# Mafia--T2: Behind the Scenes **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 2, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699 "2008-09-02T17:07:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/381 "2008-09-09T15:26:43Z")
> [@CatInASuit](#): > > Ok, let’s put it this way. I agree that the Sarah Connor role will become anti-town in the future. With ya so far. > [@](#): > > However, trying to propose a Town player to be lynched on Day 1 is very wrong. If we don’t do it Today or Tomorrow, you’ve admitted the role will become anti-town. > [@](#): > > If you are town, why would give the scum an easy first Day by lynching another Town player. I’m still debating it, but upon reflection, I’m starting to think SC is worth about .5 points, whereas a Vanilla would be 1. It’s a Town role, but not usefull at best and helpful at worst. > [@](#): > > If you are scum, you are asking the town to lynch a claimable and confirmable role. A claimable and confirmable role that -will- end up hurting town if they’re around after Tomorrow. > [@](#): > > If you lynch Sarah Connor on Day 1, you also halve the chances of the scum hitting a protected character and being return killed at Night. Huh? > [@](#): > > This is not just a bad idea, it’s wrong. Strongly disagree. > [@](#): > > Never mind giving the player a chance to play the role their way. I dont’ think there is a way to play said role that will end up pro-town. > [@](#): > > You are asking the town to give up a role, which at this moment in time is pro-town. At -this- moment, yes. But after Tomorrow it won’t be! > [@](#): > > As for throwing it out and complaining that you are being voted for it being a bad idea. :dubious: I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I think voting for me for thinking it’s a bad idea is a bad idea. > [@](#): > > Day 1 role claim is a bad idea, lynching a town role is a scummy idea. Just because they’re town aligned doesn’t necessaraly make them an asset to the Town. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/382 "2008-09-09T15:31:23Z")
**Santo** , have you missed the fact that Sarah Connor is allowed to suicide? ---
**Author:** ![CatInASuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@CatInASuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatInASuit)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/383 "2008-09-09T15:43:28Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > [QUOTE=CatInASuit] > If you lynch Sarah Connor on Day 1, you also halve the chances of the scum hitting a protected character and being return killed at Night. Huh? [/QUOTE] From the ruleset 15. The T-800–Vig, except without suicide. Can kill the assassian T-1000. If Sarah or John Conner would be killed, instead the killer and the T-800 are killed. If the assassian T-1000 dies, so does the T-800. If the scum hit Sarah or John Connor tonight, they lose their killer and we lose a Vig. That is probably more to our advantage than theirs. I still can’t see a pro-town reason for lynching Sarah Connor TODAY, which is what you proposed. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/384 "2008-09-09T15:49:43Z")
> [@CatInASuit](#): > > From the ruleset > 15. The T-800–Vig, except without suicide. Can kill the assassian T-1000. If Sarah or John Conner would be killed, instead the killer and the T-800 are killed. If the assassian T-1000 dies, so does the T-800. > > If the scum hit Sarah or John Connor tonight, they lose their killer and we lose a Vig. That is probably more to our advantage than theirs. > > I still can’t see a pro-town reason for lynching Sarah Connor TODAY, which is what you proposed. I believe I said Today or Tomorrow. Regardless, let’s ammend it to just Tomorrow, unless something better comes along. I still think the proposal and subsequent discussion it generated doesn’t deserve a vote. As far as suicide is concerned, I’ll have to think about it and see what happens at Dusk and Dawn. Let’s come back to this Tomorrow. ---
**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:** [September 9, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/385 "2008-09-09T15:57:26Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > The other issue I have is how **sach** says that he’s on board with **story** ’s argument when really he’s not: he’s presenting a completely different argument that happens to target the same person. It looks like a snuggle to me. And now that I’m thinking about it, I’m also quite concerned that **sachertorte** , who is always preaching “motivations, not actions”, has said that he’s on board with **story** instead of criticizing the argument on the same grounds that I just did. I said I was onboard