# 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:** 27
**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 20, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/521 "2017-01-20T17:12:08Z")
I would be very surprised if there were 28 switches in the game. That seems like an awful unwieldy mass of switches. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/522 "2017-01-20T17:26:31Z")
Maha on switches: > [@Mahaloth](#): > > And no, they are not revealed at point of death. Some people still seem to be weighing switch plans because learning whether or not they are revealed upon death would have been new information. We can at least set this particular question aside. I had also noticed sachertorte’s seeming certainty that one of our dead townies had been in possession of a switch, prior to the above mod clarification. And you really think there are 28 or so switches out there? That strikes me as total moderation insanity, all on its own. From where I’m sitting, brewha gets a little benefit of the doubt because his apparent plan would try to leash Batman or at least try to mitigate his compulsive killing. Everyone else gets null tells from me about their switches. It did make sense to me to redact the scummy bits because wolves would not want to waste killing the Mafia switch holder and vice versa. So many good players not playing. So many in general not playing. ☹ I’ve had an unexpected week off of work so I’m keeping up alright and re-reading Yesterday/night a bit. Poking at Sario seems like a good idea for now but I will have more to say on substantive suspicions soon. **[color=blue]Vote sario** ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/523 "2017-01-20T17:27:57Z")
\*\* Vote sario \*\* ---
**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 20, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/524 "2017-01-20T17:38:00Z")
[quote=“Hoopy\_Frood, post:516, topic:777425”] [spoiler] > [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > I’ll tell you why it’s a bad idea. All Vanillas will claim vanilla. All Scum will claim vanilla. All town power roles will claim…well, what do they claim? > > If they claim non-vanilla, they’ve all just been exposed. > > If they claim vanilla, they’re now lying. (Granted, for a good reason, which is why I don’t like the “lynch all liars” policy some people have. Lying by town is okay, but you better be prepared to justify that lie.) And, if everyone claims vanilla, there’s no real data points. > > So yeah. Bad idea. Very bad idea. > > Yes, but most of that signal is covered by noise, because most of the time scum act like town. > > You might disagree with me that a vig is useful, but there’s a reason vigs rarely make it to end game. They’re extremely dangerous to scum as the pool of unconfirmeds narrows. In small games, compulsory vigs are far less useful because a few extra town kills at the wrong time can be devastating. A game this large mitigates that considerably. > > ```auto > > Now on a completely different note, something occurred to me. > > **What if there is a One Switch?** > > You know, all Lord of the Rings and such. One thing that has bugged me about some mafia games is mechanics that serve purely as WIFOM. I personally believe in Chekhov's gun when it comes to these things. Every mechanic should play a discoverable part in the game. While I most familiar with Storyteller's modding (and least familiar with Mahaloth's who apparently is the originator of the switch mechanic), I doubt the switches are just there for the various holders to play Mexican standoff with. Our mods are devious bastards (in the best possible way). I think there is a third party role out there of a Mad Bomber (or possibly Riddler from the ToeJam and Boozy's Batman game) who needs to find them and bring them all and in the darkness bind them. > > So with one possible exception which I'll mention below: PLEASE STOP CLAIMING YOU HAVE SWITCHES! > > This is to everyone regardless of alignment. Unless you want to hand the game over to a third party. > > For those who don't know what a mad bomber is, they come in various flavors, but the archetypal mad bomber was a role who each Night tagged a living player with a bomb. When a certain number of living players were tagged, the bombs would go off and the mad bomber would win the game. If a tagged player dies, their bomb no longer counts. The numbers/percentage of players needed differs. I've seen games where everyone living had to be tagged. Personally, I think that's pretty much an impossible goal. I've seen games where only half the living players need to be tagged. I've seen games where a specific number of living players need to be tagged (which is changed to all players if it happens that there are less living players than the original number). > > Now on to Riddler in Batman. He had a list of names of all characters in the game. And a few who weren't. He also had in his list the names of the scum cover roles. His goal was to submit each Day and each Night a number of players and the name of the role they actually had. (I think he got to choose 5 players and roles.) He would be told how many he had right (but not specifically which ones were right). If he figured it all out, he won the game and the