# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/161 "2017-01-18T21:59:12Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > As for pointing fingers, I’ll say who I suspected from Day 1: > > And essentially every person who said “Oh, X just plays that way” or “X wouldn’t do that” or similar posts. Why? For example, Idle always claims Day 1. He does so as scum, third party, or town. His typical behavior if he’s a power role town is to claim it. Otherwise, he claims vanilla town. So why is pointing out something like that when someone votes Idle for claiming a bad thing? Especially because I’ll find anyone suspicious who votes Idle for claiming, because the claim in of itself is a null tell to Idle’s alignment. However, I do find Idle’s claims anti-town. Because they became a reliable indicator to scum that Idle was not a power role when he claimed vanilla town. So they would already have a narrower pool to shoot from if they’re trying to get power roles. But Idle always claims. So why is it suspicious to encourage people to look for actual scummy reasons for voting him? > [@jsgoddess](#): > > 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.” People have tells. In games and real-life. Some people don’t like using meta-aspects when voting. But if you’d use them in real life, why wouldn’t use them in a game? Relying on them exclusively is a bad idea, but using them as a piece of the bigger picture is not. Granted, real-life tells are typically more reliable because you see the whole person, not just pixels on a screen, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t consider the information those pixels can offer. Why do you find people using this information particularly scummy? Isn’t it just another tool? > [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think it’s a dangerous way to think/play, especially when it’s used to try to sway other players. Again, why? > [@Hockey\_Monkey](#): > > I’m just saying regardless of who is the finger pointer and who is finger pointee, that this kind of reasoning is dubious. A “You’ve seen this before so you should know better” argument is, in my opinion, ridiculous to even bring up. I’m not specifically addressing any player or argument for or against any other player. Take the player names out of it. You don’t know what any other player remembers about how someone else has played in the past. Sure, but if you vote Idle for claiming, and it’s pointed out to you that he always does this, and though it might be anti-town, it indicates nothing as to his alignment, and yet you still insist on voting him for it, why shouldn’t you come under heat for that? > [@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. > > _snip_ > > My votes, in no order except most suspicious first: > **vote Scathach** for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35. How do you feel about HookerChemical’s case on Roosh for doing similar things? > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > 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. I can have some success scumhunting by selecting posters via [random.org](http://random.org). Does that mean I should consider it a valid tool for finding scum? 'Cause guess what? Posters who are generically ‘helpful’, posting vote counts, answering questions about standard practices, lingo and roles and so on are sometimes those developing a townie sheen over a townie interior. ---
**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 18, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/162 "2017-01-18T22:00:02Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > **_ToeJam_ did not post in Night 1. If they do not post in Day 2, shouldn’t they be mod’d at beginning of Night 2?** In an attempt to keep as many players actually in the game as possible we start looking for Subs at Dusk because they can sometimes take a while to drumb up but, modkills for nonparticipation are going to be at dawn. If ToeJam posts nothing Day 2 we will start the process of replacing him yes, but we won’t kill him unless he doesn’t post Night 2 as well. If that makes sense. You would not know about us starting to look for a subs if it wasnt for people complaining that Dante was killed without us throwing the option for a sub to you guys too. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/163 "2017-01-18T22:02:30Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > **Yes, and if this is what happens, he will be.** Huh. I went through and made a list of those who posted in N1 and D2. There’s only 41 names. That makes nine players possible to go at Dusk. (No, I haven’t figured out who those 9 are yet.) Granted, it’s a ways off. ---
**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, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/164 "2017-01-18T22:04:18Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > I think SK’s are win stealing and I believe the mods said no win stealers. Sigh. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/165 "2017-01-18T22:04:58Z")
Alrighty. I like to take my notes and stuff in notepad, so typos and formatting errors are to be expected. Going with my earlier train of thought, I think the two-scum setup means that trains (successful or not) or more likely than normal to have baddies. It’s tempting to look at those who voted for Lakai, but I wanted to look at the Colby train. Here we go. **TexCat** Vote: #91. This is the post that started it all. TexCat sees the bit about the “other team” and says the “phrasing really stood out.” TexCat also said “it sure sounds like he’s on one of the scum teams.” This was the beginning of the train. As I’ve said before, I found the reasoning behind this train extremely questionable. TexCat also found this strong enough to switch off of Normal Phase. The vote on Normal was a policy vote, though, so I’ll call the switch null. Unvote: None. **Guiri** Vote: #101. Guiri