# Mystery Mafia -- Game Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [August 17, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025 "2011-08-17T14:03:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 183
**Author:** ![Weedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/weedy/32/301_2.png) [@Weedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weedy)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3642 "2011-08-29T14:06:17Z")
These are Astral’s posts on Episkey, Giraffe (his other case) and the desirability of voting the people identifed as wolves in the messages. Day 2: > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > It wasn’t my intent to get my start in this game so late, but I will say it’s given me a pretty unique place to start analyzing folks. For me, my Day 1 is now, and reading the entire thread from the beginning while knowing the roles of Krayz, Mahaloth, Guiri, and Silman has been helpful. > > I’m going to spoiler my thoughts on two potential wolves to help make this post a little more manageable. > > Giraffe: > > [spoiler]Giraffe pegged me early with post 34, which defended Mykbot. He called out a fair number of people, but never mentioned specifics. No names, no specific actions, no direct accusations. It’s a particularly strong defense of Mykbot (he underlines the “at all” when saying he doesn’t get it), and concludes by saying he’s “a lot” more suspicious of people eager to jump on an easy vote. This pegged me early, and I’d like to suggest an interesting contrast to this claim: Giraffe ended the day having voted for Peeker, as easy a vote as someone could make. > > The next post that caught my eye was the way Giraffe snuggled his way up to Idle Thoughts in 107. I don’t like this post. He agrees with Idle Thoughts, who said NAF’s concept was a misthought idea. He suggests wolves wouldn’t be bold enough to “stick their necks out with a proposal like that right off the bat” which is a fair enough idea, and then adds that part of NAF’s proposal pings him anyway. Talk about burying the lead. He concludes that he’s “giving it a null tell with just a whiff of town…” I’m giving this post a whiff of waffling plus some cuddling of Idle Thoughts. He goes from discussing town NAF’s idea, to proposing scum NAF’s plot, to concluding it’s town. That’s fine - he’s working it out in his head, and decided on a conclusion. If this was all I had, it wouldn’t be a case at all. But it strikes me as a bit off. > > In post 250, Giraffe votes for Dancecat for fitting his pattern of typical scum on Day one. Dancebot is not one of the people who were “jumping on an easy vote” for Mykbot, so I’m forced to conclude that Giraffe has lost interest in something he described as “a lot more suspicious.” > > 272, he agrees that his reasoning for voting for Dancecat may have been flawed, but likes his vote anyway after rereading her posts. His vote is, as far as I can, for exactly the same reasons as he just agreed were bad. He says “if a brash player were to find themselves Wolf on an unfamiliar board, this is kind of the by-the-book style I’d expect.” He suggests Dancecat is posting a lot about strategy and other safe targets and voting early for spurious reasons. I can kind of see his reasoning, but there appears to be a bit of a disconnect between saying “you’re right, that case was wrong” and “I’m voting you for these reasons, which are very, very similar to the first reasons.” This is perhaps the weakest of the connections I’ve drawn, because I’ve seen town players do this just as often. Still a weird post to me. > > 296: This post was surprising, not least because I was surprised nobody else thought this was worth mentioning (unless I missed it… I read 1400 posts in a few hours). Giraffe says “It’s lazy to jump on me for my vote. Opportunistic.” Why? It’s day 1, and Giraffe has already admitted in 272 that he misspoke and that his original case might not be correct. How is it lazy or opportunistic to vote for someone because of this? Unless he straight up knows his vote for Dancecat was a bad vote, what exactly is opportunistic about this? If I had caught Dancecat in an apparent scum tell, I wouldn’t characterize someone’s attack on me as “opportunistic” unless I knew my case was dishonest. It seems off in so many ways. Do you get what I’m saying? I feel like I haven’t explained this as well as I could, even though it makes sense to me. > > 301: 9 minutes later, Giraffe decides Peeker’s vote was vote worthy itself. He describes Peeker’s actions as “jumping on an easy vote.” Again, WHY? What is so easy about Peeker’s vote? > > 824: More Idle Thoughts cuddling. “But Astral!” You’ll say. “Giraffe doesn’t even mention Idle Thoughts in this post!” How right you are, and that’s what’s so weird about it. In post 321, Idle Thoughts cheerleads the town and wants more conversation. Giraffe calls out crackedquads in 824, saying he has been “pinging the bejeezus” out of him, and derisively characterizes cracked’s words as “c’mon Town, let’s all pull together and choose one of