• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Star Wars Mafia |OT| A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

P

Palmer_v1

Member
czartim - Mostly trust him. Posting frequently, and generally not wastefully

Rymuth - Detain for inactivity

Zippedpinhead - He's staying active enough not to draw attention, but hasn't stood out. Basically same as last game.

Barrylocke - His level of activity is very concerning. He's barely posted more in 3 days than he did in 1 day last game. Only seems to show up long enough to make excuses and claim he'll do something more useful at a later time that hasn't materialized. Detain for inactivity.

OceanicAir - Detain for inactivity

redhood56 - So, the Ordinary Rebel thing. It's not THAT much of a stretch to guess the name since every generic character has been Ordinary X so far. Ordinary Tourist/Mafia/Rebel/Villager, etc. As someone who didn't know the name of it, it did not take me much to figure out what was going on.

Matt Attack - Again, inactivity with excuses. See Barrylocke. I'm willing to give them time to step it up, but for now, it's not helpful to town.

QuantumBro - I'm 50/50 on him being a Hutt. I'm pretty sure he's not an armorer though.

eJawa - Gut tells me he's okay, but it's hard to be certain

Makai - Hutts would have no compunction about playing that box game with Blarg and than lying about their role if they lost. Just have a bad feeling about him.

raindoc - Had a good feeling about him D1, but inactivity concerns me.

Setre - Feels like he's just in over his head with a power role in his first Mafia game. Remember this is just a game, so don't take anything personally here. Due to the nature of Mafia, it's hard to get assistance when you're not sure what to do.

traube - Seems to have a vendetta against OceanicAir. Curious what's going on there. I mostly trust him.

AbsolutBro - Another useful poster so far. Active and generally gives reason for why he's doing something.

TheWorthyEdge - I trust him and Zubz.

Zubz - See above.

johnnyquicknives - Another Rebel, I'm fairly certain.

My inclination is to vote for inactives, for the many reasons I've listed before. In particular, Oceanic Air, because it would also sate my curiosity about Traube.

Vote: Oceanic Air
 
O

OceanicAir

Member
CzarTim said:
BTW contributing doesn't mean making posts, it means having opinions on who you think is town or scum. We very likely could have 4 hutts left (at least) and it's day 3 of this game. Surely everyone has SOME opinion on everyone else. Of course some of those opinions will be hilariously wrong, but posting your opinions helps others get a good read on you and helps town form opinions.

A lot of filler content I've read is just people reiterating things that happen with limited commentary. It's very easy for mafia to get by with just "Gee golly, a lot is going on. What's up with all that?" and never actually stating anything definitive.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and agree but I don't see what makes my inactivity more suspicious than others. I do have reasons why I did not post as much but I consider excuses to potentially exploitable. A large majority of posts here are very short filler posts anyway. I have given my thoughts on some people which is a lot more than some others that people trust more have.

Palmer_v1 said:
Of the people with role claims, Quantumbro is the only person whose story I don't buy.

The only reason a Hutt might claim that role is to use the gun handouts to try and explain double kill nights.

The counterpoint to that is that we've only had 1 extra Night kill so far, and I'm fairly certain that was LoC.

More likely he's just using this as cover for a different role, like Blarg was.
Click to expand...

I still have trouble believing that LoC would use his gun on Day 1 since that would be extremely counterproductive for town so early in the game before anybody had any leads.
 
Z

Zippedpinhead

Member
these posts aren't as helpful as you may think (the hutt's could use them to fix their game based on suspicious posting habits). However, I was called out so here! These are my thoughts on currently alive players:

Czartim - him and traube called me out. Traube's further down the list (because I stole the formatting fro czartim). I get a decent vibe from czartim, but I usually keep these thoughts close to the vest.

Palmer_v1 - I trust him, as long as his winning does not prevent the rebels from winning... Him being unable to win if the rebels lose is not the same thing as all of us winning if we get the hutt's out.

Rymuth - if he doesn't come back or is not replaced I would remove. At least make the effort.

Zippedpinhead - straight from my defense post on the first day. I am just a plain old rebel, my only power is to vote. If you vote for me at least I don't actively hinder the group (but personally I would rather stick around and help get these hutts)

Barrylocke - For a guy who wanted to play so badly after getting shanked in the last game he has been largely absent. It'll be interesting to find out if he has a role or not.

OceanicAir- no response... Take that however you want to.

redhood56 - He gives me a weird feeling, just odd behavior (a lot like some mafia players from the last game). Might just be inexperienced, or a great ruse from the vile hutts.

Matt Attack - i understand not being able to keep up with everything, but Matt has made the effort, I think he is rebel.

QuantumBro - he has taken the lead, and yesterday I had thought he was lying about his role to spur on conversation and gleam some insight based on who we would trust with an extra kill. No good way to test this since he says he passed a shield instead of a gun "eliminating the easy, hey I got a gun who should I use it on post". Probably not Hutt, but very sneaky.

eJawa - No clue, but depending on setre, could be a Hutt mislead. Totally rebel if setre is to be believed.

Makai - No clue,

raindoc - i get a rough vibe from him, but mostly because either he hasn't posted much, or I just miss his posts when I finally can read the thread. I'm on 100 posts per page though...

Setre - See my previous thoughts on him and his role. Likely rookie mistake, but hasn't hurt town yet.

traube - Playing slightly differently than last game, consistent at that. Seems to be actively looking for Hutt, as opposed to random votes. Likely rebel.

