# 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:** 7
**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 18, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/121 "2017-01-18T18:46:52Z")
Omnibus post again. Sorry I can’t participate more frequently, but I want to make the contributions I do make useful. I’m reading through Day and Night One afresh, with the knowledge of the alignment of the dead. If my notes are correct: Town: **Lakai** **Normal Phase** **septimus** **Suburban Plankton** **colby11** > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/35): > > > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/33): > > > > From my count the following players did not post to Night0 at all. \*\* > > > > AngeloftheNorth > > Nesta > > Lakai > > DaphneBlack > > Hal Briston > > Winston Smith \*\* > > > > I hope they are in the game. > > I don’t see the point here. Either they’re playing or they aren’t. The game hadn’t actually started in Night Zero. This comes across as a bit too “helpful townie” to me. Gah, this still pings me badly. There is no threshold above which being helpful to Town is too much. Calling out players for being helpful to Town is by definition anti-Town. I’m having trouble seeing any Towny motivation for this. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/253): > > [Link to my original post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19906400&postcount=192) > > > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/241): > > > > Because I’m concerned about what Scum might do. Each Scum team is figuring out how to counter town roles on their own boards. Why should we help them by discussing what we might do? > > > > Instead, let’s talk about what _they_ might do, so that each town role can better decide for themself (without possibly accidently revealing their tactics here) what to do about it. > > > > (An aside: have so many of us forgotten how scum play the game?) > > The above reply to me is snipped from a larger **Pleonast** post. > > That doesn’t address the issue at all. It’s one thing to think of a possible Scum strategy and come up with ways to counter it (which might very well involve advising Town power roles on how they should play). But if you think of a good Scum strategy which you\* can’t\* identify a way to counter, why would you bring that up? It’s just doing the scum’s work for them. > > Ordinarily, I would just see this as poor play without scum motivation; if you were really scum wanting to discuss strategy with your teammates, you could just do it on the scum board. But in the case of this particular strategy, which involves _not reading_ the scum board, there is obvious scum motivation. It reads to me like you could be scum advising your teammates on how to play and/or hinting to them that you are that seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat. I missed something when I first read this, probably because I was distracted by the aggressiveness. There seems to be some underlying “perfect” information that only Scum would have. First, what is meant by “this particular strategy”? I don’t see what it’s referring to. Second, the “scum advising your teammates on how to play and/or hinting to them that you are that seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat”. While Scum roles do not include teammate information, we have no indication whether or not their secret boards include teammate information. But **Thing Fish** does know that. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/265): > > > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/259): > > > > for trying to turn an anthill into Everest. > > Just to be clear, you’re voting me because I **answered the question you directed at me?** On re-read, this post really bothers me. It’s too defensive and misrepresents what **bufftabby** said. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/401): > > Push as much as you want, I’m not gonna place a vote now if I don’t feel it’s a worthwhile one. If you have a problem with that, place down a vote or piss off. I apparently missed this before. Taunting another player for calling them out for anti-Town behavior. Votes, and reaction to votes, is the best info we have in the early game. Why be so aghast for being called out for not engaging? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ This is taking to long… Going to have skip ahead to Night 1. I’ll try to finish reading Day 1 later. > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/1414): > > This thread is so long, apologies if you’ve addressed this already, but are you planning to continue voting for multiple people even though only the first vote will ‘count’? Yes. All I have to offer is my analyses, so I’m going to make them as clear as possible. Plus, I find having an explicit list prevents me from getting tunnel vision. I think too many players find someone to vote for and park it there. That’s lazy and does little to help us. If it makes you feel better, I’ll not color them blue. > [@AngeloftheNorth](#): > > Idle hates playing scum, and all of this is circumstantial evidence of being scum to me. I hate meta-arguments, but this exact one has been bothering me. > [@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. I appreciate **jsgoddess** doing so. They were reiterating their suspicions from the previous Day. Calling out one’s own mistakes is not anti-Town. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ My votes, in no order except most suspicious first: **unvote** **vote Thing Fish** for knowledge about secret Scum boards in D1.253. **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. **What players will potentially be subjected to moderator action at the end of Day 2 due to lack of participation?** I see no good reason to lynch anyone on that list. On the other hand, I do see good reason to lynch anyone who’s participating little and not on it. (Yeah, I’m probably subject to that; so be it.) **vote Idle Thoughts** for participating just enough to avoid the mod-hammer but otherwise contributing almost nothing for us to work with. ---