these vote leaders!” Idle has struck me as a calm, well-reasoned poster thus far, and I’m positing that a scum Giraffe isn’t interested in crossing him. Hence the bizarre disconnect between calling out cracked’s “cheerleading” (which didn’t seem all that bad to me) and ignoring Idle’s far more egregious cheerleading earlier. > > What’s more, Giraffe’s suggested scenario makes no sense to me. He says a scum cracked wants people to switch their votes from scum buddies peeker and maybe Krayz, so that cracked can… vote for peeker himself for town cred? Also, to finish out this post, he calls crackedquads “naive,” which is something I didn’t pull from his quoted post at all. > > I’ll note that askthepizzaguy has also posted some suspicions of Giraffe in post 1341. I don’t agree with everything pizza posted, but as far as I can tell he hasn’t made any mistakes. I just don’t agree with him about the severity of some of his scum tells.[/spoiler] > > Episkey > > [spoiler]To start with, Episkey suggests that Krayz is town. I’ve noticed a pattern among POGers, where they’ll announce they’ve seen “one thing” about someone, and then suggest they’ll clear the person if they can say what it is. Episkey doesn’t do that here, he just idly mentions he’ll see if Krayz can figure it out, but this seems as good a place to ask why you guys do that as any. Anyway, to make a point, this could be a scum Episkey looking for town cred. Or not. Either side could have made this post. > > 617: Episkey drops a quote, says “me too!”, and adds that “the fact Jan ignores Peeker’s stated reasons for posting differently and then votes him isn’t good.” Silver Jan seems to be going with the flow, and her vote seemed weak to me, but Episkey’s vote here seems just as weak. > > 645: Drops a quote of lilflower, adds a single question, and calls out TexCat. Similar to 617, just kinda seems weak. > > 664: He wants to clear Dancecat for a post, and asks her if she knows why. Either do it or don’t, dude. I find this kind of thing frustrating, although I’m not gonna call it scummy. We as a town gain information from discussion, and we learn nothing from a stream of posts like this. I have yet to see anyone answer that question, regardless of who asks, so what is gained here? > > 689: Yet more defense of Krayz. I’m noticing a pattern here. He also defended Krayz in 638. > > 844: Suggests not discussing crackedquad’s “valid point” because EOD is in 40 mninutes. There’s no pro-town reason for shutting down conversation. However, as I’ve seen many times, anti-town is not necessarily scum, so this isn’t exactly the scum tell of the century. > > 1140: One of Episkey’s most decisive posts. Calls out Precambrianmollusc for voting Krayz, stating that Precam’s vote was “the worst of the worst imo.” He concludes, in all caps, that “HE KNOWS IT FOR HORRIBLE REASONS YET HE VOTES FOR HIM ANYWAYS.” He then votes Precambrian for it. Wait, no he doesn’t. No vote at all. Why not? > > 1150: He’s glad to see his read of Dancecat was correct. He’s basing this on Idle’s say-so. I currently have no reason beyond crazy speculation to suspect Idle is lying, and plenty of other people have gone over the various ifs and so on, but Episkey seems to be just blindly trusting Idle here. He has a good defense against lilflower’s question in 1174, and he explains why Idle would be honest either way. However, he’s missing a key point: Idle himself doesn’t actually know if it’s an honest result or not. Idle clearly believes it’s true, but Episkey seems to be accepting it far too easily.[/spoiler] > > Ultimately, I find Giraffe far more scummy than Episkey. > > **Vote Giraffe.** > > That does it for now. I want to see this day play out a little more before I post some of my lesser cases. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I’m leaning scum on Episkey myself, but that’s not a fair point. He didn’t wait until 14 minutes before the end of day to talk about Krayz; instead, he defends Krayz in 613, 638, and 689, at least. Those are the three big ones I noted, and there could be more. > > Regardless of anything else going on with him, he’s been very consistent on Krayz’s innocence. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > The issue here is that this plan completely locks all of the cops down on the same 3 targets over and over again, for possibly no gain. Let’s say cop X gets three villager reads. Is he correct? Is he naive? Is someone else messing with his reads? Is he not even a cop at all, since someone else has been getting his reads? How can he tell? > > All that, for just 3 wasted night actions. > > A lynch is currently the only way to earn absolute information that benefits the entire town, and in a game like this we absolutely need hard information. I want to get to the bottom of these claims, and I don’t see any value in delaying. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I did indeed. Town needs info. > > And please. You’re one of only two cases I’ve made. I hardly “jumped all over you” just because someone claims you’re a wolf. I think my suspicions regarding you have been clear. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I don’t understand what the kerfluffle is here. > > We have four town claims, and one wolf claim. We have a few mason claims, one of which conflicts with the wolf claim. Each of the people making claims says that they got their result from someone else. > > **Vote gnarlycharlie**. > > Town manages to talk themselves out of lynches all the time. People are worried about hitting a potential mason, or following the lead of a paranoid cop, and I believe those worries are baseless. Gnarly presents the best current opportunity. Here’s why: > > \*\*1) Silver Jan says gnarly is a wolf. \*\* We have three options: Silver is correct, Silver is wrong, or Silver is lying. The simplest current explanation is that Silver is telling the truth. Pizza is worried about paranoid cops, and advises us to look elsewhere. If we do that, we’ll still be wondering about gnarly, and we’ll still eventually have to deal with the situation. I don’t see any value in ignoring a claim like this. > > **2) Paranoid docs aren’t worth worrying about.** If our various claims are to be believed, all of these results were sent by someone else. We currently have no way of tracking who got which result from whom. If tomorrow I get a result from someone that says Idle Thoughts is Scummy McScumpants, did I get it from the paranoid cop? The sane cop? Some other flavor of cop? Do I just ignore it, and stick with my own read on him? It kinda sounds like that’s what you’re advocating. We currently have no direct evidence of a paranoid (or otherwise) cop. Gnarly’s lynch will either give us that evidence, or kill a wolf. > > **3) Scanning gnarly with more cops is worthless.** Presumably, our own cops either don’t know their roles yet, or don’t know what kind of flavor they are. Assuming our cops decided to speak up, we’d (again) get a mix of innocent and guilty results. And then we’d have to lynch him anyway, which will have wasted a ton of cop reads, since we STILL wouldn’t know the difference between paranoid or insane, or honest or naive. > > **4) A mason is worth less than a seer.** I’d rather kill a claimed mason than a claimed seer. Actually, I’d rather not lynch either, but in this case their claims are directly opposed with each other. If we ignore gnarly, and Silver is being honest, she’s an obvious target for scum to kill. Does the doc protect her? Maybe not, since he isn’t sure if she’s innocent or not. With gnarly dead, we’re a step closer to knowing her alignment, and other roles (if they know enough about themselves) can act accordingly. Doing it the other way is just silly. > > **5) TexCat might be wrong.** And I don’t even mean she might be lying. I didn’t quite understand what she was saying about PMs, and I can’t find it now, but if I understand her correctly, she got her information about gnarly’s innocence in a PM from… gnarly. Hardly an unbiased source. If I’m misremembering, and TexCat claimed to get her info from Gadarene, disregard this part. I will add that a wolf hidden amongst the masons does not sound unreasonable to me in a game this size. We’d be a step closer towards clearing our other mason claimants if Gnarly ends up dead (unless they’re wolves too. FPS, maybe?) > > Long story short, we need to know gnarly’s team. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > you want to kill me because you think I’m scum, or just because I’m wrong? > Eh, I’ve been called worse. > > You’re ignoring that this “claimed mason” is also a claimed wolf. I think ignoring town’s first wolf claim is a silly choice. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I am wholly opposed to the Blaster Master lynch. > > For one, it tells us nothing about the claims situation. I want to settle some part of that. If gnarly is revealed as scum, it was a success. If gnarly is mason, we’ve temporarily cleared some other folks, and it’s a success. Scum are forced to choose between lynching confirmed town or shoot into the dark, and I like making their choice harder. > > Also, I’m not enamored with many of the Blaster Master voters’ reasons. Drain Bead has a “ping,” and I think Episkey is scum so I don’t trust his read at all. Idle at least has a reasonable suspicion, but I disagree with his conclusion. Explain the scum though process to me. Yes, I know, “don’t get trapped in 'scum wouldn’t do that,” but I’ve considered the event and I don’t believe it indicates Blaster is scum. > > Lastly, I’m not digging how much late-day steam this wagon has gathered. It doesn’t strike me as right at all. > > I’m sticking with gnarly. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > Peeks, I think I must have missed something. How do we know Giraffe is scum? From Day 3: > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I missed Giraffe’s post. I’ve been reading from my phone when I get a moment at work so I don’t fall as far behind. > > Ultimately, I need to review Giraffe again in light of the new flips. I thought he was suspicious yesterday, so I’ll gladly consider him hopping on a PIS slip suspicious too. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I’m definitely willing to lynch Episkey. Sign me up. > > **Vote Episkey.** > > For my earlier case on him plus a claim of wolf by Askthepizzaguy. It’s possible the whisper could be wrong, so I’m sorry if you flip townie. As I said yesterday regarding gnarly, I’d rather find out the old-fashioned way than worry about it day after day. On Day 2, he votes Giraffe as the scummier of the two, but questions Peeker as to how he knows Giraffe is scum. Then he votes Gnarly, so as to get some clarity on the claims. On Day 3 he needs to review Giraffe and votes Episkey when ATPG gets a message about him. My gut says Episkey is scum, and Astral investigated him, but logically, it could be the other way as well, that Astral is voting for answers. I think Astral would want to know himself if he can trust his results. I don’t like that cop claim from Episkey, though. **vote Episkey** ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3643 "2011-08-29T14:10:33Z")
Why would ATPG have gotten 2 results in one Day though? Especially if he weren’t a mystic or seer? puzzling. I’d rather lynch NAF. I’m quite confident that he is Scum. ---
**Author:** ![lilflower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@lilflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lilflower)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3644 "2011-08-29T14:30:54Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Read the role description. Anyone who has reported receiving a role and name is now suspect. It’s not certain that they’re a Mystic, but they’re going to be next on the Scum list to be killed. > > (I feel like **sachertorte** in Cecil Pond…) OK, I see what you mean about the mystics. In re-reading your vote post, now I think what I am missing here is how this makes \*\*Episkey \*\* and \*\*NAF \*\*scum. ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3645 "2011-08-29T14:32:49Z")
I mean, what? 1. It’s blatantly impossible Astral peeked me scum because, well, IM NOT SCUM. 2. Astral blatantly says “I find giraffe more scummy than episkey”, yet you think he peeked me wolf or something? 3. “For my earlier case + the message ATPG got” was the reasoning for voting me. The case itself isn’t even a case on me being scum, it’s a review of my posts (again ended by “I find giraffe more scummy than episkey” which is never, ever ,ever ,in the history of ever said if I’m a peeked wolf - which again is impossible). 4. Just reread the case. Here, I’ll c/p it for you: > [@](#): > > "To start with, Episkey suggests that Krayz is town. I’ve noticed a pattern among POGers, where they’ll announce they’ve seen “one thing” about someone, and then suggest they’ll clear the person if they can say what it is. Episkey doesn’t do that here, he just idly mentions he’ll see if Krayz can figure it out, but this seems as good a place to ask why you guys do that as any. Anyway, to make a point, this could be a scum Episkey looking for town cred. Or not. Either side could have made this post. > > 617: Episkey drops a quote, says “me too!”, and adds that “the fact Jan ignores Peeker’s stated reasons for posting differently and then votes him isn’t good.” Silver Jan seems to be going with the flow, and her vote seemed weak to me, but Episkey’s vote here seems just as weak. > > 645: Drops a quote of lilflower, adds a single question, and calls out TexCat. Similar to 617, just kinda seems weak. > > 664: He wants to clear Dancecat for a post, and asks her if she knows why. Either do it or don’t, dude. I find this kind of thing frustrating, although I’m not gonna call it scummy. We as a town gain information from discussion, and we learn nothing from a stream of posts like this. I have yet to see anyone answer that question, regardless of who asks, so what is gained here? > > 689: Yet more defense of Krayz. I’m noticing a pattern here. He also defended Krayz in 638. > > 844: Suggests not discussing crackedquad’s “valid point” because EOD is in 40 mninutes. There’s no pro-town reason for shutting down conversation. However, as I’ve seen many times, anti-town is not necessarily scum, so this isn’t exactly the scum tell of the century. > > 1140: One of Episkey’s most decisive posts. Calls out Precambrianmollusc for voting Krayz, stating that Precam’s vote was “the worst of the worst imo.” He concludes, in all caps, that “HE KNOWS IT FOR HORRIBLE REASONS YET HE VOTES FOR HIM ANYWAYS.” He then votes Precambrian for it. Wait, no he doesn’t. No vote at all. Why not? > > 1150: He’s glad to see his read of Dancecat was correct. He’s basing this on Idle’s say-so. I currently have no reason beyond crazy speculation to suspect Idle is lying, and plenty of other people have gone over the various ifs and so on, but Episkey seems to be just blindly trusting Idle here. He has a good defense against lilflower’s question in 1174, and he explains why Idle would be honest either way. However, he’s missing a key point: Idle himself doesn’t