AbsolutBro - more involved than last game, pretty consistent. Likely rebel

TheWorthyEdge - I don't really believe the combat buddy story BUT there is no good way to test it. The longer they both stay alive at night, the less I believe the story.

Zubz - See above.

johnnyquicknives - I like how he has been playing the game. To the point, insightful,
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
OceanicAir said:
I understand what you are saying and agree but I don't see what makes my inactivity more suspicious than others. I do have reasons why I did not post as much but I consider excuses to potentially exploitable. A large majority of posts here are very short filler posts anyway. I have given my thoughts on some people which is a lot more than some others that people trust more have.



I still have trouble believing that LoC would use his gun on Day 1 since that would be extremely counterproductive for town so early in the game before anybody had any leads.
Click to expand...

Based on what we know now about N1 kills, LoC being the second killer makes the most sense. If both deaths were caused by Hutts:

It means they have another killing role. Possibly 1 shot. Possibly on a cooldown. Possible blocked N2. Possibly not used N2.

The targets don't make sense in this case. If swamped had died, LoC is one person it would have cast doubt on, but he was also targeted. In general, even aside from her actual role, killing Swamped seems like a bad idea for Mafia. There's a decent chance we were going to detain her on our own eventually. LoC was a decent target on the other hand. Killing him would have probably cast further doubt on Swamped, and increased the odds of us detaining her. Plus he was fairly active and generally helpful to us.

Another possibility is a Neutral killer. Before anyone tries to accuse me, remember that Setre(assuming we believe him), has already confirmed I did not target anyone Night 1. This means there's at least 1 more Neutral character, and that they are either a 1 shot, on cooldown, blocked, or chose not to use it.

Instead of all of that convoluted mess, Occam's Razor tells me LoC shot first.
 
O

OceanicAir

Member
Palmer_v1 said:
Based on what we know now about N1 kills, LoC being the second killer makes the most sense. If both deaths were caused by Hutts:

It means they have another killing role. Possibly 1 shot. Possibly on a cooldown. Possible blocked N2. Possibly not used N2.

The targets don't make sense in this case. If swamped had died, LoC is one person it would have cast doubt on, but he was also targeted. In general, even aside from her actual role, killing Swamped seems like a bad idea for Mafia. There's a decent chance we were going to detain her on our own eventually. LoC was a decent target on the other hand. Killing him would have probably cast further doubt on Swamped, and increased the odds of us detaining her. Plus he was fairly active and generally helpful to us.

Another possibility is a Neutral killer. Before anyone tries to accuse me, remember that Setre(assuming we believe him), has already confirmed I did not target anyone Night 1. This means there's at least 1 more Neutral character, and that they are either a 1 shot, on cooldown, blocked, or chose not to use it.

Instead of all of that convoluted mess, Occam's Razor tells me LoC shot first.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't explain why would LoC target swamped in the first place. He only ever voted for her because it was random and why would he kill someone randomly? It would not help to have around a 20-30% chance (depending on how many mafia there are) to kill mafia with his only shot. Especially with the fact that he had voted for a number of people why choose swamped?

Also as you said if the mafia were going to wait to detain swamped anyway, couldn't LoC think the same way instead of wasting a kill on someone that did not have any sort of serious wagon in the first place?

A neutral killer with some kind of cooldown or blocker would make more sense to me as a convoluted mess seems like par for the course. You yourself were the first person to even bandy about a neutral bounty killer sort of role at the beginning of the game saying that was Terra's role when Terra voted for you.

Setre could still be lying because who would say regardless whether they were mafia or not that they move at night? If they are mafia then they have to create a role and if they are town then then they either role claim (helps mafia) or have town doubt them.
 
C

CzarTim

Member
I believe it is common practice for a 1 shot night vig to shoot the person they find most suspicious early in the game and claim the kill first thing in the morning. The thinking is it saves town from wasting a day detaining an obvious suspect, and town can afford losing a few members early on if they're wrong. LoC random voted swamped, sure, but he was highly suspicious of her response to that.

You are right that we can't be 100% sure, but it is the likely scenario based on the info we have now.
 
Z

Zatoth

Member
I think it is possible that LoC used his power during night 1. There was a good chance that he would be the first target. He probably was aware of that.

Why target swamped? Just to get things rolling probably.
 
Z

Zatoth

Member
What do you think about the inactive players? I still think that they are more likely Rebels than Empire players.

But they don't add anything/much to the flow of the game. So I think it is still a acceptable option to detain them.
 
B

Barrylocke

Member
Vote:ejawa

I had a longer post but my browser closed on me and it got lost. Here's the highlights:

I think there's mafia among who voted for blargonaut. I think the hutts will not spend much time defending the last imperial, because at the end of the day its better to keep the ones you know and can talk to safe. They may shed a tear, but they will still vote them down if they must.

I obviously believe myself, and I also believe zubs and palmer for now.

ejawa has done votes that have been safe and easy to get away with if/when it misvotes.
Blargonaut for being convoluted and distracting
exmachina for claiming hutt and then backtracking
blargonaut again for claim as an imperial.

The Rymuth vote is less obvious, but at the time Palmer was fairly trusted, so that could be a reason. I'm less clear on that.


He's also just given me general gut vibes of someone who claims ready to do some searching for clues, and comes up with the most general things in the end. You could probably say the same thing about me granted, but I can at least trust myself.

