# Mafia Reunion - Day Two **URL:** \ **Category:** Thread Games\ **Created:** [January 17, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425 "2017-01-17T22:20:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/221 "2017-01-19T14:53:31Z")
I think that’s a decent plan to have Batman target me tonight. I’ll go ahead and switch my switch off. The two things I could see foil this plan - 1. Mafia target me as well. Batman’s kill doesn’t go through, but I die anyway. It’d suck to be dead - but my alignment would be shown as vanilla townie. I’m being 100% truthful and transparent. At least my death will allow town to believe my statements. Honestly, I don’t see scum targeting me though. My death proves my statements. They’d be better off to keep me alive and work to undercut my credibility. 1. and I need to dig up the role PMs to verify - but seems to me that there is a power role that is a global switch flipper. If a scum team member has the power to reset all switches to “on” then Batman kills me anyway. But, once again we’ll at least learn something. ---
**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 19, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/222 "2017-01-19T14:59:54Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > How do you feel about HookerChemical’s case on Roosh for doing similar things? If it’s past a certain point on Day 1, I haven’t read it yet. (I want to finish Day 1 later today). And do you mean **ToeJam**? > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > \*\*Pleonast: > > \*\*Vote: #841. For “poor participation while under lynch threat,” but also says that he doesn’t find the scum slip particularly convincing. That makes this a lynch the lurker despite there being better lurker candidates, but this vote is better than a lot of the others here. I feel there is a significant difference between voting for someone who participates little once they’re under imminent threat of lynch and voting for someone who is participating little in general. If **colby11** had played the game, by commenting on other issues and making cases against other players, I never’d have voted for them. > [@bufftabby](#): > > So, what gives, **Pleonast**? First the votes on **Johnny Bravo** bothered you enough to vote for **Septimus** for real, and me for not-real, but now…you’re voting **Johnny Bravo** , for his reaction to said votes? A reaction which had already occurred when you placed your D1 vote(s) on **Septimus** and I? > > I mean, I don’t disagree with your _conclusion_, but I’m not following your path to get there. Calling it skimming if you like, but I didn’t notice **Johnny Bravo** ’s reaction the first time through. Note that I’m still suspicious of the votes on **Johnny Bravo** , but they don’t rise above my vote threshold at the moment. > [@Chronos](#): > > Dude, **Pleo** , if there’s any Perfect Information here, it’s yours, and **Thing Fish** is guilty only of pointing it out. It was you, not **Thing Fish** , who said that Scum could avoid knowing who’s on their team by avoiding reading their boards. So you were implicitly assuming that that information _is_ on their boards. Now, I’m not going to say that that’s a bad assumption: After all, they have to have found out at some point who their teammates were, and if not in their PMs, then how? But if you’re going to make an assumption yourself, then it hardly behooves you to use your one and only vote-that-counts on someone else for pointing out your assumption, and to blame them for assuming it. There’s no information in saying that someone who does not read a secret board gains no information from it. That’s basic deduction: a player cannot know what’s on a secret board they haven’t read. And that deduction is completely independent of what’s on the board. Whether or not there’s information on the secret board, the player not reading it gains no information. **Thing Fish** has implicitly stated something else: that a player who has read the secret board does not know a particular piece of information. How can anyone who has no knowledge of the secret board know this? The information gained from reading a secret board is extremely dependent on what’s on that board. The only possible conclusion is that **Thing Fish** has knowledge of what’s on that board. This is a clear-cut case of perfect information. It’s probably clear-cut enough that we should leave it to the Vigilante to take care of, since we’ll gain little information from lynching a self-revealed scum. But it’s good for an early vote in the Day. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ On multi-lynching: I’m in favor of it. We get information from lynches and voting records. I am not in favor of forcing players to move votes to make it happen. Players must be responsible for their own votes. For myself, when I put someone on my voting list, that means I’m willing to see them lynched. While I put my most suspicious vote first, I have no problems switching to anyone on my list. And that means you should hold me accountable for any vote on my list, even if it isn’t counted by the mods. I think it’d be helpful for us if everyone did the same, but it’s non-productive to try to enforce it. ---
**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 19, 2017, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/223 "2017-01-19T15:05:30Z")
I agree with those who say that if we were to implement some sort of planned multilynch, that would be 1. very hard to control, and 2. potentially good cover for scum and 3rd party But I don’t see any harm in doing at least the first aspect of it–voting and naming a second choice. I think this is pro-Town as it gets more information out and it forces us to play more deliberately, which seems good. If I list someone as 1 and someone as 2 but then drop 1 and go for someone unmentioned, I should have some argument to back that up. That said, I don’t have one vote yet, let alone two. Despite my nerves, I do see the argument that it’s better to have more