rest of us would fight for second place. The mass name claim almost handed the game to him barring two issues: first, the scum used cover names, naturally, and second NAF as Penguin, leader of the Masons (though sort of a 3rd party in that he could also steal the win from town and the Masons if certain conditions were met) and Cookies switched names to thwart scum (and inadvertently Hal Briston's Riddler). The reason being that all Masons were named the same thing (Penguin Henchman #X, IIRC). So it was obvious that a name claim would out their roles as well. > > So anyway, I think we have something similar going on here. Someone in this game needs to know who has the switches. It's possible that person is tagging people currently, and we've just given that player a bit of a roadmap toward that goal. > > Now I will say that since we have an exposed town power switch, it might behoove the holder of the other switch to come out. It would certainly be a pro-town move to know who holds the reins of a pro-town power, and would likely buy the person who comes out some town cred, particularly the earlier they do so. (Since if scum control the other half of the vig power, they don't want Town to know this since Town can then take action against that switch holder.) > > However, I'm not sold on this idea because if we do have a Sauron of Switches, that brings that player closer to their goal. And unless we can confirm the holder of the second switch is town, we might have to kill them anyway for fear of scum controlling a town power. > > I think Brewha's claim was seriously anti-town. But I don't think he's scum for it. It doesn't really make sense as a scum play. I also don't think he or anyone who's claimed switches is our Sauron. > > Thoughts?[/spoiler] > > ``` I hadn’t thought about the game this way. Thanks. We had a 3rd party recently in a Giraffe game. \*\*HookerChemical \*\*was that 3rd party and had to identify the type of character each player was and move certain players based on that information. **Mahaloth** was a Town player urging everyone to claim character. Town won, but the 3rd party represented a serious danger. ---
**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 20, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/525 "2017-01-20T18:07:27Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Reiterating my one-off vote from yesterDay. > > vote Captain Klutz > > I really think his vote timing on septimus was such that he realized he was voting for a Town power role when he did it, because it came an hour and a half after septimus mentioned that he wouldn’t be around at EoD and would need to claim early if still a lynch leader. Seems like something Scum would try to take advantage of. I disagree. First, I don’t think Captain Klutz took into account septimus’s soft claim. Second, if I assume Captain Klutz did think septimus was a Town Power then scummy Captain Klutz would absolutely not vote for septimus. Voting for a Town Power after a claim?! If Klutz saw septimus’s post as a claim, he would assume others did too. No scum is going to vote that way since actually getting septimus lynched would be a long shot at best. > [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > So, I’m obviously good with ToeJam, but this is an old style reunion, and there’s one player who I have a tradition with. > > And he only posted 5 times yesterDay. And he didn’t vote. > > **vote Sario** > > for old times’ sake! O dear God. > [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > This is an extremely scummy post. Not because you’re voting me, because you’re indicating suspicion of Idle, saying it’s not enough to vote him (this part is fine), “carrying over” a vote from yesterday without any reasoning of why (this part may just be lazy, you may still have the same reasons), and then excusing yourself from the consequences if Idle is non-town. > > FOS Zeriel. So what are you saying? That Zeriel and Idle are scum together? And that Zeriel decided to specifically comment on his scum buddy out of the blue? > [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > This post pings me because of the mention of Lakai. Lakai I is dead, why are you repeating your suspicion of him? I’ve only ever seen scum do this. What is the reasoning that only scum would mention a dead player? > [@TexCat](#): > > And this post from jsgoddess is just wrong. Perhaps you don’t understand policy vote the same way that I do. Prof P voting for lurkers is a policy vote. He has no specific reason to think that they are scum, and is voting them mostly for being bad for the game or anti-town. > > I thought the wording from Colby was scummy. I thought the lurking after a few votes was suspicious. I thought his vote on Brewha was wretched. You clearly didn’t want me to just say that was Colby being Colby, like everyone else _now_ seems to think? > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/31): > > I thought it was obvious. For editing. Not because I think that Normal was necessarily hiding something with the edit, but it sets a bad precedent. I don’t approve of editing. I don’t like the apparent double standard here. (note the first TexCat quote is from Day 2, the second is from very early in Day 1.) TexCat is focused on Colby, but he (she? all kitties are she’s right?) absolutely put in a policy vote on Normal Phase for editing. