Elcenia Mafia Game Thread

[Shoal]

vote futurevision

last game the mods said that it was permissable to poke people you know and say "hey go look at the thread" as long as you didn't talk about it more than that. so if anyone knows and wants to poke futurevision they should.

@BSS are we sure it stopped kuu from talking in that game? i don't remember if that was ever clarified.

[pistachi0n]

Change vote: futurevision

Kappa: The power didn't stop 63 from speaking. It stopped her from using her power. She wasn't speaking, well, we still don't know why she wasn't speaking, but other people who were roleblocked by that same power earlier in the game could still talk and vote the next day.

[Shoal]

Unofficial vote count:

PlainDealingVillain: 5 (Alpha, MTC, paradox, tamien, wolffreak)
tau: 4 (jalapeno_dude, modrony, PDV, Tulip)
futurevision: 5 (kappa, BlueSkySprite, tau, shoal, pistachi0n)
michaelblume: 1 (anthusiasum)
Abstentions: 2 (futurevision, michaelblume)

I think this futurevision thing will at least give us some information

[pistachi0n]

And if it turns out futurevision is not a demon, I think Alicorn should find out if she's still playing and seek a replacement if not. On Mafiascum, they send you a PM if you go 48 hours without talking. If you don't say anything in the game for 24 hours after that, they replace you.

[Shoal]

I like that mechanic. alicorn could take potential replacements in the signup thread or something.

[modrony]

Ok. I know myself under pressure and I really shouldn't be making big decisions at this point, but I searched PDVs posts including eff-mafia and there is but a single mention of word 'abstain'

vote PlainDealingVillain

[Kappa]

modrony, what's the significance of that result...?

[MTC]

I’ll vote futurevision too.

[modrony]

modrony, what's the significance of that result...?

That explicit abstaining is uncharacteristic for him.
Thus he likely has a reason to say it today.

[Tulip]

I'm kind of torn on this one. On the one hand, killing someone based on a comment that ambiguous seems wrong, but on the other hand, it's not like we had anything particularly good to go on before, either. I suppose I'll change my vote to futurevision on the basis that Past Me would most likely have voted futurevision in the first place had the current evidence been available when she was deciding who to vote for.