in quotations because I ask your experience on this. In most other games, wouldn’t a cult indicate a group that tries to bring players over to their side? But the rules specifically state that alliance switching won’t happen this game. I also ask this: if the win condition is truly to just survive to the end…why the need to investigate anyone? Why any power roles whatsoever? What if their win condition was something like “ensure the lynching of X number of Town, Wolves, & Mafia.” That would be a reason to need investigation powers. Anyway, that’s all just food for thought. I want to read Sach’s claim but as i said repeatedly, I don’t think lynching 3rd party advances Town’s goals. So my focus is better served on voting for people I think are scum. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/156 "2017-01-25T16:58:37Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > What is the difference between lurky and non-participatory? It’s the difference between reading the threads and just not posting and not being online much at all to even read the threads. I’ll admit from an outside perspective there’s very little difference between the two. How do you ever know WHY someone isn’t in the thread? I guess you can track logins sporadically, but that seems like a lot of work for very little payoff. Still, I’m just trying to say that I suck because I haven’t been on much. I guess it’s up to you to decide whether to believe me. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/157 "2017-01-25T17:03:45Z")
> [@LightFoot](#): > > you KNOW \*\* crys \*\* is lying? . > > Not going to bother doing anything about it now? > what part is the lie? > are you soft claiming something? Not soft claiming anything. Do I know through in-game knowledge or powers that he’s lying? No. But the claim, taken as a whole, does not make sense. I broke it down further in other posts. I do not know which part is the lie or how it affects Town, but the story he’s telling does not work when you put the pieces of his claim together. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/158 "2017-01-25T17:04:11Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Still skimming. I hate it, but there’s no alternative. > Terrible idea. There’s is no benefit to us in knowing who the Vigilante is or who they targeted. > :smack: Every singleton Town role is valuable because a false claim of that role can be counter-claimed by the actual holder. That is, effectively a Mason group of one. Unless you’re advocating a mass claim, there is no advantage to exposing our counter-claimable roles to targeted killing by Scum. > If there’s five of them and they exclude us from winning if they meet their win conditions, we’re going to lose unless Scum start killing each other and the third party, because there’s no way we’ll be able to eliminate 19 players in time. > > There’s no hurry to eliminate the third party now, but unless they can verify they are non-exclusively-winning third party or their numbers are the 5 they claim, we will have to eliminate them. > Yes, I agree with my post. Do you disagree with any part? > > Is there a reason for your vote? > There’s Day-kills, too. > Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to. > Sorry, I’m not up to date on Mafia terms. What is SNF? > Yeah, more unexplained acronyms. What’re WOW and ISO? > > Is it so hard to type things out? Doesn’t your phone have auto complete? Don’t turn **Meeko** on us. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > My votes, in no particular order, except the firstest is the mostest. > **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. > **vote Meeko** for admitting that they deliberately want their posts to be difficult to parse. > > I have no real opinion on **ToeJam**. My vote was based on my understanding that you were for lynching the cultists. Your explanation of that stance makes me less comfortable voting for you as my reasoning was that anyone wanting to lynch the cultists is promoting an action that benefits scum. I thought that was pretty clear. My understanding of your stance now I’d that we should leave the cultists alone for now, but you do see a point at which it may be necessary. Can you flesh out when you think that would be likely? I still think that there is a good chance one of the players promoting lynching the cultists is scum trying to further their own agenda. But I am no longer comfortable with my vote. I’ll have to back through D2 and D3 so far with that in mind, but I have to go work now. So for now, \*\* Unvote Pleonast \*\* And Pleo, WOW means wall of words, a post that summarizes or quotes all of a player’s posts… it’s very common lingo, but perhaps was not used when you were very active in playing mafia. ISO I’m less familiar with but I think it’s something about search results for their posts… a preliminary step to a WOW since wows are hard to produce from a phone. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk ---
**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 25, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/159 "2017-01-25T17:13:30Z")
So you know she’s lying, somehow, but not what about. But that’s ok, we shouldn’t lynch her. Even though you’re sure she’s lying. But you haven’t really read sach’s corroboration of her claim. But she’s definitely lying. Speaking as someone who came up with a stupid plan, you gotta know when to stop digging. You are well past that point. Quite happy with my vote as it is. ---
**Author:** ![paulwhoisaghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@paulwhoisaghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulwhoisaghost)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068/160 "2017-01-25T17:14:39Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > Not soft claiming anything. Do I know through in-game knowledge or powers that he’s lying? No. > > But the claim, taken as a whole, does not make sense. I broke it down further in other posts. I do not know which part is the lie or how it affects Town, but the story he’s telling does not work when you put the pieces of his claim together. Then you don’t KNOW. That is a dangerous word in mafia. I would expect anyone playing in this game to know that. I can understand being confident you are right, but to say that you know anything implies that you have information that rules out all other possibilities, something town doesn’t have public knowledge of right now. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-three/778068.md?page=9)