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **BillMC** wall: > > 105 – The post calling out **Colby** that I quoted in my earlier post. > 217 – Fluff post about language differences. > 218 – Patsy could essentially make a 4 person masonry into 5 (Question for Bill–how, exactly? The Patsy wouldn’t know who the masons are.) Patsy claiming could be a lightning rod for all sorts of power roles. > 219 – Refers to **Colby** trying to “meh” out of being suspected as Scum in Dante’s game (Question for Bill–was he Scum in that game? And if so, what was the behavior he was getting heat for?) > 1000 – Apologizes for hectic stuff going on IRL. Again brings up **Colby** ’s behavior in Dante’s game. Doesn’t see the cases on ToeJam or Angel. Has an issue with the Chronos “I’m Town, not 3rd party” attempt at a mass claim. Says it’s pretty much pointless without a lie detector role. Says it seems like a 3rd party trying to achieve something for his win condition. > 1152 – Says gut instinct on **Colby** is Scum. Between **Lakai Mk. 1** and **ToeJam** , likes the Hooker case on ToeJam in 568. Votes ToeJam. Says he won’t be back online due to travel before EOD. > > And that’s it. Since I have five minutes to actually analyze this, seeing as there’s very little… > > The last two posts kind of seal the deal for me. Here we have a low-level poster, fairly fluffy but with occasional analysis, who somehow manages to be self-contradictory in just a handful of posts. He keeps bringing up how Colby acted in Dante’s game (but not what it actually meant, for those of us who didn’t play). He doesn’t vote for Colby, though, even though he FOSes him early, and then in his last post says his gut instinct is Scum. In post 1000 he says he doesn’t see the case on ToeJam or Angel, and then votes ToeJam in 1152 based on logic in a post that was made well before his post 1000, when he said he didn’t see a case on ToeJam. And all this despite saying that he thought someone else who he never actually voted for was Scum. > > Unvote Captain Klutz > Vote BillMC I like this analysis. Here are the relevant BILLMC posts: > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/1000): > > Sorry, rl is rather hectic at the moment. > Hopefully will have some time for a full read of d1 before end of day. > > Colby seems to be behaving pretty much the same way as on D1 in DanteG’s game - accused of being scum early on then being sulky/sarky. > > I’m not seeing much of a case on ToeJam or Angel. > > Tho the “I am [del]Groot[/del]Town” post from Chronos bothers me. > > #2 is effectively “always claim truthfully” - so we shoud all just follow Idle and Pleo and claim on day 1? ah but wait, chronos has already taken pleo to task for suggesting how to play. there have been plenty of times where town has falsely claimed to town advantage - suckering in the scum. Would the mafia and wolves just claim now please and make life much simpler for us all? > > But given the rules with 3rd party win conditions being evaluated last, there is no motivation for a 3rd party to claim > But as others have said, no one is going to state anything contrary to this - so what is the point? similar ploys have been used in the past where their have been lie detector type roles - but we know for a fact that there are no town or scum lie detector roles. > > So what is Chronos’ gain by everyone stating this? something to do with his own role/win condition? This smells like a 3rd party trying to achieve something. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/1152): > > My gut instinct on Cobly is that he’s scum. Between Lakai and Toejam, Hooker provides a cohernet argument for toejam in d1#568. Tho we seem to have a runaway train for Lakai. > > Vote: ToeJam > > unlikely to be online again before day end as I’ll be airborne. BILLMC is clearly inconsistent here with regard to ToeJam. The problem I have is whether that inconsistency is scummy behavior or just regular-run-of-the-mill townie flakiness. Perhaps Bill can explain his thought process. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/526 "2017-01-20T18:10:49Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > Does anyone else think this is likely the case? That each faction has three switches? One for their own power and one for a power of each opposing faction? If so, we have had three switches claim… I tend to put them in the townie column barring a counterclaim or further info. I think each mafia faction had their own conversation on this matter privately. And wouldn’t have needed to take the risk of claiming to further discussion on this topic. I think brewha, capt, and crys should consider block voting toDay while they are all still around… > > Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk I don’t think your logic holds. In the state we’re in, a switch claim with no target attached can’t be meaningfully counterclaimed, and it seems like a very safe thing (since it’s not a 100% certainty even if we had all the info) for a scum to admit to owning “a switch”. Elaborate if you can, but I don’t see any reason in your reasoning to believe a switch claimer is more likely to be