-
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
- Thread starter MattyG
- Start date
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Godfather / Palmer / Johnny counter the cop pretty well.
Thief / Johnny / one item per person / items could go to Hutts counter 2 armourers
Motion Detector was countered by 3 Hutts not having night actions. Setre was much more likely to get a false positive on a rebel (so the fact that he only ever caught a Hutt is hilarious.)
Thief / Johnny / one item per person / items could go to Hutts counter 2 armourers
Motion Detector was countered by 3 Hutts not having night actions. Setre was much more likely to get a false positive on a rebel (so the fact that he only ever caught a Hutt is hilarious.)
Oh wait I forget blarg was an alignment cop, not role. I'm not sure how Palmer and Johnny would have shown up then. Godfather is still hard counter though. We only would have been able to catch OA based on his posting.
Probably will not be able to post much today. Hopefully people will be more active today. I think raindoc posted only once yesterday.
I am still thinking that the IA is either YesNO, Czar or Palmer. Maybe eJawa. I doubt that there is only one Hutt role with an active night power in this game.
Do you think it is possible that the IA "learns" how to take out player during the night after all Hutt players are gone?
I am also wondering if we still have any useful rebel roles remaining? If there is one who he can clear 3+ rebels he should probably claim today. What do you think?
I am still thinking that the IA is either YesNO, Czar or Palmer. Maybe eJawa. I doubt that there is only one Hutt role with an active night power in this game.
Do you think it is possible that the IA "learns" how to take out player during the night after all Hutt players are gone?
I am also wondering if we still have any useful rebel roles remaining? If there is one who he can clear 3+ rebels he should probably claim today. What do you think?
I'd like to talk about zipp's actions yesterday, which I found to be strange to say the least:
- Zipp says he is convinced I am town.
- Zipp says he caught someone knowing Palmer was targeted night 2 before Johnny said so.
- Zipp claims to have a theory on a top poster and a less frequent poster, but won't post it because he does not want revel one of them.
- Only after multiple requests he posts part of his theory (AB).
- After I request the second name he posts about Matt. Then votes Matt.
- When I called him out about being cagey about posting his theory and not following up on his claim about the Palmer switch, he states it was a bait for me and when I didn't bite he went for his second choice.
- Zipp votes me.
My questions to zipp about this are:
- How did you go from being convinced I'm a rebel to setting a trap for me within 24 hours?
- How the hell was your blatant lie supposed to bait me? Did you think I would post "this hurts my hutt brain?"
- How does the fact that I didn't take the bait make me not a Hutt? Either my posts were suspicious or not, how does that one interaction change this?
- Why did I go right back to Hutt territory when I called you out for blatantly lying?
- Why did you not want to post your theories if they were just based on gut feeling?
--------------
Now let's talk about Zipp's cases yesterday:
First we have his case on AB, which has 3 parts to it:
1. Meta game based on how AB played last game. This is significant because on Day 1 Zipp's defense for himself specifically stated we should not put too much stock in the last game. Aparently it's okay for him to do it though.
2. AB was suspicious of medium volume posters -- this is something I'm going to talk about more in a sec.
3. AB's vote on Mak "was about as "I'm sorry but I'm doing this to throw off suspicion" as I saw." But compare AB's vote on Mak to Zipp's. Who's opinion on Mak do you have a better handle on?
Next we have his case on Matt which is only one point:
1. Matt is suspicious of Zipp.
And finally his case on me:
1. I post a lot.
Zipp claims to have reread the thread multiple times, yet his cases did not include any other actual in game content other than one post by AB where AB voted for a confirmed Hutt. All that rereading and no posts caught his eyes from the 3 people he FOS. Compare this to traube who actually had some evidence behind his case on me.
Also note this inconsistency: His initial theory was going to be me and AB, yet he changed it to Matt and AB. So if AB was the constant in this theory, why was his first vote on Matt? Because traube had just voted Matt, and Zipp had one goal yesterday: save OA. The fact that zipp cased 3 people who were suspicious of him does not help these already weak cases. In fact, if those cases are so weak, how come he said he had more to support them?