**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 18, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/122 "2017-01-18T18:47:52Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I’m starting to wonder if Angel and Boozy aren’t putting on a show for us. That’s kind of a bullshit, end-around FOS there, **Stickler**. What, if it turns out **Angel’s** scum, now you’re setting up a case to accuse someone who’s been pointing out her scumminess? Seems like a great way to discourage spirited conversation. ---
**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 18, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/123 "2017-01-18T18:55:21Z")
I’m still catching up, but I’ll comment on things as they occur to me. The Chronos Town-claim thing: I view the exercise as pointless but there are a few nuggets that might prove useful. First, a side story – A long time ago there was a game where due to some moderator error, the game needed to be restarted. As a result some players saw scum role PM’s from the first try, but may not have been scum in the second try. I recall asking two of those players for PM information. One complied; the other refused. In comparing the two, I found the compliant player to be too accommodating and the non-compliant player to be carefree about not supplying information and suspicious of me for asking. The two behaviors were very different and illustrated the strong desire for scum to LOOK like Town. The compliant player (NAF I believe) was scum. The non-compliant player was Town. Anyway, I think those that outright and vocally resisted are more likely to be Town. My reasoning is that scum are not going to want to resist and stating townness is remarkably easy. Townies, however, are more motivated to be suspicious of Chronos and don’t give a fuck about ‘looking scummy.’ Off the top of my head that is sinjin, Suburban(deceased), Normal Phase(deceased), and BillMc. I’ll have to re-read to get all the names. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/124 "2017-01-18T19:00:03Z")
A few thoughts (and I see we’re back to being busy beavers on the thread count): 1. **Idle** came in at one point and stated that he would sub out if he couldn’t participate more, so I’m not ready to lynch him based on Day 1 being typical or not. 2. If the wolves killed **Colby** and Batman vigged Burby, does that change anything in our analysis? I’m basing my thoughts solely on the descriptions of the death, which may or may not be valid. **Burby** was beaten to death, which seems like a Batman way to go. **Colby** ’s death was quite a bit more, if you’ll pardon the description, visceral. This seems wolfy. Death description here. Spoilered for length. > [@Mahaloth](#): > > Day dawned just like….the dawning of a new day. It was……dayish. Very dayish. Everyone was super refreshed and ready to go, some even looked like entirely different people….weird. > > One poor soul, however did not make it through the Night. His burby little body was twisted up in a mangled mess…he kind of looked like he died in a lot of pain. Or he just always looked like that; it’s an internet game and we have no idea what people look like. > > **[COLOR=“Blue”]Suburban Plankton is now dead. He was the Homicide Detective.** > > They moved into the local town hall, figuring a death like that deserved some discussion. As role call was being taken, someone started asking if everyone could speed things up because some lazy bastard hadn’t fixed the leaky roof in the town hall yet and he didn’t like getting wet from the rain that was currently dripping on his head. It was then pointed out by someone else, that while it might be overcast, it certainly wasn’t raining. Then, someone else pointed down and showed that the liquid was red colored. Another person pointed up… and there was Colby11. Around his neck tied in a noose were the parts of his small intestine that weren’t still inside his sliced open abdomen. His feet were turned towards the right like two compass needles; north, north-east, east, south-east, south, south-south-west; then paused, and, after a few seconds, turned as unhurriedly back towards the left. South-south-west, south, south-east, east…you get the idea. > > \*\*Colby11 is now dead. He was a vanilla townsperson. \*\* > > Well, I guess that means we should get things going. Where does that leave us? > > Two town-aligned players died during the Night. **Therefore, you have the ability to lynch two people if you wish. The top vote getter will definitely die. For the second person to die, the second place vote getter must reach 17 votes.** And in case you are wondering, if “no lynch” is the top vote getter, no one dies no matter what/who comes in second place. > > It is now Day 2. Day 2 will end at 3:00 on Sunday, January 22. [Here is a countdown to that time.](https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?iso=20170122T15&p0=77&msg=End+of+Day+2&font=hand) > > Have fun. > > [/COLOR] I could see the wolves acting on the assumption that **Colby** might be town, and taking him out. I don’t know what triggered Batman, if I’m right. I accused **SP** of being scum, in post 920 of the Day 1 thread, but my logic no longer held by that Night. I need to go back and look through the thread to see if there were other accusations or FOS against **SP** that might have triggered a vig kill. If I’m right that scum killed **Colby** , then looking at the vote shifts _might_ still tell us something. 1. At this point, other players might get my vote over **ToeJam** but that’s simply because they’re actually participating and therefore saying things that get my Spidey senses tingling. It seems unfair to penalize participation unless I see something completely egregious. **ToeJam** has said nothing. I’m going to have to weigh that against everything else. For now, my vote will stay where it is. The Day is young. ---