quotes TexCat and hops on board. She says, “I don’t see anything that clearly identifies a first team in contrast to the other team.” Still weak. Unvote: #977. Removes the vote to join the Lakai wagon, but says she’s still “strongly” suspicious of Colby. It was a switch from town to town, which I think makes it look a little rough. **Septimus:** Dead townie. I think we can assume he had good intentions. **Meeko:** Vote: #130. Meeko removes his vote from me, but intimates that he believes I’m scum. He says “we know exactly where to look for him now,” meaning that Scummy Bravo is out in the open and can never hide again. And then he goes ahead and votes for Colby despite the case “not be[ing] as damning as it could be.” This is a **really** weak vote considering how convinced he apparently is that I’m scum. Unvote: #1082. Meeko accuses Lakai of extreme squirming, which apparently makes Colby look like a saint by way of comparison. I don’t like this switch any more than I liked the switch to Colby from me. Meeko is the third to jump off of Colby and onto Lakai. **ToeJam:** Vote: #132. Says it’s not a great vote, but that voting a slip is better than policy voting. Admits that it’s weak but never goes anywhere else. Unvote: None. \*\*HockeyMonkey \*\*Vote: #152. Awful vote. Echoes what’s already been said. “The other team? So which are you, Mafia or Wolf?” Unvote: #775. Has come around to Colby’s “slip” being “bad grammar.” This is a little better, but it’s still WRONG because the “slip” was never bad grammar to begin with. Vote switches to Toejam. \*\*Lakai: \*\*Dead townie. **Suburban** : Dead townie. \*\*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. POST #334 - COLBY SOFTCLAIMS AS VANILLA TOWN. \*\*Hawkeyeop: \*\*Vote: #350. This is essentially a vote because Colby isn’t defending himself strongly enough. Meh. Unvote: None. \*\*Nanook: \*\*Vote: #445. I read this several times and I couldn’t actually find any justification for the vote beyond warning town against talking themselves out of a bandwagony vote. This vote stinks. Unvote: #1208. This is another bad vote. Nanook discusses disliking the train on Toejam, then unvotes Colby and votes Lakai. I’m troubled by both of these. \*\*Brewha: \*\*Vote: #683. This vote is -slightly- better than the others on Colby, but still not great. Brewha says it was “the three words, the content around those three words, and his reaction to the suspicion,” but doesn’t go into anything but the latter and then briefly. Unvote: None. \*\*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. Unvote: None. – Alright! Analysis and vote in next post. ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/166 "2017-01-18T22:09:21Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > I can have some success scumhunting by selecting posters via [random.org](http://random.org). Does that mean I should consider it a valid tool for finding scum? 'Cause guess what? Posters who are generically ‘helpful’, posting vote counts, answering questions about standard practices, lingo and roles and so on are sometimes those developing a townie sheen over a townie interior. Do whatever you want. But the concept of scum playing the ‘helpful townie’ is not something scathach, et al. are pulling out of thin air. If you don’t like it, that’s your business. ---
**Author:** ![Scathach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Scathach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scathach)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/167 "2017-01-18T22:22:19Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Sigh. Am I wrong? > [@](#): > > Third party win conditions are checked after checking all three of the above. Thus, a Town win supersedes an exclusive third party win even if both occur simultaneously. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Scathach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Scathach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scathach)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/168 "2017-01-18T22:26:47Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > Am I wrong? > > 😕 Oh actually I see what I did there :smack: I just saw town supercedes third party and lept to no win stealers. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/169 "2017-01-18T22:32:43Z")
First, my number for Nanook was wrong. His vote was 455, not 445. I also have to amend my analysis of his vote since he does give some justifications in 453. He says: “When I first read the colby maybe slip, it jumped out hard at me. My immediate reaction was, whoa, really? Then I read others takes and I could see where they were coming from. But his actions since then are pretty suspicious, so I’m likely leaning this way.” This downgrades his vote from “it stinks” to just generally bad. Again, the ‘wording’ justification for the train was bad, and I can’t imagine how “, it jumped out hard at me. My immediate reaction was, whoa, really?” is, at BEST, unhelpful hyperbole. Here is the list of living Colby-voters in vote order. TexCat Guiri Meeko ToeJam HockeyMonkey Diggit Hawkeyeop Nanook Brewha Pleonast Of these, I am feeling hinky about the following players: Meeko HockeyMonkey Nanook I know that I’m going to take some heat here because Meeko and Nanook both attacked me in the posts I mentioned, but that’s how it goes. \*\* Vote Meeko.\*\* I’m voting for Meeko because he took his vote off me despite being apparently quite confident that I’m scum, and admitted at the time that it was a weak move. Nanook is close behind. HockeyMonkey is a third. They both get a big ol’ FOS from me. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/170 "2017-01-18T22:35:22Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > This downgrades his vote from “it stinks” to just generally bad. Again, the ‘wording’ justification for the train was bad, and I can’t imagine how “, it jumped out hard at me. My immediate reaction was, whoa, really?” is, at BEST, unhelpful hyperbole. Sorry for the rough wording here. I’m saying that it’s unhelpful exaggeration at best, and disingenuous bandwagoning at worst. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/171 "2017-01-18T23:14:03Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > … > And essentially every person who said “Oh, X just plays that way” or “X wouldn’t do that” or similar posts. That is essentially every person ever. I know you’ve taken a lot of heat for this comment already, but add me to the list of those holding a match to your feet. Meta works. Use it if you have it. > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > First, This post is pinging me. You just put an “official FOS” on half the remaining players. Yes I did. It was mostly a joke, as Angel mentioned. But it also focus on my attention on those half and not the other half, halfing my half-assed halfery. For now, at least. > [@Plumpudding](#): > > On meta in general: Do I like to base my entire impression of a player on meta? No, I don’t like that (sometimes it happens, sue me). Does meta influence how I read a player? Yes. Is that valid? IMO, yes. Is meta still valid, if the rest does not have that meta? Yes. Should I share this with the rest of the group? If it plays a part in how I read a player, of course I should. I’m on board with this thinking as well. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > 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. Yes, we are down 5 votes, but more than 5 ppl didn’t vote yesterday. If we can get everyone to actually vote today, we’ll have more votes available to make a 2nd lynch happen. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > 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. There is no 3rd lynch available today. I think someone has already mentioned that though. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/172 "2017-01-18T23:32:47Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Right now we are looking at 2 Town directed kills versus 3 not-Town directed kills. By including a second Lynch we will be looking at 3 Town directed kills to 3\*-ish not-Town directed kills. That is good for town. I’m concerned that we have two groups of seven players who can coordinate while yesterday, seven votes would have made a very influential voting bloc. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/173 "2017-01-18T23:52:54Z")
On multi-lynching: The killing roles appear to be opening up on us with all available barrels. Why would we not try and take advantage of all of our opportunities for open and collective coordination with accountability to kill in response? The only logical (imho) answer to this question would be if possible modkills were also on the docket toDay. This is a huge game. Folks is gonna die. The more that do, the more solid information we have and the less playstyle/fluff/biases/grudges/fights/snuggles/silence/noise we have to sift through and make sense of. Unless there are those out there who think multi-lynches were built into the game to balance something other than attrition rate potential of 4 privately murdered Townies per cycle. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/174 "2017-01-18T23:53:48Z")
**Johnny Bravo** , I’m not gonna quote that whole long **Colby** Train post, but you unvote listing for me is incorrect. I’m posting on a mobile right now and can’t really go find it, but I unvoted **Colby** to give him a chance to play another day, while noting that I would likely start today with my vote back on him. I switched my vote to a **Lakai** , not **Toejam**. I think you mixed me up with someone else. If you FOS me I want you to do it for my actions, not another player’s. You thought my vote was awful, I disagree. With the very limited information available on Day One it was a perfectly fine vote. It turned out I was wrong about it, but I don’t see how it was scummy. I just happen to be in a group of people that probably contains scum. ---
**Author:** ![bufftabby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bufftabby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bufftabby)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/175 "2017-01-19T00:32:25Z")
> [@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/776577/265): > > > > > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/259): > > > > > > You really think he intentionally posted in the wrong thread as some sort of distraction to the matters at hand? Occam leads me to believe that he accidentally posted in the thread of the post he was replying to. There’s no good reason to believe otherwise. > > > > > > vote Johnny Bravo > > > > > > 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. (Post above was overly bleached, sorry. No misrepresentation of anyone’s bolding tendencies intended.) My post above: D1.259 **Johnny Bravo** ’s post above: D1.265 **Pleonast** ’s post below: D1.511 > [@Mafia Reunion - Day One](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-one/776577/511): > > \ > > **Johnny Bravo** : the votes here do bother me. I can’t see any validity for these votes. > > \ > > My votes again. > **unvote** > **vote septimus** for a lousy vote in D1.488. > **vote bufftabby** for a lousy vote in D1.259. > **vote Normal Phase** for daring us to vote for them in D1.27. > **vote Chronos** for snuggling up to **Meeko** in D0.442. > **vote Scathach** for scolding a player for being a “helpful townie” in D1.35. 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. ---