town. ---
**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 20, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/527 "2017-01-20T18:15:33Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I had also noticed sachertorte’s seeming certainty that one of our dead townies had been in possession of a switch, prior to the above mod clarification. > > And you really think there are 28 or so switches out there? That strikes me as total moderation insanity, all on its own. Meh. If one of the dead players was scum then I could see my being accused of PIS, but all of them were town with no way for any other player to know their possession of a switch or not. I do think there are a lot of switches out there, and the Moderators are clearly insane. ---
**Author:** ![Koldanar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@Koldanar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koldanar)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/528 "2017-01-20T18:22:48Z")
Snipping of course. > [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > More content… good… **except it’s criticizing inner Stickler for having cast suspicion on Angel and Boozy** … and your second post was casting suspicion on angel… I thought the same thing as inner Stickler about the exchange between Angel and Boozy… if you were already suspicious of Angel, why would you dismiss inner sticklers suggestion and criticize him for making it? Bolding mine. I’m not criticizing for casting suspicion - I’m criticizing because he just threw in a casual, oh look, I think these two are in cahoots, and then left it there. At least some explanation of a comment like that is warranted. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/529 "2017-01-20T18:26:51Z")
> [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > We could even form other groups that are made up of people who are leaning toward each other being town and debate how they should vote as a group. I think now is too soon for this to work, but since we are down so many power roles already I thought about asking all nillas to claim. Scum are broken up into two groups, so there is the possibility of cross fire. We just haven’t seen it yet. Scum want to kill power roles and switch holders… if nillas claim it narrows down the pool for scum to hunt in but increases the chances they’ll hit each other. Brewha is gonna be killed if town… I suspect that Capt and Crys will be scum targets before too long too… this could be devastating for town… > > Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Wait a second. Okay, so not only do you want to form groups of unconfirmed people who vote as a block, but you want to do so willy-nilly based on people’s feelings? When the voting record is a prime source of scumhunting, thereby diluting any potential scum tells from votes among 3-4 people any one of whom may or may not be anything? That’s just superficially (because of your leadup with the switch nonsense) good enough and actually bad enough to merit this next move: **unvote AngeloftheNorth vote paulwhoisaghost** There’s not a lot of good reason for scum to hunt switch holders qua switch holders, either–we already know some of those switch holders are able to block townie powers, and unless a scum faction holds the mate to a particular switch, killing one switch holder merely gives absolute power to the not-them entity that holds the other one. With no death reveal of switches, as I seem to remember being said, that is a big cup of WIFOM for scum teams to go after in lieu of hunting our power roles. FOS remains on CaptainKlutz for making an unforced information error, and his defense of same doesn’t hold water to me. FOS remains on AngeloftheNorth, because of her attempt to set up a way to excuse poor play (Oh, I didn’t read the rules tee hee). ---
**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 20, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/530 "2017-01-20T18:40:56Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I disagree. First, I don’t think Captain Klutz took into account septimus’s soft claim. Second, if I assume Captain Klutz did think septimus was a Town Power then scummy Captain Klutz would absolutely not vote for septimus. Voting for a Town Power after a claim?! If Klutz saw septimus’s post as a claim, he would assume others did too. No scum is going to vote that way since actually getting septimus lynched would be a long shot at best. > > O dear God. > > So what are you saying? That Zeriel and Idle are scum together? And that Zeriel decided to specifically comment on his scum buddy out of the blue? > > What is the reasoning that only scum would mention a dead player? > > I don’t like the apparent double standard here. (note the first TexCat quote is from Day 2, the second is from very early in Day 1.) TexCat is focused on Colby, but he (she? all kitties are she’s right?) absolutely put in a policy vote on Normal Phase for editing. > I like this analysis. Here are the relevant BILLMC posts: > > BILLMC is clearly inconsistent here with regard to ToeJam. The problem I have is whether that inconsistency is scummy behavior or just regular-run-of-the-mill townie flakiness. Perhaps Bill can explain his thought process. I’m not accusing Zeriel and Idle of being scum together- in fact I don’t think they’re on the same team because if they were it would be imprudent for them to both vote me. I think they’re both non-town, and I think Zeriel is trying to get credit for not voting Idle if Idle flips town, and excuse himself from responsibility if Idle flips scum or PFK. The motivation for scum posting about dead players that flipped town after the flip is to say, “Look at me, I’m being so honest, there were my contemporaneous thoughts and I’m admitting I made a mistake.” Again, I have only ever seen scum do this. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/531 "2017-01-20T18:59:51Z")
There certainly can’t be a switch-pair for _every_ power role, because it doesn’t make sense for all roles to be “switched off”. What would a switched-off Mason be, for instance? My guess would be that they’re only for power roles with active abilities, and not necessarily even all of those (the description for the Investigative Reporter, for instance, made it sound like her power was absolute, not stopped by anything). ---
**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 20, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/532 "2017-01-20T19:09:59Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > The danger of the multilynch is that we risk running through our mislynches too quickly. I disagree. Multi-lynch gives us more Lynch opportunities. It isn’t as if we have some fixed number of lynches and that’s it. If we single-lynch each Day, we will have fewer Lynches in the game than if we multi-lynch. The number of Days in the game might be less, but the number of Lynches will still be greater. > [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > Can you explain this? I can see how it’s going to be necessary later on, but why do we need to use it now, when we really don’t know enough to use it wisely? I feel it falls under the same reasoning as why “No Lynch” is generally bad as well, which applies to the early game as well. Part of getting a better picture ‘later on’ is the vote record and results of the Lynch. More of that is better than less. I think of multi-lynch as sort of like two Days happening simultaneously. We wouldn’t “no Lynch” a Day, so why give up a second Lynch? And this ‘second-Lynch Day’ has the added bonus of no associated scum kills. ---
**Author:** ![BillMC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@BillMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BillMC)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/533 "2017-01-20T19:19:44Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > BILLMC is clearly inconsistent here with regard to ToeJam. The problem I have is whether that inconsistency is scummy behavior or just regular-run-of-the-mill townie flakiness. Perhaps Bill can explain his thought process. to wit: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19933761&postcount=361](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19933761&postcount=361) > [@BillMC](#): > > Well others have already mentioned the game I was referring to. As I said, I found his turn of phrase and behaviour odd. And as I also said, I was not going to be back online till after day end - so rather than placing a vote where it would make no difference, I chose between the cases on the two lynch leaders. ---
**Author:** ![Crys75](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3da27b/32.png) [@Crys75](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crys75)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/534 "2017-01-20T19:20:57Z")
Ok sorry for my inability to articulate my thoughts last night. I just think its weird that if you were going to redact something you would redact the role completely and not insert that its a scum power. Mainly because if I were scum and I saw this that person had a switch to control one of our powers I would take that person out first. In my eyes doing that puts a giant target on your back. The only reason I can see someone doing this is because they have nothing to worry about. Just that you had the switch because at this point it would give scum lots of targets to choose from, and I realize i probably have a target on my back also at this point. I am hesitant to disclose what power i have a switch for only because I don’t want to help scum suss out the switch powers any more than we already have. I know it potentially hides information from town, and this is bad, but I think losing too many switch holders is also bad. however as you can see my role pm is pretty much verbatim for what brewha has disclosed. [QUOTE=NAF1138] Knock knock knock There is someone at the door. It’s a delivery man! Sign here please. Thank you. You open up your package. Inside is a box with a label. The label says (redacted) switch. What does it do? The switch is currently in the on position. You can toggle it if you like each Night. The next Night it will reset itself. Oh and there is also a note that there is another one of these out there. Huh. They may effect each other. 😃 Have fun with your gift! [/QUOTE] However at least one of the other pm’s was quite a bit different wording but the meaning was the same. I however don’t have the same switch as what Brewha posted. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/535 "2017-01-20T19:28:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But the thing is, there are at least 14 people in this game that we _should_ suspect, and getting out information about that helps Town in the long run. I think that we should all be striving, not just to vote for one person, but to also make clear somehow a significant number of other people we consider worthy of votes. We don’t necessarily need to format them as votes, like **Pleonast** did, but there should be a lot more FOSes flying around than there are. @Chronos, regarding too few suspicions, do you have a shortlist of 14? I’ve got 5-6 leans so far (toejam, crys, drain, inner, pleo, brewha, sario, oh and prof p, scathach, zeriel, and there’s that lingering N0 suspicion on boozy and jsgoddess), oh, now that I type them out, that’s actually more than 6, closer to 14 - so I see what you mean, and I’m only on page 1 toDay. ---
**Author:** ![Crys75](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3da27b/32.png) [@Crys75](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crys75)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/536 "2017-01-20T19:33:22Z")
[quote=“Hoopy\_Frood, post:516, topic:777425”] > [@paulwhoisaghost](#): > > I’ll tell you why it’s a bad idea. All Vanillas will claim vanilla. All Scum will claim vanilla. All town power roles will claim…well, what do they claim? > > If they claim non-vanilla, they’ve all just been exposed. > > If they claim vanilla, they’re now lying. (Granted, for a good reason, which is why I don’t like the “lynch all liars” policy some people have. Lying by town is okay, but you better be prepared to justify that lie.) And, if everyone claims vanilla, there’s no real data points. > > So yeah. Bad idea. Very bad idea. > > Yes, but most of that signal is covered by noise, because most of the time scum act like town. > > You might disagree with me that a vig is useful, but there’s a reason vigs rarely make it to end game. They’re extremely dangerous to scum as the pool of unconfirmeds narrows. In small games, compulsory vigs are far less useful because a few extra town kills at the wrong time can be devastating. A game this large mitigates that considerably. > > ```auto > > Now on a completely different note, something occurred to me. > > **What if there is a One Switch?** > > You know, all Lord of the Rings and such. One thing that has bugged me about some mafia games is mechanics that serve purely as WIFOM. I personally believe in Chekhov's gun when it comes to these things. Every mechanic should play a discoverable part in the game. While I most familiar with Storyteller's modding (and least familiar with Mahaloth's who apparently is the originator of the switch mechanic), I doubt the switches are just there for the various holders to play Mexican standoff with. Our mods are devious bastards (in the best possible way). I think there is a third party role out there of a Mad Bomber (or possibly Riddler from the ToeJam and Boozy's Batman game) who needs to find them and bring them all and in the darkness bind them. > > So with one possible exception which I'll mention below: PLEASE STOP CLAIMING YOU HAVE SWITCHES! > > This is to everyone regardless of alignment. Unless you want to hand the game over to a third party. > > For those who don't know what a mad bomber is, they come in various flavors, but the archetypal mad bomber was a role who each Night tagged a living player with a bomb. When a certain number of living players were tagged, the bombs would go off and the mad bomber would win the game. If a tagged player dies, their bomb no longer counts. The numbers/percentage of players needed differs. I've seen games where everyone living had to be tagged. Personally, I think that's pretty much an impossible goal. I've seen games where only half the living players need to be tagged. I've seen games where a specific number of living players need to be tagged (which is changed to all players if it happens that there are less living players than the original number). > > Now on to Riddler in Batman. He had a list of names of all characters in the game. And a few who weren't. He also had in his list the names of the scum cover roles. His goal was to submit each Day and each Night a number of players and the name of the role they actually had. (I think he got to choose 5 players and roles.) He would be told how many he had right (but not specifically which ones were right). If he figured it all out, he won the game and the rest of us would fight for second place. The mass name claim almost handed the game to him barring two issues: first, the scum used cover names, naturally, and second NAF as Penguin, leader of the Masons (though sort of a 3rd party in that he could also steal the win from town and the Masons if certain conditions were met) and Cookies switched names to thwart scum (and inadvertently Hal Briston's Riddler). The reason being that all Masons were named the same thing (Penguin Henchman #X, IIRC). So it was obvious that a name claim would out their roles as well. > > So anyway, I think we have something similar going on here. Someone in this game needs to know who has the switches. It's possible that person is tagging people