**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 18, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/125 "2017-01-18T19:04:54Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Gah, this still pings me badly. There is no threshold above which being helpful to Town is too much. Calling out players for being helpful to Town is by definition anti-Town. I’m having trouble seeing any Towny motivation for this. Some posters have had some success scumhunting by finding posters who are generically ‘helpful’, posting vote counts, answering questions about standard practices, lingo and roles and so on so they develop a townie sheen over a scummy interior. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes. All I have to offer is my analyses, so I’m going to make them as clear as possible. Plus, I find having an explicit list prevents me from getting tunnel vision. I think too many players find someone to vote for and park it there. That’s lazy and does little to help us. If it makes you feel better, I’ll not color them blue. It does, thank you. > [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > That’s kind of a bullshit, end-around FOS there, **Stickler**. What, if it turns out **Angel’s** scum, now you’re setting up a case to accuse someone who’s been pointing out her scumminess? Seems like a great way to discourage spirited conversation. What is spirited to you looks rather aggressive to me. You and Angel kicked up a lot of dust in the D1 thread and looked to be starting a redux here. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/126 "2017-01-18T19:12:26Z")
Pleonast, while I’m not saying Thing Fish couldn’t be scum, I’ll admit that early in Day 1, I too made the assumption that the other factions have boards to discuss strategy. I don’t recall if anyone specifically called me out on it, though. I realized afterwards that the rules do not specifically state that to be the case. But it seemed like a natural assumption to make given my experience that every other game I’ve played in allows scum to participate off-site and I can’t fault others for leaping to the same conclusion. If your experience has been different, I can understand your suspicion. ---
**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 18, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/127 "2017-01-18T19:28:07Z")
People need to reread the rules more often when they plan to call people out for PIS. From the Godfather role, which was the first place I could find it. “As the leader of the Mafia team, you may meet with your troops at a location to be provided under separate cover to discuss strategy by Day or by Night. Each Day, your team must select a target for its Day kill and post it in red at your private board; if your team is unable to reach consensus on a kill, yours is the final word on the matter.” Knowing the scum have a place to chat isn’t PIS, it’s reading the rules provided to us. More after lunch! ---
**Author:** ![Hockey\_Monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Hockey\_Monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hockey_Monkey)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/128 "2017-01-18T19:32:15Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > A few thoughts (and I see we’re back to being busy beavers on the thread count): > > 1. **Idle** came in at one point and stated that he would sub out if he couldn’t participate more, so I’m not ready to lynch him based on Day 1 being typical or not. > > 2. If the wolves killed **Colby** and Batman vigged Burby, does that change anything in our analysis? I’m basing my thoughts solely on the descriptions of the death, which may or may not be valid. **Burby** was beaten to death, which seems like a Batman way to go. **Colby** ’s death was quite a bit more, if you’ll pardon the description, visceral. This seems wolfy. > > Death description here. Spoilered for length. > > I could see the wolves acting on the assumption that **Colby** might be town, and taking him out. > > I don’t know what triggered Batman, if I’m right. I accused **SP** of being scum, in post 920 of the Day 1 thread, but my logic no longer held by that Night. I need to go back and look through the thread to see if there were other accusations or FOS against **SP** that might have triggered a vig kill. > > If I’m right that scum killed **Colby** , then looking at the vote shifts _might_ still tell us something. > > 1. At this point, other players might get my vote over **ToeJam** but that’s simply because they’re actually participating and therefore saying things that get my Spidey senses tingling. It seems unfair to penalize participation unless I see something completely egregious. **ToeJam** has said nothing. I’m going to have to weigh that against everything else. For now, my vote will stay where it is. The Day is young. I don’t think we should rely on color to tell us any definitive information on who killed who. It makes more sense to me that the wolves would have left Colby alone since he had significant suspicion and had a high chance of being lynched versus them wasting a kill on him. It also makes more sense to me that the vig would take him out being that he was high on the list of scum possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/129 "2017-01-18T19:35:29Z")
> [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/95): > > I missed that in my reading. But I do agree - strange way to phrase it indeed. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/105): > > yes that stood out to me as well “the other team” is a very strange turn of phrase to use here. > > we’re on the 3rd page of day 1 and Idle hasn’t claimed yet? most suspicious! These two quotes are from D1, in response to the nascent bandwagon on Colby11. I’ve long been a proponent of the idea that “Scum slips” of the nature we saw D1 are rarely actually done by Scum at all, and it’s more likely that those who actually point out the “slip” are Scum, especially once the person who made the slip comes up Town. Since this “slip” occurred very early in D1, it gives us an interesting opportunity to see both an early bandwagon, and the long-developing reactions to it. I have a couple of hours to devote to walls of words, and since **Plumpudding** has already so kindly done one on **TexCat** (the first to point out the “slip” and vote for it), I’ll do it on the two I also found suspicious—the ones who saw it early, commented on it, but didn’t vote. In retrospect, it’s even more suspicious than I found it yesterDay, because now we know that **Colby11** was Town. So here’s some walls on **Total Lost** and **BillMC**. **Total Lost** 14 – Asking **NP** what post was edited. 86 – Editing is scummy. Also, N0 was part of the game and asking about it is fair game. 87 – a list of quoted posts from N0 she found important 88 – ToeJam more scummy than Boozahol Squid for similar behavior, thinks those voting/FOSing the latter should comment on the former. 89 – Questioning snfaulkner on a vote for Angelofthenorth when they’d been FOSing Squid, asking **Suburban Plankton** why he wanted to make a random vote. 95 – Above quoted call-out of **Colby11** 109 – Didn’t know ToeJam = Roosh 111—Asks **septimus** , who unvoted Pleonast to vote for **Colby11** , whether he still thinks Pleo looks scummy 112—Asks **Normal Phase** to clarify her opinion on the idea that scum slips usually aren’t, reiterates that she’s not sure what to think of **Colby11** yet, but wants to know what others think of the phrasing he used. 117 – Interaction with me, taking a closer look at the **Colby11** wagon, disagreeing that 3 votes and 2 FOSes in 117 posts is a “bandwagon” yet. Says a slip vote is stronger than a policy vote or lynch the lurker, but still not voting because she’s waiting for **Colby11** ’s response. 119—Thanks **septimus** for answering question she posed in 111. 138 – Says that ToeJam and Boozy pinged her but was still interested in the fact that their similar actions resulted in different reactions from those who were pinged by only one. Says that **Normal Phase** and Guiri gave good answers to that, so far. 150 – Uses a dotchan post in Super Mario Mafia (saying “did my kill go through?”) as an example of a successful Scum slip that resulted in Scum being lynched. Says slips might indicate Scum. 224—Clarifies that her use of the word “actions” in a previous post didn’t mean actual in-game actions. 228—Still talking about the difference between the reactions to ToeJam and Boozy. 230 – With 2 scum teams, whether **Colby11** is Town or Scum, there is most likely Scum voting for him now. If he flips Town, both Scum teams probably have members on his wagon, if Scum, most likely it’s just members of the “other” scum team. But pretty sure there’s scum voting for him by now. 263 – Asks if I’m referring to her and BillMC when I talk about the two players who FOSed **Colby11** without voting for him. 268 – Asks low-post-count voters Plumpudding and DiggitCamara (the latter of whom was voting for **Colby** at the time, not sure about PP at this point in my writing) to comment on other things that are going on in the game. 273—Votes **septimus** , essentially getting that wagon off the ground. Reasoning is that he unvoted **Colby** and said it’s anti-town to bandwagon early on Day 1 for flimsy reasons, but also had said that the slip was the biggest ping (while still being weak). I’m having a hard time parsing this post. At the end she accuses **septimus** of snuggling Angelofthenorth and **Normal Phase** , and doesn’t like it. 277 – Joke post. 280 – Was asked if she’d ever played with **septimus** before, isn’t sure, asks why. 343 – Asks **Colby11** directly why he used the “other team” phrasing. Wonders if it’s that English is her second language. 489 – Thanks **Normal Phase** for saying that **Colby** ’s phrasing is fairly common. Second half is a joke post. 490—Says she spends 1-2 hours reading and .5-1 hour posting in the game per day. Asks **septimus** if he’s familiar with the NAF theory of the 3rd vote on a townie wagon. In response to **septimus** saying that he would vote for the one with the fewest votes if there were two lynch candidates about whom he felt equally, she asks that anyone doing this clearly say they’re doing it, to make sure we clear up any confusion. Calls **septimus** out on soft-claiming powers. 