And there was another meh'd apology for not being so active. It's all I can offer you guys. Perhaps I'll stop making declarations of going to dig of fat loot. Especially from day 2. I'm sure there's important stuff in there but I REALLY don't want to touch that days content with a 10 foot pole right now, sorry.
 
B

Barrylocke

Member
Concerning Setre's "no suspicious" read on him, that means nothing at all. If he's a hutt/mafia member that has no role, and he didn't do a night kill, then of course he's nonsuspicious

He could also be the 2nd imperial, which from the other role text, can only vote, albeit for imperial/hutt victory.

The only thing Setre's claim means (assuming it's as Setre says, but I have no reason to believe otherwise) is that he has didn't do a night action on that night. That's it.
 
E

eJawa

would probably like a hook in his jaw for that matter
My first vote against me! My votes on day 1 were pretty erratic, I had no idea what to do. I knew we needed to vote someone off, but didn't know who. I ended up with sticking with exmachina, because I thought there was a chance he got frustrated and slipped up, but figured it would at least get us some info for day 2 if he was rebel. That kind of backfired when it turned out he had a really good power role As for day 2, I still feel my vote against Blarg was justified. His lie was way too good and matched up with his earlier posts. Anyway, back to what I was typing before I saw your post.

I think that QuantumBro is either lying about being a armorer or is a hutt armorer. Having 2 armorers seems really powerful and It's not like MattyG could predict the amount self-sabotaging we would do in the first 2 days, to need the extra advantage. Unless we get further proof of there being a thief, I going with that for now.

Cote: QuantumBro
 
B

Barrylocke

Member
The idea of a hutt armorer when you'd run out of people to arm in 5ish days (including people with powers already) seems strange to me. But I suppose they could have different rules for arming than a townie version, and there is the imperials to consider.

2 armorers in one game certainly does seem very strong for towns, but we know there was a lot of tweaking done in this game to get it just right, so it may still be possible.

I can see it either way right now. I just wish

I wonder how my old suspicion, Zippedpinhead has been fairing with their posts. I need to look over them and see how things are now, but...day 2. *Shiver*. Plus I haven't been the best at keeping up with my "I'll do this active thing that actives do" promises so far :p
 
C

CzarTim

Member
Ex was Rebel Armorer, QB Hutt Armorer, Palmer is thief with win condition to steal a certain number of items.

/tinfoilhat

I do think QB is a good detain choice, but part of me wants to wait one more day to see if someone confirms? I could be persuaded into today though.
 
B

Barrylocke

Member
Barrylocke said:
The idea of a hutt armorer when you'd run out of people to arm in 5ish days (including people with powers already) seems strange to me. But I suppose they could have different rules for arming than a townie version, and there is the imperials to consider.

2 armorers in one game certainly does seem very strong for towns, but we know there was a lot of tweaking done in this game to get it just right, so it may still be possible.

I can see it either way right now. I just wish exmachina wasn't gone so we had one for sure.

I wonder how my old suspicion, Zippedpinhead has been fairing with their posts. I need to look over them and see how things are now, but...day 2. *Shiver*. Plus I haven't been the best at keeping up with my "I'll do this active thing that actives do" promises so far :p
Click to expand...

Finished my incomplete thought.
 
M

Matt Attack

Member
These player analyses seem to be pretty popular, so I'll go ahead and make one of my own. This doesn't count as bandwagoning, right?

CzarTim: I believe you are a rebel- I think your posts speak for themselves.

Palmer_v1: I'm more interested in trying to detain Hutts/Imperials at the moment, so I doubt that I would vote for you yet. Would love some more information about your role though!

Rymuth: I can't say for sure. I made it clear early on that I'm not really fond of the idea of detaining inactive player, but at a certain point it starts to become a serious issue. I would heavily consider detaining you.

Zippedpinhead: I voted for you on the first day because I felt that your posts lacked a certain "something". I can't say that you've changed my mind just yet. I fear it may be a little hasty, but I would consider detaining you. This is still kind of a gut feeling though, so if you'd like to prove me wrong, I'd be thrilled. I don't want us to detain another rebel if we can avoid it.

Barrylocke: I want to believe in you, and I generally like your posts from early on. You're definitely not on the top of my list for detainment, but I think we really need to start getting some more substantial posts from you, or we're going to have a problem. At the very least, it seems you share my apprehension (fear?) of examing Day 2 in more detail!

OceanicAir: I don't think I would detain you at this point.

redhood56: I'm confident that you're town. Barring a shocking turn of events, I don't anticipate voting for you.

Matt Attack: I believe that you're obviously a rebel- a dashing, handsome one at that.

QuantumBro: You are a suspicious individual. I will be watching your posts closely.

eJawa: You haven't really felt super scummy to me.

Makai: I don't have a real opinion on you at this point, which puts you squarely in me "watch more carefully" list.

raindoc: I can't say for sure at this point. If I had to place you on the "trust" end of the spectrum or the "remember to watch more carefully" end, I'd probably put you closer to the latter.

Setre: You are probably a rebel. I bought your explanation from yesterday, so let's hope that that's not a mistake.

traube: You are probably a rebel. As they say, "you're aight".
AbsolutBro: I need to read more from you, but you don't seem particularly scummy to me.

TheWorthyEdge and Zubz: Your whole situation is weird, and honestly I haven't had the time to go over your posts as thoroughly as might be hoped. Ask me again later, because I don't think I'm ready to say anything definitive at this point.

johnnyquicknives: There is a decent chance that you are a rebel, as you seem to be pretty pro-town.
Click to expand...