--------------
Now let's talk about how ridiculous this claim by Zipp is. He cites Hutt behaviour in a completely different game with a different set of roles and a different set of mafia members as "proof" that one of the top posters has to be mafia. But this makes no sense because it completely disregards the actual content posted by those players. This is not to say that a top poster can't be mafia, but the idea that I (or anyone) could be mafia purely based on posting a lot is absurd. We case based on actions taken and posts made. The Hutts could be high posters, medium posters, or low posters.
--------------
One other minor thing is how zipp claims to have unvoted OA to give me time to make my post at the end of yesterday. This is not true and I don't know why he is claiming it is. Look at the timestamps on these two posts. I vividly remember this because my post contained a typo (missing space), and I was frustrated I couldn't change it so I refreshed the page and zipp's post was already there. It couldn't have been more than 20 seconds. So if he was posting to give me time, why did he quote his own post just before mine and not just quote mine? Why did he vote me and not unvote? I feel like he is trying to use that as a cover for his quick voting changes.
--------------
In summary, I think Zipp is the last main Hutt. I think he knew going into yesterday his last remaining ally was on the chopping block, and in a last ditch effort to put suspicion anywhere else, he threw a bunch of theories at the wall to see what would stick. When it backfired he tried to throw shade on the person calling him out. And then had OA vote for him for a last second cover.
Vote: Zippedpinhead
- Zipp says he is convinced I am town.
- Zipp says he caught someone knowing Palmer was targeted night 2 before Johnny said so.
- Zipp claims to have a theory on a top poster and a less frequent poster, but won't post it because he does not want revel one of them.
- Only after multiple requests he posts part of his theory (AB).
- After I request the second name he posts about Matt. Then votes Matt.
- When I called him out about being cagey about posting his theory and not following up on his claim about the Palmer switch, he states it was a bait for me and when I didn't bite he went for his second choice.
- Zipp votes me.
My questions to zipp about this are:
- How did you go from being convinced I'm a rebel to setting a trap for me within 24 hours?
- How the hell was your blatant lie supposed to bait me? Did you think I would post "this hurts my hutt brain?"
- How does the fact that I didn't take the bait make me not a Hutt? Either my posts were suspicious or not, how does that one interaction change this?
- Why did I go right back to Hutt territory when I called you out for blatantly lying?
- Why did you not want to post your theories if they were just based on gut feeling?
--------------
Now let's talk about Zipp's cases yesterday:
First we have his case on AB, which has 3 parts to it:
1. Meta game based on how AB played last game. This is significant because on Day 1 Zipp's defense for himself specifically stated we should not put too much stock in the last game. Aparently it's okay for him to do it though.
2. AB was suspicious of medium volume posters -- this is something I'm going to talk about more in a sec.
3. AB's vote on Mak "was about as "I'm sorry but I'm doing this to throw off suspicion" as I saw." But compare AB's vote on Mak to Zipp's. Who's opinion on Mak do you have a better handle on?
Next we have his case on Matt which is only one point:
1. Matt is suspicious of Zipp.
And finally his case on me:
1. I post a lot.
Zipp claims to have reread the thread multiple times, yet his cases did not include any other actual in game content other than one post by AB where AB voted for a confirmed Hutt. All that rereading and no posts caught his eyes from the 3 people he FOS. Compare this to traube who actually had some evidence behind his case on me.
Also note this inconsistency: His initial theory was going to be me and AB, yet he changed it to Matt and AB. So if AB was the constant in this theory, why was his first vote on Matt? Because traube had just voted Matt, and Zipp had one goal yesterday: save OA. The fact that zipp cased 3 people who were suspicious of him does not help these already weak cases. In fact, if those cases are so weak, how come he said he had more to support them?
--------------
Now let's talk about how ridiculous this claim by Zipp is. He cites Hutt behaviour in a completely different game with a different set of roles and a different set of mafia members as "proof" that one of the top posters has to be mafia. But this makes no sense because it completely disregards the actual content posted by those players. This is not to say that a top poster can't be mafia, but the idea that I (or anyone) could be mafia purely based on posting a lot is absurd. We case based on actions taken and posts made. The Hutts could be high posters, medium posters, or low posters.