491—asks **septimus** if he thinks a “Scum would never do that” argument has merit. 492—Likes a post from **Suburban Plankton** about voting policy (vote for who you think is scum because unvotes are cheap, don’t base your vote on who other players are voting for this early in the game or Day) 493—Gets into an exchange with Angelofthenorth about not reading the rules. Says that when called on it, she said it’s so anti-Town that Scum would never do it. Unvotes **septimus** and votes Angel. 494—(Six game posts in a row—this is getting painful!) Agrees with Lightfoot that Angelofthenorth had no easily-understandable reason for not reading the rules and then posting that she hadn’t. 496—Says that an addendum to NAF’s theory is that it only works if the player with the third vote isn’t familiar with the theory that the third voter on a Townie wagon is Scum. 504—Prods non-voters into voting. 535 –Responds to Angelofthenorth saying that her usual play style is not this careless. 537—Vote for Angel is not for being anti-town or not reading the rules, it’s for saying that what she did was anti-Town but using the “Scum wouldn’t do that” defense, trying to make it look like she was more likely to be Town for something that was probably a null tell. 543—Says that she realizes Angel didn’t OMGUS her, and Angel was instead complaining about the other two votes on her, rather than TL’s. (Sorry, was having a hard time phrasing this) 548 – More back and forth with Angel, about whether or not changes in playstyle can be a tell in a game of this size, when the size of the game could easily be what is affecting the changes in playstyle. 555—Says the names she’s used on other boards. 570 – Repeats her reasoning for her vote on Angel, makes a joke. 591 – Asks **septimus** again if he was soft-claiming, because he didn’t answer. 592 – Posts the rules for Angel. 595 – Doesn’t like using past behavior or playstyle as a guide for determining whether or not a person is Scum in this game, especially when players are doing it on behalf of other players, not themselves. Wonders if it’s a form of snuggling, questions validity of that sort of data. 619—Previous rant about using previous games as a metric for current game is not part of her reasoning for voting Angel. 652—Says that she asked **septimus** about the soft claim because she saw it and didn’t want a Townie to waste a power on him. Was not concerned whether or not Scum had seen it too. Not a fan of soft claims. 653 – Apologizes for typos 654 – NETA to fix typo and add clarity to 652. 666—Doesn’t want **septimus** to claim, wants him to say if he meant to soft claim or not. 667—In response to Plumpudding misremembering which player did a thing in a previous game, reiterates that she hates using that sort of meta-info in the current game. 671—Still pushing **septimus** on the soft claim issue. Asks him if he’s not familiar with the terminology. 672—self-labeled fluff post. _Gets her first vote, from Raventhief, in 679_ 684—Says she’s not fishing by asking whether or not **septimus** is soft claiming. 685—Fluff 687—Dislikes the raventhief vote on her because she says she’s not trying to force a claim from **septimus** , is instead just asking if he meant to soft claim or not. _ **septimus** claims in 690_ 692—Again says she didn’t ask **septimus** to confirm a claim, just asking if he meant to soft claim or if it was an accident. Says he could have answered no. 695—In response to Plumpudding saying she was trying to get information out of **septimus** , says “This game really changed while I was away.” 699—Asks Plumpudding whether he’s sure that **septimus** was claiming, and why that is. 702—Says that asking whether or not something was meant for a soft claim is not more concrete than the soft claim itself. Trying to make a claim more concrete would have been asking for details, which she was not. 704—We still don’t know that it was intended to be a soft claim, not sure why everyone is assuming it was. _Gets her second vote, from jsgoddess, in 716_ 815 – Apologizes for misgendering NP 818—Finally interacts again with **septimus**. Still wants to know if it was intended as a soft claim or if she was misreading it. Says that it might not mean anything to the game but means something to her (Not sure what this means, TL, can you clarify?). Says she would not have unvoted him if he’d claimed to be a Town power role but hadn’t claimed which one. Mentions a NAF theory that Town Power roles play it safe to try to stay off Scum radar and instead generally fall under risk of lynch for looking scummy. Reiterates that she never asked for a full claim from **septimus**. 833 – Wanted to know whether it was intended to be a soft claim so she could learn from it. “But never mind. It can wait until after the game.” (Again, not sure what you meant by the quoted part here, TL, can you clarify?) _unvoted by Raventhief in 912_ _unvoted by jsgoddess in 1129_ 1333 (First post of N1) Says that she spent the weekend away from the game, will reread. Okay, I’m back. That took a lot longer than I thought it would. Worried the post is too long. Going to try to get the wall done on Bill, then will comment. I only have 25 minutes left on my computer, then I’m back to phone posting until tomorrow, and these get hard on the phone. ---
**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 18, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/130 "2017-01-18T19:36:33Z")
I have vague recollections that conventional wisdom says barring a better target, a town vig is smart to target the second highest vote getter, no? ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/131 "2017-01-18T19:57:54Z")