Town-controlled deaths. I have this sense that we are already running as fast as we can toward a cliff, so strapping on jet packs is terrifying, but the logic of it is clear to me. More information sooner. So I don’t think I’ll ever be comfortable with it, but I think I’m swayable. Chronos’s Batman/switch/brewha plan makes sense to me. It might not reveal everything we’d hope it reveals, but it seems like this is our first chance to get some sort of info on the tantalizing issue of switches. To return to the meta-game talk, for me the problem with meta-knowledge is twofold: accuracy and honesty. Even if I think your analysis of someone else’s “normal” play is accurate, I have reason to doubt your honesty. Even if I think your analysis of someone else’s “normal” play is honest, I have reason to doubt your accuracy. So when someone says the equivalent of “trust me,” my reaction is that I have two reasons not to. And when someone doesn’t just say “trust me” but “trust me or I’ll vote against you” that doesn’t fill me with confidence. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/224 "2017-01-19T15:24:06Z")
Brewha, Does your switch PM say anything about other people with switches? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/225 "2017-01-19T15:42:40Z")
This switch gambit makes me nervous but since it’s Brewha’s neck on the line, if he’s fine with it, then that’s that. ---
**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 19, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/226 "2017-01-19T15:53:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And **sachertorte** , suppose that in your system, Bob casts his (initial, unofficial, tallied by us) votes for Frank and Mary. After the unofficial tally, it turns out that Mary and George got the most votes, and in the assignments to make that happen and push both over their respective thresholds, Bob is assigned to vote George. Mary comes up Town, and George comes up Scum. Do you really think that Bob won’t later say “Don’t blame me for Mary’s death; I voted for George”? Correct. I really don’t. The important record is the ‘unofficial tally’ as you call it, which would reflect that Bob pushed for Frank, not George. It would be public and for everyone to see just like ‘normal’ voting. > [@](#): > > Or people who remember it that way even though it’s wrong? Not worried about this either. We have plenty of sleuthing for people trying to duck the vote record (e.g., FOS but no vote!). I don’t think we would be so stupid as to look at the ‘normal’ vote and completely ignore the ‘unofficial tally.’ > [@](#): > > Or you’ll get people accidentally or deliberately misinterpreting who they’re “supposed” to vote for, or people refusing to go along and voting in ways that don’t match the scheme, or voting in a way specifically designed to foil the scheme, and so on. Even if we got enough players on board to theoretically make the scheme work, there would still be enough of these cases to sow confusion. That is a valid concern. I think we can overcome it. And of course attempts to rig the vote would be met with great suspicion and future Lynch pressure. Here is the bottom line thought process. There is a second Lynch. If it doesn’t happen, fine, I guess. I absolutely think we need it because scum have two kills. Normally, one Lynch is balanced by one scum night kill. That is the very essence of basic mafia. Here we have two scum kills. If we limit ourselves to only one Lynch per Day, then we are out gunned already. The mitigating factor is cross-kills, so maybe I’m overly worried. So far cross-kills hasn’t been a factor in our favor though. My other thought revolves around when the primary Lynch becomes obvious. For example, lets say we have an investigation that points out scum. Typically, we wind up piling on and have with nothing to talk about because the Lynch is clear. For this game, should a second Lynch be available we would be able to be productive that Day beyond the obvious Lynch. However, we would have the issue of who votes for the primary and who votes for the secondary. Those that vote for the primary can’t vote for the secondary. In other words, those that vote for the primary do not have a voice in the choice for the secondary Lynch. I consider this bad for many reasons. Therefore, I think it best to conduct a ‘straw poll’ for the second Lynch and Lynch accordingly, so that everyones thoughts and vote records are clear. From there, it isn’t much of a leap to apply this process to everyday multi-lynches. ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/227 "2017-01-19T15:54:30Z")
The scum teams each have a role that can monkey with switches. Each is a one time usage thing, but I’m concerned about trusting a switch to save someone after all this public declaration. AU-Batman probably would be better served striking out on their own than in attempting to… what, verify that someone has a switch? ---
**Author:** ![Biotop](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biotop/32/321_2.png) [@Biotop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biotop)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/228 "2017-01-19T15:59:30Z")
**Chronos,** what happened to your last scheme, the one where everyone was going to say whether they were third party or not? I like schemes. Hell, I love them. But how could this \*\*brewha \*\*/Batman scheme work? 1. I think it highly probable that \*\*brewha \*\*is Town. \*\*brewha \*\* as Scum making his switch claim makes no sense. 2. Batman would have to agree to go along for this scheme for it to work. That’s a big assumption. But ok, let’s say he or she does. 3. The other switch holder, if Town, would also have to agree, and hopefully not be among the 5 or 10 people not seemingly paying attention or not showing up to the game at all. If the other switch holder is Scum or 3rd Party, then \*\*Brewha \*\*likely dies. Perhaps we learn something about what happens to switches when a player dies. Perhaps we also give Scum or 3rd Party complete control over whether Batman’s future kills go through. Because if one switch holder dies, the other one controls the role switch until death of the power or death of the remaining switch holder, right? 