with storyteller because my immediate reaction to your “no PM” claim was the same as storyteller’s. That is, my immediate response was to think you were scum trying to hide having to reveal a quirk. However, upon further review, I didn’t think scum would actually do that. My point is that I don’t think storyteller is scummy for jumping on the “no PM” thing because I did so (in my head) at first as well. Also, I’m getting sick and tired of the “sachertorte’s trying to get \_\_\_\_\_ lynched” bull. I can’t lynch anyone by myself. (I’ve said this before). We are all going to be discussing people. Discussion does not equate to “trying to get \_\_\_\_ lynched.” If you use this as a criteria for finding scum, you will not succeed as everyone _should be_ discussing everyone else. Did you know the last time I got heat for “trying to get \_\_\_\_\_ lynched” \_\_\_\_\_ was scum, and it got me (Town) lynched instead? Does that mean Rysto is scum. NO. But it does mean Rysto’s argument is bullshit. In summary: 1. I’m not trying to get Rysto lynched. 2. Even if I were, that isn’t an indication of scumness. If you think my thought processes are wrong, explain how they are wrong. You can’t just say, I think he’s wrong, therefore he’s scummy. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/386 "2008-09-09T16:08:06Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > When have I consistently labelled you as scum? > > You don’t get to conflate “revealing scum quirks” with “revealing town quirks.” I specifically asked for scum quirks. You also don’t get to claim non-zero downside without _outlining what those downsides are_. If you can fathom some method by which revealing scum quirks exposes Town powerroles I’d love to hear it, because you know what? There is NO downside. Information is good. Information about the scum is ALWAYS good. Scum have that information 100%, if we can get that same information for free Town moves forward and scum gains nothing. > > Nothing against DiggitCamara here, but I’d like to point out that while a -3 on CatInASuit seems like a big deal (and it would be under normal voting circumstances) the +3 or -3 with pedescribes’s voting system equates to one vote in a normal voting game. If you push it, you could argue that -3 is even less than one vote since each person assigns 6 points to people (but not the same person). > > Not a big deal. I just think we shouldn’t overestimate the significance of the -3/+3 thing. > Again with the accusation that I’m pushing something with a downside where there is none. There is no downside to discussing what pre-reset scum know about scum quirks. > > IF pedescribe assigned the roles post-reset 100% randomly, then you are correct, there is no correlation between having a scum role pre-reset and post-reset. However, we do not know that pedescribe assigned roles randomly after the reset. Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t. > > The thesis is IF there is a scum role with a secret, we know that that role is still scum because none of our pre-reset scum have claimed a secret quirk. This is not random, and increases the chance that previous scum are current scum. Again, we don’t know that there is or is not a scum quirk, we can only fathom some probability of either case. > > That is why this is all a discussion about probability. To argue that a dead Townie NAF means Rysto is scum would be a terrible abuse of probability and would make me cry. I assigned all roles randomly both times. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/387 "2008-09-09T16:10:19Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > When have I consistently labelled you as scum? > > (snip) Past games, man. Past games. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/388 "2008-09-09T16:11:35Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I said I was onboard with storyteller because my immediate reaction to your “no PM” claim was the same as storyteller’s. That is, my immediate response was to think you were scum trying to hide having to reveal a quirk. However, upon further review, I didn’t think scum would actually do that. My point is that I don’t think storyteller is scummy for jumping on the “no PM” thing because I did so (in my head) at first as well. No. That is _not_ what you said. You said: > [@](#): > > I think I’m on the same page as storyteller, with the addendum that NAF also fits the bill as a potential “was scum and is still scum because his original role had a quirk.” **story** never made the argument that I’m more likely to be scum because my pre-reset role might have had a quirk, but that’s what you’re characterizing it as here. > [@](#): > > If you think my