That would have been **ToeJam** , correct? So perhaps we have third party death and not Vig? ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/132 "2017-01-18T19:58:46Z")
**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** ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/133 "2017-01-18T20:03:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You said you didn’t think Normal Phase actually did anything with scum motivation, but that you were going to vote for her anyway. If someone votes for someone they don’t have any reason to think is scum, I think that’s a lousy vote with poor motivation. Prof. P thinks (I think!) he’s more likely to hit scum by aiming at lurkers. I don’t know that he’s right, but that’s what he thinks (I think!). _You didn’t seem to think Normal Phase was more likely to be scum._ > > I don’t care if someone bases their own vote on how they read a person’s words. What bothers me is when someone says, what feels like “I’m vouching for this person to you because this person does X all the time.” > > I didn’t comment on your vote for Colby, to be clear. I didn’t have a problem with it. Yes, he turned out to be Town, but I thought the case on him was reasonable and had more than one bit of evidence for it. He said something weird, then reacted weirdly when called on it. Ahhhh. I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, my vote on Normal was a policy vote for the flagrant editing. It wasn’t there very long, and I never intended for it to be my final vote. > [@Plumpudding](#): > > You’re misinterpreting me, or mischaracterizing what I said. This was directly aimed at TexCat, specifically. TexCat has recent experience playing with Colby. She did not address Colby-meta Day 1. No, I addressed what I thought Colby was doing that was scummy _in this game_. ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/134 "2017-01-18T20:11:14Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > That would have been **ToeJam** , correct? So perhaps we have third party death and not Vig? Yes, Toejam was second highest and by a fair few more votes than Colby. I wasn’t really intending to suggest it as a means to decipher who made the most recent kills, but to hear others thoughts on the general strategy. Perhaps it’s not a worthwhile avenue to go down since we do have the multilynch so we can answer these dilemmas ourselves. ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/135 "2017-01-18T20:21:09Z")
I’m fine with a ToeJam Lynch (which shouldn’t be surprising since I was voting for ToeJam yesterday). I think finding out ToeJam’s alignment is pretty much needed at this point to put Day 1 into proper perspective. But we also have the _second Lynch_, so I will need to find out who else I find suspicious. I suggest those that voted ToeJam already do the same. ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/136 "2017-01-18T20:32:08Z")
I don’t think a second lynch will happen. 17 is a high bar. Day 1’s vote totals wouldn’t have cleared it and that was with 5 extra voters. ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/137 "2017-01-18T20:32:23Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Perhaps it’s not a worthwhile avenue to go down since we do have the multilynch so we can answer these dilemmas ourselves. Should we discuss whether we think the multilynch makes sense given the state of the game as it stands? I don’t feel good about it, though I recognize that it’s very context specific as to whether it makes sense. I know I’m repeating myself, but it feels like something that could get away from us really quickly, though that’s less of a concern when we have 2 than we we have 3 with it’s very low thresholds. ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/138 "2017-01-18T20:41:20Z")
Well, the third lynch won’t fire if the second lynch doesn’t meet its bar and I’ve already stated that I’m beginning to think that won’t happen very much if at all. Town tends to be very skittish about that sort of thing. ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/139 "2017-01-18T20:42:33Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Should we discuss whether we think the multilynch makes sense given the state of the game as it stands? I don’t feel good about it, though I recognize that it’s very context specific as to whether it makes sense. I know I’m repeating myself, but it feels like something that could get away from us really quickly, though that’s less of a concern when we have 2 than we we have 3 with it’s very low thresholds. NETA: IT’S? _sigh_ ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/140 "2017-01-18T20:45:47Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Should we discuss whether we think the multilynch makes sense given the state of the game as it stands? I don’t feel good about it, though I recognize that it’s very context specific as to whether it makes sense. I know I’m repeating myself, but it feels like something that could get away from us really quickly, though that’s less of a concern when we have 2 than we we have 3 with it’s very low thresholds. Huh. That’s interesting. I thought it was pretty much a given that we need to utilize the second Lynch. I realize that we wouldn’t necessarily reach the vote totals needed naturally. But I’m thinking that we would have the normal vote and a dummy vote for the second Lynch. Then on Saturday or Sunday we move votes around to make the second Lynch happen. Perhaps I’m expecting too much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=8)