Palmer_v1 said:
Matt Attack - Again, inactivity with excuses. See Barrylocke. I'm willing to give them time to step it up, but for now, it's not helpful to town.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you're willing to give me time to prove myself. As it stands, while my posts are few in number, I feel like a majority of them have been pretty pro-town- I make a serious effort to comment on things I see that bug me. Hopefully any doubt anybody has concerning me will be dispelled as I continue to post.
 
C

CzarTim

Member
In terms of lists, obviously they are easy to manipulate as hutt and I'm not expecting everyone to make one (but ok if you do!) The thing is our most important information role decided to completely sabotage our game because "lol." This game is still totally winnable as town, but we probably won't be able to rely on too many more information roles to win. Talking is how we win. Figuring out who is suspicious based on posting is how we win. It's okay to be wrong as long as your intent is pro-town. Ask yourself when you read a post why a hutt would make it vs a rebel. Be honest about your feelings, and we'll be fine.
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
CzarTim said:
Ex was Rebel Armorer, QB Hutt Armorer, Palmer is thief with win condition to steal a certain number of items.

/tinfoilhat

I do think QB is a good detain choice, but part of me wants to wait one more day to see if someone confirms? I could be persuaded into today though.
Click to expand...

I briefly wondered if QB was a Hutt counterfeit armorer, but couldn't think of a good reason to role claim anything if it was the case.

It would also require guns to work during the day, not the night. Essentially he could gift you a shield that didn't actually do anything. This would lead to some funny night time deaths where people thought they were safe. For guns, I've seen variations where it's a daytime command, i..e. Shoot: Annakin. Then we'd wait for MattyG to confirm that Annakin died, give us his role, and we continue voting to detain like normal. The fake gun would not actually shoot at all when confirmed by MattyG, but you can bet your target is now going to be fairly pissed at you.
 
O

OceanicAir

Member
CzarTim said:
I believe it is common practice for a 1 shot night vig to shoot the person they find most suspicious early in the game and claim the kill first thing in the morning. The thinking is it saves town from wasting a day detaining an obvious suspect, and town can afford losing a few members early on if they're wrong. LoC random voted swamped, sure, but he was highly suspicious of her response to that.

You are right that we can't be 100% sure, but it is the likely scenario based on the info we have now.
Click to expand...

traube said:
I think it is possible that LoC used his power during night 1. There was a good chance that he would be the first target. He probably was aware of that.

Why target swamped? Just to get things rolling probably.
Click to expand...

LoC did post here that he thought that Zipped and Worthy were suspicious. I would think he would kill one of them because explaining that the next day would be slightly hard to do if he survived. But there's no possible way to find out until another night passes so I guess I'll drop it for now.
 
Q

QuantumBro

Banned
Palmer_v1 said:
I briefly wondered if QB was a Hutt counterfeit armorer, but couldn't think of a good reason to role claim anything if it was the case.

It would also require guns to work during the day, not the night. Essentially he could gift you a shield that didn't actually do anything. This would lead to some funny night time deaths where people thought they were safe. For guns, I've seen variations where it's a daytime command, i..e. Shoot: Annakin. Then we'd wait for MattyG to confirm that Annakin died, give us his role, and we continue voting to detain like normal. The fake gun would not actually shoot at all when confirmed by MattyG, but you can bet your target is now going to be fairly pissed at you.
Click to expand...

The gun only works at night.
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
QuantumBro said:
Well I clarified both the shield and gun actions with mattyg.
Click to expand...

Allegedly.

I'm just pointing out that we technically don't have any confirmation on how the guns or shields work, aside from you, which is a moot point for those of us that don't think you're an armorer.

A confirmation from whoever got one last night would be nice, but I can understand their reluctance as well. We're in kind of a bad spot.
 
Z

Zatoth

Member
I still think that two Armorers would be kinda powerful. Don't want to imagine what the Empire players can pull off, if QuantumBro is telling the truth.

~1,5 player would have received a shield each night. Shield is useless during the day, right? So detaining would still be possible.

Empire would need a lot of fire power to counter that.

So detain me if I am wrong. But I just can't believe this story. Sorry, QB.

Vote: QuantumBro

I am not forgetting about you, OceanicAir. ;)
 
Z

Zatoth

Member
And yes, I am aware that you could also hand out the Blaster. But from a Rebel perspective the shield is the much better choice.
 
O

OceanicAir

Member
I was looking back at the posts around Blarg's lynch since I think a lot of info is around there (as incomprehensible as it is Thanks Blarg!) and some stood out.
TheWorthyEdge said:
Holy crap. I got it. I think I got it guys.

Hope I don't get *arrested*
Click to expand...

Blargonaut said:
Truly, the Worthiest of Edges.
Click to expand...

Palmer_v1 said:
That's his secondary, also incorrect, claim.
Click to expand...

Worthy and Palmer what did you see in Blarg's posts that made you think that he was/wasn't specifically a cop?

Palmer_v1 said:
For the record, I'm not a Cop, but I have some Cop-like knowledge inherent to my role.
Click to expand...

What kind of knowledge do you have? At least if you can tell us without ruining your own chances of fulfilling your win condition.

Palmer_v1 said:
Mistake. We're already losing a Neutral instead of a Mafia because of him.
Click to expand...
Palmer_v1 said:
He's trying to sneakily get someone detained, and I know via my role, that he's wrong. I have an early lose condition that will likely trigger because of him. Basically, you're going to lose him, or you're going to lose me.
Click to expand...