--------------
One other minor thing is how zipp claims to have unvoted OA to give me time to make my post at the end of yesterday. This is not true and I don't know why he is claiming it is. Look at the timestamps on these two posts. I vividly remember this because my post contained a typo (missing space), and I was frustrated I couldn't change it so I refreshed the page and zipp's post was already there. It couldn't have been more than 20 seconds. So if he was posting to give me time, why did he quote his own post just before mine and not just quote mine? Why did he vote me and not unvote? I feel like he is trying to use that as a cover for his quick voting changes.
--------------
In summary, I think Zipp is the last main Hutt. I think he knew going into yesterday his last remaining ally was on the chopping block, and in a last ditch effort to put suspicion anywhere else, he threw a bunch of theories at the wall to see what would stick. When it backfired he tried to throw shade on the person calling him out. And then had OA vote for him for a last second cover.
Vote: Zippedpinhead
In order to think I am the IA you have to believe:
- I am stupid enough to defend my partner on day one when she had all of two votes on her (while ignoring the fact that I also defended ex and worthy).
- I am stupid enough to push super hard for blarg to be detained even though he was claiming to have my supposed role and would have bought me some time (BTW
quote edit
Zippedpinhead
Member
So when I inevitably turn up as an ordinary rebel, who is the next target?
If you are going to vote for me, then get it over with. You are wrong but, as I have said before, at this point trying to convince some of you (Matt attack, czartim, eJawa, and absolutbro) that I am not is not going to happen.
That is four votes add redhood to that, and you only need one more vote to detain me.
If I was the last hutt, just kill me so you can stop losing people at night and defeat the imperial officer.
Of course, I am an ordinary rebel, so we would then just lose someone else, and be still stuck. When I show up rebel, a couple of you are going to look very silly. Czartim largely justified, but the rest of you very silly.
If you are going to vote for me, then get it over with. You are wrong but, as I have said before, at this point trying to convince some of you (Matt attack, czartim, eJawa, and absolutbro) that I am not is not going to happen.
That is four votes add redhood to that, and you only need one more vote to detain me.
If I was the last hutt, just kill me so you can stop losing people at night and defeat the imperial officer.
Of course, I am an ordinary rebel, so we would then just lose someone else, and be still stuck. When I show up rebel, a couple of you are going to look very silly. Czartim largely justified, but the rest of you very silly.
I don't want to vote yet. Everybody should have chance to post first.
Yesterday zip was one of my suspects and still is. But I'D rather go after an inactive player first.
I'd also like to point out Absolutbro. He has been flying under my radar. I think besides myself, he is the only player who did not receive a vote against him yet, right?
YesNo too, but Rymuth received some vote before he joined.
Yesterday zip was one of my suspects and still is. But I'D rather go after an inactive player first.
I'd also like to point out Absolutbro. He has been flying under my radar. I think besides myself, he is the only player who did not receive a vote against him yet, right?
YesNo too, but Rymuth received some vote before he joined.
This is not a defense. I brought up very specific points about you today and yesterday and you're only response has been "but I'm an ordinary rebel."
Compare this to when traube brings up specific points about me and I respond to explain my mindset when I made those decisions. I know I am town so I can easily defend myself because I was coming at each scenario from a town mindset, even when I got things very wrong.
I would very much like to understand your mindset yesterday, because the more I think about it, the less it makes sense to me from a rebel's perspective. I asked you several questions, and you didn't answer them. Instead you come in with a very similar defense that Mak and OA gave.
If I am wrong, I will feel very, very silly for spending so much time casing a rebel. I would also feel very bad about falsely accusing you. But we are in a good position right now, likely 8 vs 2 and the last two scum do not know each other. We have 3 mislynches. And as you point out a good portion of the town is suspicious of you. So worst-case here we are removing a suspicious rebel early and have 2 more shots at getting it right.