thought processes are wrong, explain how they are wrong. You can’t just say, I think he’s wrong, therefore he’s scummy. I _did_ explain. Your argument works just as well for **NAF** as for me, but you focused attention on me. Why? What’s the pro-Town motivation for leaving **NAF** as an afterthought? Frankly, I don’t see one and I notice that you completely skipped over that point ---
**Author:** ![Koldanar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@Koldanar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koldanar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/389 "2008-09-09T16:32:32Z")
Greetings all. I seem to be the replacement for drain bead. As dotchan was also up for subbing, I humbly ask that you all do not treat me as you would her (or mhaye) and allow me to complete at least one day 🙂 As is, I haven’t kept up with this game since the whole resending of peoples roles, so I do have quite a bit to catch up on. I’ll see about reviewing tonight, but that depends on what I do this evening (plans are up in the air, woo!). If anyone has any bribes or such to sway a vote, now is the time to send those along. Cash only please, no bartering. ---
**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:** [September 9, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/390 "2008-09-09T17:34:18Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > I _did_ explain. Your argument works just as well for **NAF** as for me, but you focused attention on me. Why? What’s the pro-Town motivation for leaving **NAF** as an afterthought? Frankly, I don’t see one and I notice that you completely skipped over that point You are way inflating this notion that I focused attention on you and treat NAF as an afterthought. I explicitly mention NAF in the post that has you so upset. I included NAF in my posting because the same argument is true. That is, I DID NOT leave NAF out of the discussion. I wrote about you, then included NAF because the same argument applies to him. I didn’t gloss over NAF, I explicitly noted him. I suppose you would have an argument if I hadn’t mentioned NAF at all. But I did. Explicitly. What the hell else would you have me do? You are making shit up. ---
**Author:** ![Total\_Lost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e56c9b/32.png) [@Total\_Lost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Total_Lost)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/391 "2008-09-09T19:52:20Z")
Still unsure of the Sarah Connor-part 😕 Can “the doc” protect only from scum killing or also from going insane due to Sarah Connor? ---
**Author:** ![CatInASuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@CatInASuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatInASuit)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/392 "2008-09-09T20:06:52Z")
> [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > I believe I said Today or Tomorrow. Regardless, let’s ammend it to just Tomorrow, unless something better comes along. Lets stick with what you said, shall we **Santo Rugger** > [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > Proposal: > Sarah Connor should either admit who she is so we can lynch her Today. The opening line of your proposal is pretty clear. > [@Santo\_Rugger](#): > > I still think the proposal and subsequent discussion it generated doesn’t deserve a vote. > > As far as suicide is concerned, I’ll have to think about it and see what happens at Dusk and Dawn. Let’s come back to this Tomorrow. I disagree with your conclusion about it not deserving a vote. But I agree on one count, I think it is time to look at the other players. Lets see if I consider any of them as scummy as you. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/393 "2008-09-09T21:28:35Z")
> [@CatInASuit](#): > > Lets stick with what you said, shall we **Santo Rugger** > The opening line of your proposal is pretty clear. I thought I ammended it later on. I may have just thought it to myself. I’m in a training course today and yesterday, so I’m not on my computer, which also explains my horrible spelling the last couple days. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/394 "2008-09-09T23:33:06Z")