Why did you think that he was neutral and why did you think we would lose him or you?

Setre said:
Welp, looks like the heats back on me. I assumed I was the cop because I have the same ability as Blarg. For a bit of clarification when I invistiage someone It doesn't tell me whether they are Town aligned or Hutt aligned, all I get is a message saying "No suspicious activity found."

I investigated eJawa during the night and once again found nothing. And before you all decide to detain me I've got a bit more information.

I received a message like Blarg did during the first night. Just of the message is this:

Blarg wasn't the person they wanted to represent them. Pay attention to who gets these messages. They have a 20 word limite. Lastly in supposed to tell you all this.

I've told you all what I am and it's up to you to believe me or not. If you detain me you'll just be killing another Rebel who can help you.

I've read a bit more up in Mafia and there are cops who can have different sanity levels. I don't know if MattyG would include these in the game or not but if there's more than one person who can investigate that might be the case. If it is then both Palmer and eJawa could be Hutts.

I'm not saying they are I'm simply stating what I've read. As far as I'm concerned right now I trust Palmer, even if he is neutral, and eJawa.
Click to expand...

This might be nothing but we learned that Blarg was a cop after you already announced it.
 
O

OceanicAir

Member
traube said:
I still think that two Armorers would be kinda powerful. Don't want to imagine what the Empire players can pull off, if QuantumBro is telling the truth.

~1,5 player would have received a shield each night. Shield is useless during the day, right? So detaining would still be possible.

Empire would need a lot of fire power to counter that.

So detain me if I am wrong. But I just can't believe this story. Sorry, QB.

Vote: QuantumBro

I am not forgetting about you, OceanicAir. ;)
Click to expand...

Freaking weird not to have you voting for me almost feel naked :p
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
OceanicAir said:
What kind of knowledge do you have? At least if you can tell us without ruining your own chances of fulfilling your win condition.
Click to expand...

He made some references to Quantumbro from last game regarding being entertaining. QB was Magical Entertainer last game. QB emplyed a fake message early in the game to hide his actual role. I assumed that meant Blarg was also lying about that message as a cover of some kind. I have a feeling there's a neutral whose goal is opposed to mine. I have to protect a specific rebel.
 
Z

Zatoth

Member
OceanicAir said:
Freaking weird not to have you voting for me almost feel naked :p
Click to expand...

5c1.jpg
Click to expand...

Enjoy it while it lasts.
 
Q

QuantumBro

Banned
So, can someone please supply some reasoning for voting for me besides, "the game would be too unbalanced with two armorers", because that logic fails for a variety of reasons...
a) You don't all the roles, so it's silly to make assumptions. And if you've played any other Mafia before, two armorers don't completely break a game.
b) As I stated before, an armorer is a double-edged sword for the rebels. Sure, we can send tons of shields and guns at night, but what if those items end up in Hutt hands, we're kinda fucked. All the Hutt have to do to those items is make themselves seem like rebels, which is what they're suppose to do in the first place.
c) It turns out the Hutt probably do have a role to counter these items and it's called a thief. So if somebody announces that they have a gun or shield, boom the Hutt can take it back over the night, making about one item a night usable by a rebel. And hey, there might even be a role blocker too!

So now let's talk about what's going to happen if you all vote for me...
Around vote 6-7, I'm going to announce that I gave the shield to so and so. They're then going to confirm that they did indeed receive a shield; which means, the thief knows who to target during the night, making the shield worthless, and everyone is going to change their vote, since at the very least I've shown that I have the power I've been talking about having and you all will probably want me to send another item during the night.

Which means we're wasting time by voting for me. If you guys really want to know who has the shield, then just ask, but make you know the consequences of that action.

Here's what I suggest we do...
Don't detain me (obviously), and I'll send an item to someone tonight. At the same time, I want Setre to watch me and then post during the next day who I visited so we can all confirm he has the role he's talking about.

Now who to vote for...
I've been feeling off about Palmer since his actions on Day 1, and when he confirmed that he was neutral, that kinda confirmed all my suspicions I had. And today, he kinda pissed me off by saying I can't be trusted, when he himself has told us next to nothing about his role, a role that the rebels apparently don't need to stick around in order to win. Now I won't say I haven't been pretty fucking suspicious, but I've been pretty damn open with you all, the only thing I haven't told you is who I gave the shield to last night (and chances are you guys are going to find that out very soon as you continue to bandwagon me).

So yeah:
Vote: Palmer_v1
Make him realize that he has to tell us the truth about his role, or we are going to detain him.
 
C

CzarTim

Member
He could watch you to see your action, but I'd almost rather him randomly watch someone we're suspicious of so mafia can't plan.

Also QB, I think the fact that you role claimed on day 2 when there was no pressure on you to do so is more suspicious than the idea of 2 armorers. We gain nothing from knowing your role, and you merely painted a target on your back.
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
QuantumBro said:
So, can someone please supply some reasoning for voting for me besides, "the game would be too unbalanced with two armorers", because that logic fails for a variety of reasons...
a) You don't all the roles, so it's silly to make assumptions. And if you've played any other Mafia before, two armorers don't completely break a game.
b) As I stated before, an armorer is a double-edged sword for the rebels. Sure, we can send tons of shields and guns at night, but what if those items end up in Hutt hands, we're kinda fucked. All the Hutt have to do to those items is make themselves seem like rebels, which is what they're suppose to do in the first place.
c) It turns out the Hutt probably do have a role to counter these items and it's called a thief. So if somebody announces that they have a gun or shield, boom the Hutt can take it back over the night, making about one item a night usable by a rebel. And hey, there might even be a role blocker too!