Zippedpinhead
Member
To answer your questions:
1: (concerning going from you being a rebel to setting a trap for you) the trap was for any of the top posters. I figured someone would post a defense and/or find that post from johnnyquicknives. The person most defensive would be the person most suspicious, you posted hence suspicion.
2: the hutt brain comment was probably a little over the top, but it really was a bait to see who came out and posted. With nothing else for town to learn at night, all we have is daytime activity
3: you posted johnny's answer, not "taking the bait" on a defense about posting the death before anyone else knew. Your response that that convinced me that you were not a hutt.
4: can you clarify this question, about my actions going from town accuatory into hutt defense, or posting a lie? If it is about lying I have an answer, The game is mafia, everybody lies at some point. Even town. I may have left out a fact (a lie through omission) to get more conversation because we had largely taken a days break, when frankly we could have just pushed for oceanic's death and moved into the next phase early.
5: I didn't want to post my gut feelings because of this. What if I am wrong, I won't know that I am wrong until the end of the game now. What if I miss a detail and someone calls me out for lying? All reasons to not post a theory,
Oh and I know it wasn't a question but a response to your time stamp theory. I use the preview button before I post. When we had that same timestamp deal, I used preview and you post showed up. I agreed, thought to myself I'm glad I'm doing this even more because czartim needs more time. And clicked post. it was for you as well as myself to give us all more time. Which, frankly, I wish we hadn't had because it is going to kill me
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, I appreciate it. I know this game can be frustrating when you're in the hot seat!
For question 4 I was asking why you went back to thinking I'm a hutt, but I get the gist. I better understand your intentions yesterday even if I don't quite agree with the methods. I hope you'll understand why I found your actions suspicious.
I'm about to leave for the day, I'll post some more thoughts tonight.
For question 4 I was asking why you went back to thinking I'm a hutt, but I get the gist. I better understand your intentions yesterday even if I don't quite agree with the methods. I hope you'll understand why I found your actions suspicious.
I'm about to leave for the day, I'll post some more thoughts tonight.
Who are your top 3 suspects and why?
I only have 1 main suspect, making up any others would be dumb. And me trying to make up some reason why I don't rust people would pair a even bigger target on my back.
Zipped- Even though we discussed this already his willingness to die rubs me the wrong way
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
You sort of forgot our derring-do Former Senator :x
Reading the exchange between Czar and Zipped, I'm still on the fence with Zipped. I think there was someone in a few pages back that picked up that Zipped tried to give Makai the blaster, and this is still nagging in the back of my mind. I should retrace and find the trail of discussion about this.
I agree with Traube on the role claim. If there is someone that can clear 3 and more Rebels with a role claim, it may be a good time to reveal. To be honest, I don't think we have any more power roles that is town-aligned. As I counted before, we have so many as it is, I counted 9 (without eJawa's potential role).
So, maybe if we do have another Rebel with an ability, it only strengthens my belief that there are still 2 more main Hutts remaining.
In any case, we need more people posting and discussing things.
Oh, and one more thing, to answer Traube:
The people with lowest votes against them:
- AbsolutBro - 0 votes
- Traube - 0 votes
- Me - 0 votes (rymuth received 1 vote on Day 1 - by CzarTim)
- CzarTim - 1 vote (by Zipped)
- MattAttack - 1 vote (by Palmer)
I'm not sure what this means though. I mean, if you compared this data against post count, then we have absolutbro and mattattack under the category of "flying under the radar" because they are not as active as say, czar or traube, and yet they receive low votes against them.
I don't know MattAttack well.... I should go back and reread his posts and voting pattern, but as for AbsolutBro, I am leaning towards that he is town. He tries to contribute with data (I remember his legendary handdrawn diagram of Ultimate Confusion for Day 2 XD) and on Day 3 he voted against Makai and held.
Alright. For now, I will comb the thread again and see what other information I can present. Pls, lets talk more, guys! We are now behind them Animals!!!! >:O
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
^
Those are pertaining to lowest FINAL votes, btw.