4.Two Scum have the power to turn off all switches. One Town has the power to turn on all switches. Let’s hope they are all cooperating. Is there a master switch controlling 3rd party? Who knows? 1. Two Scum have the power to watch and see who targets a player. That puts a cooperative Batman in danger of being outed. 2. We give up any chance Batman actually killing any Scum tonight. Maybe I am letting my deep suspicions of \*\*Chronos \*\*cloud my judgement. **jsgoddess** , you say you like the plan. Please tell me what I am missing? For those of you who never have played in a game with switches, be sure to read storyteller’s Night 0, post#126. It gives a simple explanation, but is not easily found among the rules at the start of the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Scathach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Scathach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scathach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/229 "2017-01-19T16:03:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The two failure cases I can think of are, first, if **brewha** is Scum and one of his team (him or another; it matters little which) really does have the switch, in which case we might become inclined to incorrectly trust him, or second, if **brewha** is telling the truth, and really is a Townie with a Batman switch, but the other switch-holder is Scum, cancels out his switch, and lets him die. Or if brewha is Scum but still follows the plan? What incentive would they have not to? ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/230 "2017-01-19T16:11:21Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > (snip) > > \*\*Diggit: > > \*\*Vote: #249. Admits that it’s a weak vote, mirrors the same stuff about the “other team” slip. > > Unvote: #264. Diggit takes offense at Snfaulkner’s defense of Colby. But the defense, as we know now, was legit. He says “defense of another player is usually given whenever the culprit actually has superior information about the other player.” That holds a lot more truth when there’s only one scum team. NOBODY in this game knows who is actually town except for the Masons. Weak switch. > > (snip) 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** ---
**Author:** ![Biotop](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biotop/32/321_2.png) [@Biotop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biotop)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/231 "2017-01-19T16:18:19Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > Or if brewha is Scum but still follows the plan? What incentive would they have not to? If \*\*brewha \*\*is Scum I cannot see any reason for the claim. If he is Scum seeking Town cred, the other Scum may target him anyway. He has agreed to a scheme somewhat likely to lead to his own death. He is my biggest Town lean at this time. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/232 "2017-01-19T16:20:14Z")
Thanks, Biotop, for the link to this. I thought I had read this somewhere, but couldn’t find it. (If we ever do this again, could we have a mod info thread with all the rules, etc in one place?) > [@Mafia Reunion - NIGHT ZERO](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-night-zero/776315/126): > > In addition to the PMs shown at the location above, some players will receive an additional PM. In this game, certain powers will run off of switches, which are simple toggles. Each power is associated with two switches, each given to a different player. Activation or deactivation of these switches is an independent ability that can be performed at any Dawn or Dusk _as a separate action that does not prevent the player from using any personal abilities._ > > Additional information on switches may, or may not, be provided at a later date 🙂 **@Brewha** , This doesn’t really look consistent with what you told us about your PM. It talks about simple toggles. Could you look at your PM again? Or perhaps post it? \*\*@mods Do we learn about switches found in the possession of dead people? \*\* **@Diggit** Votes are in blue. Unvotes are in red. You might want to unvote and revote, if you want to make sure it’s counted. ---
**Author:** ![Scathach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Scathach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scathach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/233 "2017-01-19T16:21:27Z")
> [@Biotop](#): > > If \*\*brewha \*\*is Scum I cannot see any reason for the claim. If he is Scum seeking Town cred, the other Scum may target him anyway. He has agreed to a scheme somewhat likely to lead to his own death. He is my biggest Town lean at this time. I’m just saying that Chronos’s plan doesn’t really prove anything and in it’s worst case has the potential to waste a vig kill on a townie. In it’s best form it proves what? Not that brewha is town exactly. Possibly that brewha actually has a switch? Even then if the vig was targeted by a blocker or one of the one-shot “flip all switches” gets used the whole thing is moot. It’s a rube goldberg plan with no very obvious benefit. ---
**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 19, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/234 "2017-01-19T16:25:45Z")
> [@brewha](#): > > I didn’t want to ellude to a Magic Bag - so I’ll come out and completely claim. I’m a vanilla townie with a switch to a pro town role. What do I do with it? uhhhh, don’t tell us? :smack: In other news, since none of the dead players showed up with a switch, it seems that we do not receive information about switches upon a player’s death. So even if a switch becomes defunct by death, the other switch holder doesn’t immediately know and would still be uncertain of how to control the switch. But if we claim, then surviving switch holders will know how to use their switch perfectly, which is only useful if scum cooperate or two townies hold a switch pair. It looks to me that switch claiming is bad. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > This switch gambit makes me nervous but since it’s Brewha’s neck on the line, if he’s fine with it, then that’s that. I think it is a terrible plan and am shocked that brewha is okay with it. I just don’t see the point. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/235 "2017-01-19T16:26:54Z")