So now let's talk about what's going to happen if you all vote for me...
Around vote 6-7, I'm going to announce that I gave the shield to so and so. They're then going to confirm that they did indeed receive a shield; which means, the thief knows who to target during the night, making the shield worthless, and everyone is going to change their vote, since at the very least I've shown that I have the power I've been talking about having and you all will probably want me to send another item during the night.

Which means we're wasting time by voting for me. If you guys really want to know who has the shield, then just ask, but make you know the consequences of that action.

Here's what I suggest we do...
Don't detain me (obviously), and I'll send an item to someone tonight. At the same time, I want Setre to watch me and then post during the next day who I visited so we can all confirm he has the role he's talking about.

Now who to vote for...
I've been feeling off about Palmer since his actions on Day 1, and when he confirmed that he was neutral, that kinda confirmed all my suspicions I had. And today, he kinda pissed me off by saying I can't be trusted, when he himself has told us next to nothing about his role, a role that the rebels apparently don't need to stick around in order to win. Now I won't say I haven't been pretty fucking suspicious, but I've been pretty damn open with you all, the only thing I haven't told you is who I gave the shield to last night (and chances are you guys are going to find that out very soon as you continue to bandwagon me).

So yeah:
Vote: Palmer_v1
Make him realize that he has to tell us the truth about his role, or we are going to detain him.
Click to expand...

I haven't hidden anything about my role. I've answered the only two questions specifically addressed to me about it. To be fair, I'm sort of assuming most people are clever enough to put 2 and 2 together, and I don't want to shout everything to the Hutts if there's anything they've missed. If people

Also, you're getting incredibly defensive towards me, when I'm not even voting to detain you. I'm merely pointing out that thus far, we have no external confirmations about your role. If you can't understand why that would make anyone suspicious, so be it.
 
Q

QuantumBro

Banned
CzarTim said:
He could watch you to see your action, but I'd almost rather him randomly watch someone we're suspicious of so mafia can't plan.

Also QB, I think the fact that you role claimed on day 2 when there was no pressure on you to do so is more suspicious than the idea of 2 armorers. We gain nothing from knowing your role, and you merely painted a target on your back.
Click to expand...

I'll admit, that was a mistake. I should've waited until my shield broke originally before claiming. I had a small idea for where I was going with that roleclaim, but I abandoned it after what happened with Blarg.
 
Q

QuantumBro

Banned
Palmer_v1 said:
I haven't hidden anything about my role. I've answered the only two questions specifically addressed to me about it. To be fair, I'm sort of assuming most people are clever enough to put 2 and 2 together, and I don't want to shout everything to the Hutts if there's anything they've missed. If people

Also, you're getting incredibly defensive towards me, when I'm not even voting to detain you. I'm merely pointing out that thus far, we have no external confirmations about your role. If you can't understand why that would make anyone suspicious, so be it.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm coming off as an asshole, lack of sleep and caffeine does that to me. I just want some more information about your role since it seems like you're hiding something.

I'd just like to know your reasoning about this post, since it was probably the one that secured Blarg's detainment.
Palmer_v1 said:
Oh, blargonaut, you sneaky bastard. I figured out what you're up to.

I cannot reveal it all without risking another player who was dropping hints I missed ebfore.

Sorry buddy, it was well played. The fake imperial agent claim was a nice touch, in particular, knowing the real one couldn't counter claim you. I'm not sure what your neutral role is exactly, but it'll be interesting to see.

Vote: Blargonaut
Click to expand...
Basically do you have any special night powers or things that are known to you? You made a similar post (which I can't find right now) concerning exmachina, where you said you were sure he wasn't a mafia thanks to your role, but I might be remembering that wrong since I haven't been able to find the post.
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
QuantumBro said:
Sorry if I'm coming off as an asshole, lack of sleep and caffeine does that to me. I just want some more information about your role since it seems like you're hiding something.

I'd just like to know your reasoning about this post, since it was probably the one that secured Blarg's detainment.

Basically do you have any special night powers or things that are known to you? You made a similar post (which I can't find right now) concerning exmachina, where you said you were sure he wasn't a mafia thanks to your role, but I might be remembering that wrong since I haven't been able to find the post.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll break that post down after this. First though, I knew nothing about exmachina other than I was pretty certain he was town. I fought hard to get TWE detained as an alternative. I didn't really think he was Mafia either, but I suspected(and still suspect) another Neutral role. My role does not specifically say that another exists, but it's one of those meta-gamey feelings you get sometimes.

Palmer_v1 said:
Oh, blargonaut, you sneaky bastard. I figured out what you're up to.
Click to expand...

There were layers to what I thought was his overall deception. The undercover imperial claim was fairly obviously fake from the get go. Only a non-hutt power role would benefit from claiming it, because they know the actual undercover imperial cannot counter claim it. I thought(still think) the message was fake as well, as I mentioned before. So, I thought he was a Neutral who needed to kill a specific player, while I'm a Neutral that has to protect one. Worst case is it's the same player, so that what I went with.

Palmer_v1 said:
I cannot reveal it all without risking another player who was dropping hints I missed before.
Click to expand...