actually know if it’s an honest result or not. Idle clearly believes it’s true, but Episkey seems to be accepting it far too easily." Pragraph A: “Either side could have made this post” B: “Silver Jan seems to be going with the flow, and her vote seemed weak to me, but Episkey’s vote here seems just as weak.” So Astral agreed with what I said, yet said the vote is weak. Uh, ok? C: “Seems a little weak”, but doesn’t ask or explain why. D: “I have yet to see anyone answer that question, regardless of who asks, so what is gained here?” Well, Dancecat actually did answer it. And the purpose for doing it - at least in my opinion - is that it lets me know what he thought process is looking like. Is it the mindset of someone trying to figure out a question, or someone trying to sound like someone figuring out a question. E: Comments that I - WHO HAS PLAYED IN EVERY SINGLE NON-TURBO GAME KRAYZ HAS PLAYED EXCEPT FOR ONE - kept defending him. Why? Because he was an obvious villager, and I tried to explain that his “come at be bro” style is his villager game while his commentator game is his wolf game. F: I didn’t want us to waste time discussing CQ’s vs Peeker’s vote a wagon debate with 40 minutes to go because I WAS TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO STOP VOTING A VILLAGER. How on earth is that a bad thing? G: I didn’t vote PCMB because it was the first morning of a ridiculously long (for us) Day. There was going to be a heap of information coming out in the near future, and I wanted to see how that played out rather than just vote someone for a terrible vote on d1. Yes, the vote was still atrocious. H: So I’m accepting that one of two people still alive at that point that I gave villager leans on is actually a villager when someone pops in a says they got a message saying she was - when there was nothing at the time showing any reason for it to be false? Look, I get it. Astral was a detective and voted me so you guys think that must mean he peeked me. But if you just read what he actually wrote about me you’ll see it is IMPOSSIBLE I was peeked. There is nothing definitive about me being scummy - its a lot of “well either side could do this”. He also explicitly stated that “I find Giraffe more scummy than Episkey”. I can’t fathom anyone actually believing I was peeked here. It’s impossible - I know it due to my role and you all should know it due to how Astral spoke of me. ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3646 "2011-08-29T14:33:51Z")
In other news, my target was Gnarly - a confirmed mason townie - and I guess since he died my “peek” was sent back to me: It says **pwnsall** is a wolf. I also believe it is 100% false. ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3647 "2011-08-29T14:36:41Z")
In conclusion: If you want to vote me, fine. If you think that my role of sending flipped messages has to be scum, then vote me and say thats why. If there’s something in my actions that you think is scummy, vote me and say why and we can discuss it. But do not vote me because a dead mystic made a “case” comparing and contrasting me with Giraffe and found him much more scummy. That’s ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![gnarlycharlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@gnarlycharlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnarlycharlie)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3648 "2011-08-29T14:47:52Z")
**Texcat** , we gave it a good run. GO TOWN! ---
**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:** [August 29, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3649 "2011-08-29T14:51:48Z")
Well, I’m going to assume that **Astral** ’s one-off on **Episkey** was for the purposes of breadcrumbing, and there’s been a Scum result about him broadcast into the thread by a now-known Town. And **NAF** is suspect based on those same broadcast results unless there’s a Scum power that gives wrong info about a target to a random person (which is entirely possible, given the wrong info about **charlie** that was posted earlier). This is why I’m voting for the former and not the latter. What I don’t know is how **pizza** fits into all of this. I can’t parse why he got both of those results, seeing as he’s not a Mystic. I’m guessing some sort of redirection came into play. It’s weird how **NAF** seems to be involved in a lot of potential redirection ( **ed** , and **pizzaguy** inexplicably getting investigation results on him). I just can’t figure out how it all pieces together. Maybe as the Day goes on we’ll get more info on that. ---
**Author:** ![lilflower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@lilflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lilflower)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3650 "2011-08-29T14:53:50Z")
I have no problem with the suspicion of \*\*Episkey \*\*toDay, especially since he still hasn’t responded to my[post 3409 about his vote on me yesterDay](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14186164&postcount=3409). I’d like to see his response first before voting him, though. Partly because I still like my case on **Normal Phase** and because I don’t think \*\*Episkey \*\*has been back at all since I posted that. ---
