# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 222
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425/222 "2017-01-19T14:59:54Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > How do you feel about HookerChemical’s case on Roosh for doing similar things? If it’s past a certain point on Day 1, I haven’t read it yet. (I want to finish Day 1 later today). And do you mean **ToeJam**? > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > \*\*Pleonast: > > \*\*Vote: #841. For “poor participation while under lynch threat,” but also says that he doesn’t find the scum slip particularly convincing. That makes this a lynch the lurker despite there being better lurker candidates, but this vote is better than a lot of the others here. I feel there is a significant difference between voting for someone who participates little once they’re under imminent threat of lynch and voting for someone who is participating little in general. If **colby11** had played the game, by commenting on other issues and making cases against other players, I never’d have voted for them. > [@bufftabby](#): > > So, what gives, **Pleonast**? First the votes on **Johnny Bravo** bothered you enough to vote for **Septimus** for real, and me for not-real, but now…you’re voting **Johnny Bravo** , for his reaction to said votes? A reaction which had already occurred when you placed your D1 vote(s) on **Septimus** and I? > > I mean, I don’t disagree with your _conclusion_, but I’m not following your path to get there. Calling it skimming if you like, but I didn’t notice **Johnny Bravo** ’s reaction the first time through. Note that I’m still suspicious of the votes on **Johnny Bravo** , but they don’t rise above my vote threshold at the moment. > [@Chronos](#): > > Dude, **Pleo** , if there’s any Perfect Information here, it’s yours, and **Thing Fish** is guilty only of pointing it out. It was you, not **Thing Fish** , who said that Scum could avoid knowing who’s on their team by avoiding reading their boards. So you were implicitly assuming that that information _is_ on their boards. Now, I’m not going to say that that’s a bad assumption: After all, they have to have found out at some point who their teammates were, and if not in their PMs, then how? But if you’re going to make an assumption yourself, then it hardly behooves you to use your one and only vote-that-counts on someone else for pointing out your assumption, and to blame them for assuming it. There’s no information in saying that someone who does not read a secret board gains no information from it. That’s basic deduction: a player cannot know what’s on a secret board they haven’t read. And that deduction is completely independent of what’s on the board. Whether or not there’s information on the secret board, the player not reading it gains no information. **Thing Fish** has implicitly stated something else: that a player who has read the secret board does not know a particular piece of information. How can anyone who has no knowledge of the secret board know this? The information gained from reading a secret board is extremely dependent on what’s on that board. The only possible conclusion is that **Thing Fish** has knowledge of what’s on that board. This is a clear-cut case of perfect information. It’s probably clear-cut enough that we should leave it to the Vigilante to take care of, since we’ll gain little information from lynching a self-revealed scum. But it’s good for an early vote in the Day. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ On multi-lynching: I’m in favor of it. We get information from lynches and voting records. I am not in favor of forcing players to move votes to make it happen. Players must be responsible for their own votes. For myself, when I put someone on my voting list, that means I’m willing to see them lynched. While I put my most suspicious vote first, I have no problems switching to anyone on my list. And that means you should hold me accountable for any vote on my list, even if it isn’t counted by the mods. I think it’d be helpful for us if everyone did the same, but it’s non-productive to try to enforce it. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-reunion-day-two/777425)._