This was the closest to an outright lie that I've told. There is a player at risk, my target, but the hints were actually things you pointed out in Blargonaut's behavior. That made me look back through at his shit, which made me think he was going to use the fake message to get someone detained. I couldn't risk that being my target, so I sort of flipped on him at that point.

Palmer_v1 said:
Sorry buddy, it was well played. The fake imperial agent claim was a nice touch, in particular, knowing the real one couldn't counter claim you. I'm not sure what your neutral role is exactly, but it'll be interesting to see.

Vote: Blargonaut
Click to expand...

This is me playing it up a bit to drum up the remaining votes I needed to get him detained. I'm pretty sure he was doomed by plurality without me, though. I really thought he was Neutral, and was curious to see what his special win or lose conditions were.

So, more role info: I have a specific rebel that I have to keep alive. That's why I can't win if rebels don't win. I will not name them unless they are very close to getting detained during the day. If I get detained/killed, it does not affect my target at all. I've also confirmed with MattyG that their name is redacted on my full role reveal. I have no idea if they're aware of any of this.

Can you see the bind I'm in now? My fate is entirely dependent on another person that I cannot communicate with. I could name them, but that just gives the Hutts another easy target, since I'm gone once they're gone. We don't need another Zubz/TWE thing. On the other hand, killing me doesn't directly help the Hutts since I don't count as a Rebel, and I'm not exactly a power role.
 
J

johnnyquicknives

Member
OK, first things first
Unvote: redhood56

I got as much discussion from that as I wanted. I'm still not sold at all that Ordinary Rebel couldn't have been an educated guess but really I think theres more interesting directions to look at just now.

QuantumBro, I've been pretty clear that out of the role claims this is the one I'm most suspicious of. Partly because of the balance issue (which a thief does slightly, and conveniently, alleviate) but mostly because roleclaiming that at the start of day 2 was, in my opinion, a very strongly anti-town move. Maybe that was a mistake on his part, maybe theres more to it but it's suspicious.

Palmer has been all over the damn place. My gut says that he is smart enough that he would have played much more carefully as a Hutt so I buy his neutral role. What I don't know is how much we can trust that his win condition does truely line up with ours. Sure maybe a town win benefits him, but he could be the bounty hunter he mentioned previously and want to kill a specific Rebel rather than saving one like he claims. Or as someone above mentioned it's possible he could be the thief (although I'm inclined to think thats a mobster role, particularly if we decide to trust Quantum). There is also the fact that he said he didn't take an action on night 1 in a way that made it sound like he can take actions sometimes, that makes it seem like theres more to his role than he is letting on.
The one thing that makes me feel he might be telling the truth is how panicked he became when he thought Blarg was trying to get someone specific detained.

Rymuth is an issue now. I think we need Matty to confirm if he has been prodded/responded and if he's not being replaced he should go. My instinct is that he is too inactive to be Hutt, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was the second undercover and kind of gave up after losing his partner on night 1.


I was originally going to also do the player by player breakdown but we've had a few so I'll just throw a few names out that I'm a little wary about.

Makai - On day one I had actually prepared a post about him that I scrapped because of shit going down. The gist of it was that I felt he was a high activity player, that was writing little of much use. At the start of day 2 he had a few good posts that flipped my opinion back to neutral but by the end of day 2 to now I'm back to feeling suspicious albeit with no real, direct reason.

raindoc - It's kind of just because our opinions don't match on what sort of players to target (or if we should at all) that makes me wary of him.

eJawa - This is the only one thats primarily gut instinct. I said the same thing on day 1 but for some reason I just don't fully trust him.

OceanicAir - mostly just the same reasons others have stated. Lack of activity and when he does post it has always seemed a bit 'camoflagey'. That said I think he's improved a bit today, but improving after people start to call you out is a bit suspicious itself.

MattAttack - I'm don't want to detain him yet as his real life excuses kind of make sense and I feel when he does post the content usually seem OK to me. He is in that lowish post-count group that I'm watching.
 
C

CzarTim

Member
QB, you are thinking of Palmer and TB at the start of day 1, not Palmer and ex.

I legitimately thought blarg was neutral as well, but I was thinking sk. Palmer hinted at his role day one under the guise of setup spec.

Palmer would it hurt to know the flavor of your role?
 
Q

QuantumBro

Banned
Palmer_v1 said:
Sure, I'll break that post down after this. First though, I knew nothing about exmachina other than I was pretty certain he was town. I fought hard to get TWE detained as an alternative. I didn't really think he was Mafia either, but I suspected(and still suspect) another Neutral role. My role does not specifically say that another exists, but it's one of those meta-gamey feelings you get sometimes.



There were layers to what I thought was his overall deception. The undercover imperial claim was fairly obviously fake from the get go. Only a non-hutt power role would benefit from claiming it, because they know the actual undercover imperial cannot counter claim it. I thought(still think) the message was fake as well, as I mentioned before. So, I thought he was a Neutral who needed to kill a specific player, while I'm a Neutral that has to protect one. Worst case is it's the same player, so that what I went with.



This was the closest to an outright lie that I've told. There is a player at risk, my target, but the hints were actually things you pointed out in Blargonaut's behavior. That made me look back through at his shit, which made me think he was going to use the fake message to get someone detained. I couldn't risk that being my target, so I sort of flipped on him at that point.



This is me playing it up a bit to drum up the remaining votes I needed to get him detained. I'm pretty sure he was doomed by plurality without me, though. I really thought he was Neutral, and was curious to see what his special win or lose conditions were.