currently, and we've just given that player a bit of a roadmap toward that goal. > > Now I will say that since we have an exposed town power switch, it might behoove the holder of the other switch to come out. It would certainly be a pro-town move to know who holds the reins of a pro-town power, and would likely buy the person who comes out some town cred, particularly the earlier they do so. (Since if scum control the other half of the vig power, they don't want Town to know this since Town can then take action against that switch holder.) > > However, I'm not sold on this idea because if we do have a Sauron of Switches, that brings that player closer to their goal. And unless we can confirm the holder of the second switch is town, we might have to kill them anyway for fear of scum controlling a town power. > > I think Brewha's claim was seriously anti-town. But I don't think he's scum for it. It doesn't really make sense as a scum play. I also don't think he or anyone who's claimed switches is our Sauron. > > Thoughts? > > ``` Yeah the more switchers out there stop claiming. It’s obviously not helping I claimed mostly because I don’t feel that Brewha is someone to worry about at the moment. I only claimed because my pm is verbatim to what Brewha’s is with the exception of the role. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/537 "2017-01-20T19:35:53Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > On the contrary, Colby should always play as Colby so that we all realise that he ALWAYS gets accused of scum slips and is usually town. I presume he was a friendly fire though in this game. Meh, he could simply realize that this is a game where every post, comment and punctuation mark is going to be scrutinized by 54 pairs of eyes and so he should be a little less careless in his wording if he wants to play and survive. It’s anti-game to keep on making slips that make him look like scum when he’s town and hand waving his behavior as “that’s just Colby” is enabling him and giving him cover for when he’s actually scum… ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/538 "2017-01-20T19:50:48Z")
**brewha is a liar.** [Back on D1.475](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19911316&postcount=475), right after I had first pointed out the switch roles and speculated that each faction’s switches were controlled by the other two, he said > [@](#): > > If I’m following you, your assumption is that: > > A power town role will be controlled by one switch held by the mafia and one switch held by a wolf > > A power wolf role will be controlled by one town switch and one mafia switch > > A power mafia role will be controlled by one town switch and one wolf switch > And while I don’t see a reason to not believe that - I have no evidence to the contrary - it seems like it’ll make for an incredibly difficult to operate game mechanic. I don’t see how any of the switch holders can know what their switches do without knowing that the other faction also has flipped their switch. But now, he says that he does have evidence to the contrary: He says that he’s a Townie and has a switch for a Town power role. Unless and until he comes up with a very good explanation of this, I will **Vote brewha** ---
**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 20, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/539 "2017-01-20T19:57:19Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > As promised a current player list > > AngeloftheNorth > BillMc > Biotop > Boozahol Squid, P.I. > brewha > bufftabby > Captain Klutz > Chronos > Colby11 > ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies > crys75 > DiggitCamara > Drain Bead > EnderW24 > Guiri > Hal Briston > hawkeyeop > Hockey Monkey > HookerChemical > Hoopy Frood > Idle Thoughts > Inner Stickler > Johnny Bravo > jsgoddess > Khameleon > Koldanar > Lakai > LightFoot > Meeko > MHaye > Nanook of the North Shore > Nesta > Paulwhoisaghost > Pleonast > Plumpudding > Precambrian mollusc > Prof. Pepperwinkle > Raventhief > Red Skeezix > Sachertorte > Sario > Scathach > sinjin > snfaulkner > Sunny Daze > Texcat > Thing Fish > Toejam > Total Lost > Zeriel > Players who have yet to post toDay and are potentially going to get killed or subbed > Hal Briston > Precambrian mollusc > Red Skeezix > Toejam > Total Lost > > Which is pretty disappointing. But, it is what it is. Colby is still on your list. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/540 "2017-01-20T20:04:14Z")
> [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > I’m not accusing Zeriel and Idle of being scum together- in fact I don’t think they’re on the same team because if they were it would be imprudent for them to both vote me. I think they’re both non-town, and I think Zeriel is trying to get credit for not voting Idle if Idle flips town, and excuse himself from responsibility if Idle flips scum or PFK. Excuse nothin’. I explicitly think **Idle** is more likely than many to flip PFK, I just can’t prove it enough to vote for him with any kind of a coherent case. This is strikingly Rovian–you accusing me of doing something that will allow me to excuse a bad decision when I have had a vote on you for exactly that same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=28)