Hm, this sucks. I was going to repost **Total Lost’s** question above in bold and green, but my computer is not letting me do colors for some reason. Hopefully this will be a temporary problem, or my ability to vote will be impacted. I am very concerned that so few people have voted so far. We seem to have a lot of lurkers, and that creates opportunity for scum to wreak havoc with last minute votes. Out of the 15 players who haven’t voted, obviously most aren’t scum, but they are creating a nice pool for scum to hide in and avoid accountability. So, time to get some votes on the table. Hopefully Ped will count these despite their blackness, or I can re-vote from work tomorrow if the color thing doesn’t fix itself. As I said before, I hate Day One. I am not feeling very convinced by any of these cases; if everyone has a baseline 23.8% chance of being scum, I feel like the people I’m voting for are maybe at 27% or so. Nonetheless…let the rush to mob justice begin… 1. **One and Only Wanderers** Not because of anything he has said or done, but merely acting as a surrogate for all the other lurkers out there. I’m not going to do a full vote count, but we haven’t heard as much as usual from OAOW. I expect I will be changing this vote when he drops in, but I wanted to use my first vote to send an anti-lurking and anti-not-voting message. 1. \*\* Zsofia\*\* For voting for Rysto for “lying” about his PM, despite the fact that the Mod has a)already said that he can’t be sure he ever sent that PM out and b) posted the PM in question, so we now all know that it doesn’t have any secret quirks that **Rysto** might have been trying to hide. This vote seems really sketchy to me. I also don’t like her vote for **peeker** , which she doesn’t explictly justify other than by reference to what “others” have pointed out. **Cat** seemed to sum up the opinion of the anti- **peeker** crowd by saying that he is “inconsistent and all over the place”, which seems to me kind of like voting for the sun for its suspicious tendency to rise in the East. I think of **peeker** as the Lt. Colombo of SDMB Mafia…he seems like a harmless, drunken incompetent, but then suddenly the game is over and his team has won. If I were scum, I’d want to get him out of the way quickly. Of course, he could well _be_ scum, and I haven’t the faintest idea how we would know; but what I am wondering about is why he suddenly seems to be attracting so much attention early in this game for doing pretty much the same stuff he always does, usually without getting votes for it. 1. **Santo Rugger** For proposing an anti-Town move of lynching Sarah Connor, in spite of the fact that 1) she might have pro-Town quirks we don’t know about, 2) she can have herself modkilled if she doesn’t, thus saving Town the mislynch, and 3) if we keep her alive for two nights, that’s two nights that the scum might accidentally target her and wind up dead themselves. And mostly for seeming willfully blind to the last two points even after **Cat** pointed them out, and continuing to insist that this is not a bad idea. Proposing bad ideas is one thing, getting all defensive and clinging to them after their flaws have been pointed out is a much more suspicious thing. ---
**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:** [September 9, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/395 "2008-09-09T23:47:12Z")
Hey, we actually have some action in the game. It’s been a slow day today but those who posted actually posted content. That’s something. In reading the back and forth with sach and rysto, I think I kind of agree with sach. I didn’t feel like I was getting any less heat than Rysto was when he was posting his analysis. I didn’t feel like I was getting much heat, but I didn’t feel like the heat was hotter on Rysto and I was getting off easy. Before I place my vote, would everyone who is voting for Rugger based on his calling for the lynch of Sarah Connor please post their reasoning? CIAS has done so already and :dubious: to what he has had to say so far. I would like to hear more from Cookies and Thing Fish and anyone else I might have missed. Real reasons, not just saying that what Rugger posted was anti town. Maybe it was maybe it wasn’t, but I don’t see a pro scum motivation for trying to take out Sarah quickly. Her powers help the scum much more than they hurt them. I do on the other hand see pro scum motivation for trying to get Rugger lynched. Full disclosure, I took a look at the balance of the game before pede set it up. I didn’t see anything more than what is in the current rules, but I gave pede my ok on the balance for this version of sarah connor (this is I think his third pass at the role) because my feeling was her powers ultimately negated her being town and she was a zero sum gain, a neutral party in terms of balance. I would have brought it up sooner but it didn’t seem important and I think several of you already knew. There may be quirks that he added after I gave him my feedback, but any quirks that the characters have were added after I looked at them. Ok, that being said. I am almost ready to vote but I want to hear what the Rugger voters have to say first. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/396 "2008-09-10T00:08:21Z")