Those are pertaining to lowest FINAL votes, btw.
Zippedpinhead
Member
For the record, I was thinking about switching my gun vote, but I never did. I voted for Palmer to get the gun, literally the only time I went "GUN: anything" was when I voted for Palmer to get it.
I entertained the idea of giving a gun to makai, but I never did.
I agree with czartim's reasoning, if the hutt had gotten a gun we would have seen it used already. I'm guessing quantum only handed out shields.
It's hard to classify inactive a now, are they people who haven't received votes (and haven't known the fear of getting detained when you are a rebel) or are the low post counters.
Personally, I'm for voting out anyone but me, but I'm sure everyone else feels the same way.
I still think that there is a hutt in the top posters, out in the open.
I entertained the idea of giving a gun to makai, but I never did.
I agree with czartim's reasoning, if the hutt had gotten a gun we would have seen it used already. I'm guessing quantum only handed out shields.
It's hard to classify inactive a now, are they people who haven't received votes (and haven't known the fear of getting detained when you are a rebel) or are the low post counters.
Personally, I'm for voting out anyone but me, but I'm sure everyone else feels the same way.
I still think that there is a hutt in the top posters, out in the open.
AbsolutBro
Member
I'm up! I'm up!
Well, if OA had sent the kill command Setre could have found him out that way.
Yeah... that would have been a nightmare.Don't want to imagine what would have happened if Blarg did watch OA during night 1 and informed us about it.
Finding the IA is going to be the hardest part. Even if they get given the kill command, we don't really have any way to find out who did it. I don't see anything in Swamped's role description that would indicate it, so unless Matty throws a curveball I don't see why they would. Make for a hell of a long game as we try to catch the IA before the game gets to 2 people. DX
I'm also with you on suspecting 2 main hutts left. OA didn't have an active power, the thief's ability is limited by the armorers (if armorers never give out a gun, the thief isn't really all that great, imo), and makai could send confusing messages. Seems a weak line up if that's all of their powers.
*shrug* Honestly with the way the days have gone, the simple fact I haven't had a Matt/Zip, TWE/Palmer or you/OA rivalry going is pretty much the only reason I've never gotten a vote.
Matt Attack has had at least 3 votes for him. Palmer, traube and Zip.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
I meant the list was covering FINAL votes only - For all days (Day 1 to 5).
As for Day 5 only:
- Traube changed his FINAL vote on Day 5 to Zipped.
- Zipped changed his FINAL vote on Day 5 to OceanicAir.
I meant, in the entirety of the game, the people as I listed above are the ones that have received the lowest FINAL votes.
Sorry I wasn't clear :<
Also, Zipped, I'd like to hear more about this high-poster-hutt theory. I know you elaborated some, but please try to talk to me as if I was five years old. How would a high-poster insinuate that he would be a Hutt?
As comparison, I understand the concept that low posters can be suspicious because they make little noise so they present narrower parameter of conflicting information, so the less they post, the less they are likelier to incriminate themselves. Is your high-poster-hutt theory based on the flip side of this? As in, the more confusing their posts are, the likelier they are hutt because of conflicting information?
On another note, who hasnt checked in since Day 6 started? Is it only Raindoc?
AbsolutBro
Member
Oooooh. Gotcha.
I just wanted to follow up on this comment, not just about zipp but this whole game. I really hope GAF's mafia community moves away from this mindset asap. I could point to 4 people in this game right now who have done a very poor job of posting their theories and why. This ONLY helps mafia. Posting who you are suspicious of and why forces those people to respond and helps everyone get a better read on both of you. The chance of being wrong is not a reason to hold back; that's like the core mechanic of mafia. Especially as Vanilla Town, when the only thing you can really offer your team is discussion.
Furthermore, as a town member, the goal isn't to stay alive until the end. It's to put the team in the best position to win. This is what continually rubs me the wrong way about zipp's "anyone but me" talk. "Anyone but me" is not best for town. Sometimes suspicious players need to be voted out even if they are town, as it allows town to then refocus and have a better view of the game ('oh that person was town after all, maybe their theory has weight.') This is not to say you shouldn't defend yourself or push for someone you find suspicious, but it is to say that putting yourself before the best interests of town is an anti-town move.