So, more role info: I have a specific rebel that I have to keep alive. That's why I can't win if rebels don't win. I will not name them unless they are very close to getting detained during the day. If I get detained/killed, it does not affect my target at all. I've also confirmed with MattyG that their name is redacted on my full role reveal. I have no idea if they're aware of any of this.

Can you see the bind I'm in now? My fate is entirely dependent on another person that I cannot communicate with. I could name them, but that just gives the Hutts another easy target, since I'm gone once they're gone. We don't need another Zubz/TWE thing. On the other hand, killing me doesn't directly help the Hutts since I don't count as a Rebel, and I'm not exactly a power role.
Click to expand...

Thanks for writing up all that! Seems like an odd neutral role, if you have no power to help them out during the night. Do you mind sharing the name and flavor description of the role?

And yeah, best to keep the name to yourself till you need to reveal it. Is it a one way death, you die if they die, but not the other way around?
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
CzarTim said:
QB, you are thinking of Palmer and TB at the start of day 1, not Palmer and ex.

I legitimately thought blarg was neutral as well, but I was thinking sk. Palmer hinted at his role day one under the guise of setup spec.

Palmer would it hurt to know the flavor of your role?
Click to expand...

Until I know for sure that we do or do not have a role cop, I'd prefer not to say the actual name of my role.

I was legitimately worried about TB on Day 1. I basically used portions of my role to try to shift attention there, in case he was similar to me somehow. I was pretty certain he was just picking randomly, but I was far more freaked out than I actually acted. Now that we have two Undercover Imperials, two combat Buddies, and me + my client, I sort of feel like it's this game's theme.
 
C

CzarTim

Member
Palmer could win on a town loss if his rebel is still alive when mafia win, no? Not necessarily a reason to detain him today, but something to think about.
 
A

AbsolutBro

Member
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the overlap in roles will be a bit higher than we're thinking. Serial Killer, especially, I feel like might not fit in with the Star Wars theme that MattyG was going for.

Battle buddies? Makes sense, especially with Hutt aligned Imperial Agents.
Rebel lieutenant? Absolutely fits the theme.
Force sensitive rebel? Fits perfectly.

Serial Killer? enh, not so much, imo.

That's a little meta-gamey I guess, but it's still my feelings on it. I could easily see a bodyguard (ala Padme / Amidala) or a hutt aligned bounty hunter as well to offset the bodyguard or something. A Thief, as someone else said, could be a perfect balance to armorer(s).
 
C

CzarTim

Member
AbsolutBro said:
Not according to Palmer. If the town loses, Palmer loses as well.
Click to expand...
Palmer_v1 said:
So, more role info: I have a specific rebel that I have to keep alive. That's why I can't win if rebels don't win. I will not name them unless they are very close to getting detained during the day. If I get detained/killed, it does not affect my target at all. I've also confirmed with MattyG that their name is redacted on my full role reveal. I have no idea if they're aware of any of this.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why these are mutually exclusive. Mafia only need to make up 50% of the game to win, some rebels will still be alive.
 
M

Matt Attack

Member
Assuming you're telling the truth, Palmer, your role sounds really interesting- if not a little strange. Do any frequent Mafia players if there's an equivalent (or similar) neutral role commonly used in other games? This is getting perhaps getting a little too meta, but I think a neutral role that can only win when Town wins is barely even worth being called neutral- it's pretty much a Town role (If I'm missing something here, please let me know). If CzarTim's above argument holds water, then obviously this becomes a moot point, but Palmer pretty solidly states that he can't win if the Rebels lose.

I would echo CzarTim's request to see some of the flavor text for your role at some point- I'm very curious.
 
P

Palmer_v1

Member
QuantumBro said:
Thanks for writing up all that! Seems like an odd neutral role, if you have no power to help them out during the night. Do you mind sharing the name and flavor description of the role?

And yeah, best to keep the name to yourself till you need to reveal it. Is it a one way death, you die if they die, but not the other way around?
Click to expand...

One way only. I can still win if I'm dead and my client survives and wins. For rebels or hutts, I'm basically a wasted kill

I'm definitely not giving my role name out yet, as I mentioned in the other post. I also don't like quoting or directly retyping role info very much. Seems like bad sportsmanship, since it benefits veterans who've seen lots of role PMs. The Ordinary Rebel thing, for example. It's a little shady to use lines directly from a role PM like that, IMO. If nobody had noticed, the generic rebel and hutt examples were missing on Day 1, and I specifically PM'd MattyG to add them because it's an indirect handicap to any Hutts, Neutrals, or power roles to not have them as a reference. They were added Day 2 at some point. I realize that benefits the Hutts, but I'm here to play a game,

The deeply paraphrased version is that I'm basically watching a VIP of some type, possibly without their knowledge. I've been thinking of them as like a runaway noble's daughter or something. At some point, they will realize I'm not just their friend and get very mad at me, but some innocent shenanigans will break through my dour exterior and we will end up kissing in the rain and then I get quit my job so we can run off together forever.

Turns out describing it this way is the only way my actual wife gives a single shit about this Star Wars mafia stuff. I don't have the heart to tell her we're much more likely to end up dead on a sarlacc pit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GAF Mafia/Werewolf |OT| A forum game of secrets and treachery - sign up to play!
160 161 162 163 164
8K
318K
Sorian replied
Mafia [Werewolf] - Have you joined the lynch mob? Sign-up to play!
42 43 44 45 46
2K
127K
Makai replied
Top Bottom