Vote Count! Complete Votes: CatInASuit: 1. Santo Rugger, 2. storyteller, 3. peeker Storyteller: 1. NBC, 2. NAF, 3. peeker Cookies: 1. peeker, 2. Santo Rugger, 3. Cookies Diggit Camera: 1. Almost Human, 2. NBC, 3. CatInASuit Zsofia: 1. Rysto, 2. NBC, 3. Peeker Thing Fish: 1. OaOW, 2. Zsofia, 3. Santo Rugger Incomplete Votes: Blaster Master: 1. peeker NOTE: INCOMPLETE VOTES DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS DUSK TALLIES Extra Effects: Sarah Connor is currently intimidtating anyone voting for CatInASuit. Totals: Peeker: (9) (BlaM 1st, Cookies 1st, Storyteller 3rd, CatInASuit 3rd, Zsofia 3rd) NBC: (7) (Storyteller 1st, Zsofia 2nd, Diggit Camera 2nd) Santo Rugger: (6) (CatInASuit 1st, Cookies 2nd, Thing Fish 3rd) Rysto: (3) (Zsofia 1st) Almost Human: (3) (Diggit Camera 1st) Storyteller: (3) (CatInASuit 2nd, Storyteller 3rd) OaOW: (3) (Thing Fish 1st) NAF: (2) (Storyteller 2nd) Zsofia: (2) (Thing Fish 2nd) Cookies: (1) (Cookies 3rd) CatInASuit: (-2) (Sarah Connor Special Effect, Diggit Camera 3rd) To Total Lost: no. To Thing Fish: you can make color manually by going Vote blah and removing the 2nd =. But I’ll accept it this time. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/397 "2008-09-10T00:37:36Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Proposing bad ideas is one thing, getting all defensive and clinging to them after their flaws have been pointed out is a much more suspicious thing. Is it? Why? ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/398 "2008-09-10T00:37:48Z")
Considering my vote contains my name, it is obviously a place-holder. There’s not much more justification that I can offer for my Santo Rugger vote that I haven’t already offered. His proposed actions with respect to Sarah Conner strike me as heavy-handed, and we apparently have a pretty much fundamental disagreement when it comes to who smeared who first. As Day 1 votes go, however, I’d be comfortable sticking with it if this were a non-borda vote game. I’d like to hear from everyone (especially those advocating or other wise participating in the whole pre-reset analysis, and those voting for Rysto) with respect to pedescribe’s explanation that both role distributions have been random. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/399 "2008-09-10T01:24:42Z")
Sorry boys and girls but Ike is necessitating a run s then e. I’ll check in for the next hour or so but work be work. I havnt read a thing that has been posted since last night so if I be screwed then to heck with it. You all play nice. I’ll try to checkk in when I get to 3 rivers or sooner if possible. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699/400 "2008-09-10T01:31:41Z")
**NAF** , I think I have already explained the reasoning behind my Santo vote. I agree that Sarah is ultimately a danger to Town, but I still think that it is pretty clear that the proper way to handle it is to let her modkill herself, so that Town need not waste a lynch. It clearly would be great for Town if the T-1000 offed himself (and the T-800) while trying to kill her, so I think it is good for her to stick around for the first two Nights just for that reason. I am less certain whether it would be a net benefit to Town to trade an ordinary scum for the T-800, but I tend to think it would still be a good deal. So, it seems to me that her net effect is pro-Town in the first two days and anti-Town thereafter, and lynching her early would help scum both by removing the threat of a backfired nightkill and by forcing Town to waste a lynch. So, I do see scum motivation for pushing this idea. It seems to me that **Cat** has clearly spelled out the reasons why it is wrong, and **Santo** is just handwaving and not backing down in response. Which leads me to… **story** , I think your question (two posts up) is a very good one! It seems obvious to me that it is pro-Town to drop your argument when its flaws are pointed out rather than keep trying to push it. But then, if it were so obvious, the scum would do it too, in order to avoid giving themselves away. So perhaps this really says more about the personality of the individual player than about which side they are on, and I’m not familiar enough with **Santo** to know whether this is typical for him. I will need to sleep on this one. But I suspect that I will end up deciding that using a 3rd vote on a player who is making illogical arguments to promote anti-Town proposals, even if he is not more likely than anyone else to actually be scum-aligned, is not bad for Day One. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-t2-behind-the-scenes/461699.md?page=21)