**Author:** ![Scuba\_Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Scuba\_Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scuba_Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3651 "2011-08-29T15:08:11Z")
Wolf messages: Night 1, Silver Jan was told gnarlycharlie is a Wolf. We now know this message to be false. Night 2, PizzaGuy was told that both Episkey and NAF1138 are Wolves. We can presume PizzaGuy accurately reported the messages, but do not know definitively the validity of either message. Night 3, Episkey was told that pwnsall is a Wolf. This conflicts with Giraffe’s received message on Night 2. Message validity is unknown. I conclude that this reinforces the probability of a paranoid or insane whisperer. I use “whisperer” here for the role, as everybody reporting a WOLF message has stated the message was not about their own target. Therefore, to whoever targeted all of gnarlycharlie on N1, NAF and/or Episkey on N2, and pwnsall on N3: I suggest you DO NOT CLAIM at this time, and consider claiming if someone reports receiving a message saying that your target that Night is Town. Paying attention to my day job today. Can’t actually pay attention to the game. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3652 "2011-08-29T15:08:32Z")
> [@J.D](#): > > well i somehow managed to forget about this game again, but here full force today hopefully. The hurricane means I am in the home office for most of today so should be around. > > good work on the brew kill whoever you are, nice shot. > > I should probably go review the original game, but I believe there were 3 mystic seers in the last game, and one was a wolf. > > peeks went: > > seer 1 - seer 2 > seer 2 - seer 3 > seer 3 - seer 1 > > def need to re-read astral for peeks. > > question: on this board how do seers leave info? Hi there! Yesterday, you told us “I have had two night actions, both with no result, however, my one last night was re-directed.” How do you know that your Night 2 action was redirected? ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3653 "2011-08-29T15:08:43Z")
> [@lilflower](#): > > I have no problem with the suspicion of \*\*Episkey \*\*toDay, especially since he still hasn’t responded to my[post 3409 about his vote on me yesterDay](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14186164&postcount=3409). I’d like to see his response first before voting him, though. Partly because I still like my case on **Normal Phase** and because I don’t think \*\*Episkey \*\*has been back at all since I posted that. I thought eod was later than it was, and by the time day started I got caught up in having to explain that I cannot be peeked here ever (again, I know due to my role, you all should know based on how he discussed me) that I never got a chance to. Yes, I know that you jumped on and then back off. You were on pretty much everyone other than blaster D2 and I found it scummy with the way wagons developed (as I explained in my analysis). As for the question between what I think is different b/w you and pwnsall, I believe him actively voting for Blaster late is vastly different from you jumping off towards the end onto another wagon. Pwnsall made a decisive vote ONTO a wolf, and I believe him to be town for it (also as evident from my receiving a message on him saying otherwise and not believing it for a second). I think you got caught into a spot where you were stuck. You didn’t want to bus your teammate, but you couldn’t have jumped from wagon to wagon to wagon against him because it would look too bad. So you jumped off while the wagon was still gaining a lot of steam. Now, if Blaster is lynched (like he was)you get no heat for being on the other wagon, and if you do you can say “well at least I jumped off!”. If Blaster isn’t lynched and we lynch a villager, you can say “I knew I needed to get off him!”. Thats why I think the “scum wouldn’t waste that chance” doesn’t apply to you, because HAD you of stayed on you were the easiest scum to decipher off of it. Finding slots where scum would be stuck and forced to do weird things - like I believe you were forced to do on D2 - has been a successful method in me finding them. And so I voted you for it. ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3654 "2011-08-29T15:10:39Z")