(oog) Hi; I a have been on the move for the past 3 days and am having the crazy malware thing on my phone when I try to visit the dope. will be home tonight and catch up by tomorrow. sinj ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/236 "2017-01-19T16:27:13Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > Brewha, Does your switch PM say anything about other people with switches? I don’t see any sense in paraphrasing. Here’s my Switch PM - word for word: > [@](#): > > Oh, one more thing. You also have a switch. It’s labeled “Alternate Universe Batman Switch”. Each Night, it begins in the “on” position and you may flip it to “off” or leave it alone. There is another switch like this out there, by the way. The switch PM came almost a day after my role PM. I gotta wonder how much the other switch is like mine. Is it an on to off only switch? Or is it an off to on switch? > [@TexCat](#): > > **@Brewha** , This doesn’t really look consistent with what you told us about your PM. It talks about simple toggles. Could you look at your PM again? Or perhaps post it? Not only is my PM not consistent with what Storyteller posted, it is also inconsistent with my Role PM which specifically stated that I had no other powers. I guess the switch PM after the role pm superseded this statement? ---
**Author:** ![LightFoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LightFoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LightFoot)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/237 "2017-01-19T16:27:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > [spoiler]I’m not certain that **brewha** ’s revelation necessarily makes him Town, but I am certain that it’s ballsy. I like that. And I think that, one way or the other, him saying that is going to end up helping Town. If he’s telling the truth, it’s already given us some information on the switches, and will probably give more as time goes on. For instance, if he dies, we’ll (maybe) find out what happens to switches held by dead players. It also, assuming that both Batman switches are held by Town, gives us the opportunity to coordinate their use to turn off the Vig, if we choose: We can say things like “ **brewha** should flip his switch and the other switcher should not”, or the like, when we couldn’t before say “Switcher one should flip his switch and switcher two should not”, because they wouldn’t know which of them was one or two. It also possibly paints a target on **brewha** , even though he’s a claimed vanilla Townie, which is probably good (and even better, of course, if he’s actually lying). > > Just brainstorming, here: What if we plan the following for toNight, that **brewha** flips his switch, the other switcher does not, and Batman targets **brewha**? If **brewha** is lying about holding the switch, and the real switch-holders don’t turn off Batman, then we have a dead liar, which is good. If **brewha** is telling the full truth, and the other switcher is also Town, then nobody gets hurt, and we have a reason to believe **brewha** (and also whoever eventually claims to be the other switcher). > > The two failure cases I can think of are, first, if **brewha** is Scum and one of his team (him or another; it matters little which) really does have the switch, in which case we might become inclined to incorrectly trust him, or second, if **brewha** is telling the truth, and really is a Townie with a Batman switch, but the other switch-holder is Scum, cancels out his switch, and lets him die. I don’t think that either of these failure cases is actually all that bad: In the first, **brewha** ’s team would be taking the chance that the other switch is held by the other Scum team, who is quite happy about the Vigilante successfully killing as long as it’s targeted at anyone but them, and who could thus foil the plan. In the second, we’d learn that the other Batman switcher was held by someone untrustworthy, which would tell us that the switches are not distributed in a symmetric manner. [/spoiler] > > We might well lose the services of the Vigilante for a night in this plan, but that’s OK, because a mandatory vig is probably a net liability to Town early in the game: An optional Vig at this point should probably be choosing not to kill anyway. Doesn’t this create a situation where a lot of powers will be focused on \*\* Brewa \*\* Won’t that be a tidy corral for identifying and later killing many. Think about that. ---
**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 19, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/238 "2017-01-19T16:27:49Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > \*\*@mods > Do we learn about switches found in the possession of dead people? \*\* > . What? Um… Hey did you see this awesome video? [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic869w93roI) Woo-hoo! ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/239 "2017-01-19T16:29:13Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > It’s a joke about WIFOM. :eek: … I can’t disagree. “Your genius is showing!” “It is? \ Where?! Where?!” ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/240 "2017-01-19T16:30:36Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > What? Um… Hey did you see this awesome video? > > [https://youtu.be/ic869w93roI](https://youtu.be/ic869w93roI) > > Woo-hoo! No Sir. I will not click your Mutual of Omaha’s “Life Cycle of the Red Herring” video. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=13)