**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 19, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/176 "2017-01-19T00:50:10Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > First, my number for Nanook was wrong. His vote was 455, not 445. I also have to amend my analysis of his vote since he does give some justifications in 453. He says: > > “When I first read the colby maybe slip, it jumped out hard at me. My immediate reaction was, whoa, really? Then I read others takes and I could see where they were coming from. But his actions since then are pretty suspicious, so I’m likely leaning this way.” > > This downgrades his vote from “it stinks” to just generally bad. Again, the ‘wording’ justification for the train was bad, and I can’t imagine how “, it jumped out hard at me. My immediate reaction was, whoa, really?” is, at BEST, unhelpful hyperbole. > > Here is the list of living Colby-voters in vote order. > > TexCat > > Guiri > > Meeko > > ToeJam > > HockeyMonkey > > Diggit > > Hawkeyeop > > Nanook > > Brewha > > Pleonast > > Of these, I am feeling hinky about the following players: > > Meeko > > HockeyMonkey > > Nanook > > I know that I’m going to take some heat here because Meeko and Nanook both attacked me in the posts I mentioned, but that’s how it goes. > > \*\* > > Vote Meeko.\*\* > > I’m voting for Meeko because he took his vote off me despite being apparently quite confident that I’m scum, and admitted at the time that it was a weak move. > > Nanook is close behind. HockeyMonkey is a third. They both get a big ol’ FOS from me. Don’t forget, there were two people who expressed suspicion of Colby very early but didn’t actually vote for him. I did a WoW on Total Lost, but haven’t had time to analyze it as her post numbers were frankly overwhelming. But I feel like I made a pretty good case against BillMC, and it’s pretty much being ignored. I think it’s possible that both of them are Scum, because I’m seeing a lot of either anti-Town or wholly contradictory behavior from both. I’d love to see some opinions on either of them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**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, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/177 "2017-01-19T01:05:46Z")
> [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > I’m concerned that we have two groups of seven players who can coordinate while yesterday, seven votes would have made a very influential voting bloc. 😕 What I’m suggesting is precisely to counter any attempt for the second lynch to be taken over by nefarious elements, yet still avail ourselves to its power. In a wholly separate process from game-mechanics-based voting, everyone votes for TWO players (or ‘no lynch’ or ‘no second lynch’ if that is the desire). This, separate voting process forms the ‘vote record.’ Then we assign players to enact the actual lynch with the formal voting required by the game. The important thing in a ‘second vote’ is to make sure the _majority has a voice in who the second candidate is_. Otherwise, those voting for the primary lynch remove themselves from voting for the second lynch, which as you say, could be bad. I believe this is what we _should_ do. I have no illusions that we will actually achieve it, but there it is. I’ll also note that with two scum groups there are also two scum kills. The second lynch is pretty much there to balance that, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/178 "2017-01-19T01:08:53Z")
> [@Hockey\_Monkey](#): > > **Johnny Bravo** , I’m not gonna quote that whole long **Colby** Train post, but you unvote listing for me is incorrect. I’m posting on a mobile right now and can’t really go find it, but I unvoted **Colby** to give him a chance to play another day, while noting that I would likely start today with my vote back on him. I switched my vote to a **Lakai** , not **Toejam**. I think you mixed me up with someone else. > m. Possible - parsing a 1400 post day involved a lot of jumping around and I’m not surprised if I made a mistake. I’ll look for your corrections. On the phone myself now. ---
**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, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/179 "2017-01-19T01:42:31Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Don’t forget, there were two people who expressed suspicion of Colby very early but didn’t actually vote for him. I did a WoW on Total Lost, but haven’t had time to analyze it as her post numbers were frankly overwhelming. But I feel like I made a pretty good case against BillMC, and it’s pretty much being ignored. I think it’s possible that both of them are Scum, because I’m seeing a lot of either anti-Town or wholly contradictory behavior from both. I’d love to see some opinions on either of them. I thought this was a very good point yesterDay, but after Colby flipped town, it didn’t seem as much of a point. I did look at your case on BillMc. > [@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. Does anyone have any insight into this Dante game? I didn’t play in Dante’s recent game, Death of Mother Nature, but I went over to look and BillMc wasn’t in it either. Colby was and he was town and NK’d on night 4, not lynched at all. The odd thing here though is, as Drain points out, Bill doesn’t see any case on ToeJam here in post 1000, even though he later thinks the argument in 568 is worth a vote. > [@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 probably #2 on my list of all-time best scum hunters. Perhaps this is just not his best effort, but it feels more like it’s coming from scum to me. **vote: BillMc** ---
**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, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/180 "2017-01-19T01:52:16Z")
> [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > I’m concerned that we have two groups of seven players who can coordinate while yesterday, seven votes would have made a very influential voting bloc. Seven players voting together does make a very influential voting bloc. It also makes a pretty obvious target once one or two of the Scum are outed. I don’t think Scum play that way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425.md?page=10)