> [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > Wolf messages: > > Night 1, Silver Jan was told gnarlycharlie is a Wolf. We now know this message to be false. > Night 2, PizzaGuy was told that both Episkey and NAF1138 are Wolves. We can presume PizzaGuy accurately reported the messages, but do not know definitively the validity of either message. > Night 3, Episkey was told that pwnsall is a Wolf. This conflicts with Giraffe’s received message on Night 2. Message validity is unknown. > > I conclude that this reinforces the probability of a paranoid or insane whisperer. I use “whisperer” here for the role, as everybody reporting a WOLF message has stated the message was not about their own target. Therefore, to whoever targeted all of gnarlycharlie on N1, NAF and/or Episkey on N2, and pwnsall on N3: I suggest you DO NOT CLAIM at this time, and consider claiming if someone reports receiving a message saying that your target that Night is Town. > > Paying attention to my day job today. Can’t actually pay attention to the game. I am 99.99% sure I’m the insane whisperer. The only reason I got the message I think is because I targeted a lock clear mason to receive my message and he died so it got reflected back onto me. If one every comes up town we snap vote them. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3655 "2011-08-29T15:12:33Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > Missed that first time round So then one of the kills must have been by the Masons. Presumably Astral. Although it’s possible they targeted Brewha too in case he was healed. Which I guess means either that the scum killed TexCat and Gnarlycharlie separately, since we know there’s a Scum Vig & presumably a normal scum team kill. Or that one of the doctors saved someone. I wouldn’t say that one of the kills “must have been” by the Masons, because it’s possible their kill was blocked in some fashion. But it’s certainly a possibility. If one of the Night-kills is from the Masons, it would seem to be **Astral**. It’s possible that they targeted \*\*Pizza \*\*or **brewha** , but there’s nothing in the color to indicate that either of those players was ‘killed’ twice (as there was with \*\*Mahaloth \*\*on Night 1). ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3656 "2011-08-29T15:12:53Z")
Also, I find the reasoning “to not create a tie” to be rather scummy in itself. You didn’t unvote because you realized he was a villager, or because you thought you were moving to a scummier wagon. You unvoted simply because of numbers that would be changing throughout the eod. ---
**Author:** ![pwnsall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7feea3/32.png) [@pwnsall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pwnsall)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3657 "2011-08-29T15:14:27Z")
i dunno if anyone knows but are whispers different than peeks or the same but people just call them whispers because you seem to get them “randomly” ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3658 "2011-08-29T15:15:41Z")
> [@pwnsall](#): > > i dunno if anyone knows but are whispers different than peeks or the same but people just call them whispers because you seem to get them “randomly” I think they are whispers because you were not doing the investigation yourself, someone essentially “whispers” the results to you. ---
**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:** [August 29, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3659 "2011-08-29T15:16:00Z")
I went back and looked at the beginning of yesterDay, before the slip swung the voting. I couldn’t remember who the early suspects were based on the late **Inner** votes. Turns out it was **Scathach** (the one I remembered, because I was voting for her) and **brewha**. Given the result on **brewha** , it looks better for **Scathach** –I doubt that Scum would have piled on quite that much. Possible, but a point in Townie favor for **Scathach**. I doubt, without anything more being revealed, that I will be voting for her again anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![pwnsall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7feea3/32.png) [@pwnsall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pwnsall)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3660 "2011-08-29T15:16:51Z")
brewha turning up wolf makes me a bit more suspicious of people voting him/trying to get his wagon to take off ---
**Author:** ![Episkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Episkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Episkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025/3661 "2011-08-29T15:17:44Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > I went back and looked at the beginning of yesterDay, before the slip swung the voting. I couldn’t remember who the early suspects were based on the late **Inner** votes. Turns out it was **Scathach** (the one I remembered, because I was voting for her) and **brewha**. Given the result on **brewha** , it looks better for **Scathach** –I doubt that Scum would have piled on quite that much. Possible, but a point in Townie favor for **Scathach**. I doubt, without anything more being revealed, that I will be voting for her again anytime soon. Since you are also looking back over that time etc, can you tell me your thoughts on the lilflower votes/unvote and what you think it could mean? As I stated earlier, I think it’s a “stuck” wolf but I think others should discuss it also [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025.md?page=182) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mystery-mafia-game-thread/593025.md?page=184)