Mafia Reunion - Day Three

[paulwhoisaghost]

WoW on DiggitCamara

I’m finally getting around to this. Not much here though… pretty quiet, but still participating… maybe just enough to avoid suspicion? 15 posts and we are on D3. 5 posts from D1 and 10 from D2.

@DiggitCamara

Having pretty little to base anything on, I vote

Vote Colby11

The “very small base” comes from the possible slip in this post: seems to me that speaking about “the other team” might mean that Colby actually is on one of the scum teams.

I didn’t like the scum slip theory when I was trying to catch up. I can see how it was misleading, but it shouldn’t have been a reason to vote in and of itself… of course hindsight is 20/20 so I’ll let the townie vote go for now.

@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

So you are still suspicious of Colby, but now that there is a bandwagon on him you feel it will be okay to disown that lynch from your voting record and move on to SNF for “defending” another player? I defend other players all the time… not because I know their alignment, but because I disagree with the argument against them. Why sit back and let bad arguments get people lynched?

@DiggitCamara

And I would like to see some proof (as in prior games) or vote for you for that assertion, but I will have to reserve my vote for a future date because

**The rules explicitly state no multivoting. Has that changed?
**

Otherwise, someone inform Pleonast he needs to change his vote.

@DiggitCamara

Because I noticed a slight defense of another player in his post.

In your case the defense was rather a more generic reference to slips which, in your mind, seldom indicate whether someone is scum or not.

Notice SNF’s defense is now a slight defense, but the vote stays.

@DiggitCamara

Actually, I believe Hockey Monkey was referring to my subsequent unvote.

So:

[ol]
[li]no, I hadn’t seen a Colby vote when I voted; it was simply a very strong slip in my mind. [/li][li]In my answer to Hockey Monkey’s question I said that the reason I changed my vote was because snfaulkner’s comment on the Colby vote was a very slight defense of Colby (unlike, for instance, Hockey Monkey’s who was commenting on the situation, not the person[/li][/ol]

Now its a very slight defense. And semantics. I agree the unvote didn’t sit right with me.

That’s all the D1 posts… 5 posts… in 5 posts Diggit managed to vote, unvote, switch votes from the person she thought was scum to someone defending the person she thought was scum, and backpedal twice. Pretty busy for 5 posts, but still doesn’t address anything else in the game, doesn’t even comment on Lakai… or ToeJam.

@DiggitCamara

Counter: this is very weak analysis, actually. The fact that scum doesn’t have perfect information doesn’t preclude a weak defense of everyone who ISN’T on their team. It would be interesting if, while doing so, they would by chance vote for someone on the opposing team.

But still, this defense pings me. Not enough to change my

vote for snfaulkner

Admits the case is really weak, but continues the vote anyway. Still no comment on Lakai or ToeJam.

@DiggitCamara

When you’re right, you’re right.

Vote snfaulkner

@DiggitCamara

By the way, these quotes (most of which I spoilered to not clutter the thread) confirm my notion that snfaulkner is up to no good. Most of his participation has been either fluff or cozying up to other players (Chronos, for instance). To me, this kind of behavior is a clear marker for scummi(sp?)hood

I guess you gotta find some reason to justify votes right, that other case wasn’t really holding up so I guess it needed reinforcement?

@DiggitCamara

I agree with the first part: a mass claim of Town Vanilla folk won’t really benefit us at all.

I also agree with the second part, for different reasons:

1. I doubt the switches were handed out to power roles within town
2. I doubt the switch disclaimers (so far) are scum
3. If I am right, scum now has a smaller pool of “targets” (presuming that scum actually will target power roles first)
4. The specificity of brewha’s claim has put a large target on his back. If scum have a second switch, it is in their interest to offsky him and, that way, control when Batman will be able or not to kill.

I actually agree with this post. I think it might be why we have been seeing an uptick in power role deaths, there were a lot of people claiming or saying things that revealed they either didn’t have a switch or that they weren’t one role or another or just flat out that they were nilla town. Each comment narrows the pool. I’m assuming “disclaimers” was supposed to be “claimers”.

@DiggitCamara

Seems likely. But since we have, unfortunately, a few additional switch “holders” maybe they could confirm the timeline?

More switch talk.

@DiggitCamara

Two masonic groups? One with knowledge about the other members and the other without?

Not buying it.

Unvote
Vote Crys75

Not a Masonic group… masons typically have private chat and are still part of town. They are a cult with a weirdo power and a survival wincon. But you know, thats a better vote than the SNF vote, IMHO.

@DiggitCamara

Redacted, maybe. But I simply cannot see two masonic groups like these, both being on the town side. And we KNOW there is a legitimately townie masonic group out there.

One of the pointers to said redaction is that we have the win conditions which explicitly state (bleached):

Crys tells us her win conditions are
one of the two must be wrong. And I am betting there was a modification in the latter one.

In case it isn’t obvious because of the lack of quotes within quotes, the point here was that the 3P winton wasn’t consistent with the Roles doc. It is, Diggit was misinterpreting the roles doc which states that exclusive 3P wins are superseded by town or scum wins. Crys claimed a nonexclusive wincon.

@DiggitCamara

You may be right. However, that makes them, at best, a neutral group. And by her own admission, a neutral group with a switch in her hands. That switch gives her an (additional?) power… and we don’t know whether the other cult members have other powers which could come to bite us in the ass.

One possibility that comes to mind and which would modify our behavior towards them is that they have all the power to search for their fellow cultists and, once they have found them, they gain some additional power to forward their individual win condition.

Unlike the other roles, the third party’s powers and win conditions are unknown. I think it’s in our best interest to get them out of the way. YMMV

I disagree with this assessment of the 3P situation…

@DiggitCamara

Dead people get a vote?

Somehow missed Lakai subbed back in.

@DiggitCamara

Must have. Rubs me the wrong way actually: I believe that the mere act to sub a dead player back in makes a re-read that much harder.

Townies coming back from the dead bugs Diggit apparently…. its not that hard, just disregard D1 when assessing Lakai v2.0.

And that is it. At least Diggit commented on the switches and the 3P. And kind of comments on Brewha, in the sense that they seem to take Brewha at his word and mentions he probably has a target on his back. No comment on ToeJam or those who call for his head. And the vote stays on a claimed cultists… which I disagree with. We need to kill scum and use the 3P as population padding and hopefully have them working with us to eliminate scum… for now. Lynching them is a step closer to the scum wincon not towns.
All in all I don’t like it. I’m not a huge fan of the case against ToeJam, who has the most votes right now I believe… but maybe Digit will come in and vote for Crys or Sach or SNF and get an alternate wagon rolling. Or maybe they will finally comment on the ToeJam situation on the third Day of people calling for his head. Who knows. I don’t even think there is enough here to warrant a vote. Just a few awkward votes and unvotes that ping me. I guess I’ll keep looking and keep an eye on Diggit.