For example, I know I am a likely candidate for the other IA because of me defending swamped on day one. Therefore I know I can't be in the final three. Because if the final three were (for example) myself, redhood, and ejawa, I would know for a fact that I am not the IA, but I would not know which of them was. It would be very easy for the IA to use the swamped thing as proof to convince the other player to vote me, or even use the fact that he knows I'm not the IA to play me ('I don't think it's you, so it must be him.') Because of this, the best thing for town is to vote me out first when we go IA hunting. It will be a mislynch, but it will put town, and thus myself, in the best position to win.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Thanks for this, Czar. As a new player into this game, I feel like I'm still groping about in the dark about how to play and engage. It's good to be reminded that we need to put town's interests above our own survivals, since we will win when town wins at the end (or lose when town loses :<)
OK. I will definitely include this into my thought from now on when I make posts. Much appreciated.
Zippedpinhead
Member
The high poster theory is just that, a theory.
It's a common tactic in spy movies, go to the party with the highest visibility. Most people assume that if you are that out there, very visible, and working really hard and get the hutts out, you have to be on their side. Correlation to that is the common "go after the low poster" theory. That Hutts want to stay out of the way and only show up as needed, show you are involved and diffuse incidents for other hutts.
The only person that doesn't work with is the lone IA. Hence, the high poster theory. It COULD be a straight up Hutt gambit, the leader of the town being the big bad Gillian, but I figure that it is the IA trying to blend in with all of us. Cause let's be frank, who would kill the most helpful player? I know I would be hard pressed too...
It's a common tactic in spy movies, go to the party with the highest visibility. Most people assume that if you are that out there, very visible, and working really hard and get the hutts out, you have to be on their side. Correlation to that is the common "go after the low poster" theory. That Hutts want to stay out of the way and only show up as needed, show you are involved and diffuse incidents for other hutts.
The only person that doesn't work with is the lone IA. Hence, the high poster theory. It COULD be a straight up Hutt gambit, the leader of the town being the big bad Gillian, but I figure that it is the IA trying to blend in with all of us. Cause let's be frank, who would kill the most helpful player? I know I would be hard pressed too...
Seems unnecessarily risky if they had. Also OA could have pulled a Mak and claimed someone visited him.
Not exactly a guaranteed pro-town ability as evidenced by day 3
LoC's ability was just as likely to hit a rebel too.
So:
2 armorers (one item per person)
1 shot vig (could hit rebel or hutt )
1 override (could save a hutt or rebel)
2 lovers (2 deaths at night)
2 unrequited lovers (possibly 2 deaths but limited doc)
1 alignment cop
1 motion detector (at least 3 hutts without night actions)
vs
Swapper (could leave the game early)
vs
1 messenger
1 godfather
1 thief
2 IAs
So we had the possibility of 3 town(ish) players leaving early before even considering armorer guns. The only unabashedly pro-town roles are the cop, armorers, and Palmer's role (assuming he's protecting a rebel.) Every other role had just as much chance of hurting town as helping.
This is a pretty interesting theory. I think the undercover imperial is a low count poster like me( maybe ejawa? He never claimed. I'm not to sure about this right now) I do think the mafia is a higher level poster though. Mainly because of the thing you said about how if it looks you are very actively working to get the hutts out you look innocent. Also back during the day 3 craziness and they can easily save Makai by starting a bandwagon on Barry then me.
Zippedpinhead
Member
That's suppose to be Villian not Gillian.
I saw the "anyone but Me" post, followed by a really good reasoning behind eliminating czartim prior to final three. I think then we need to eliminate our suspicious people,
If I am really the most suspicious person, then you need to eliminate me. But while you do it, pay attention to everyone, how they vote, how they delay the vote, and everything in between.
Even if you kill me, just an ordinary rebel, maybe you can learn something about the others. Especially if some one is gleeful about it.
Matter of fact, if we have no more power roles that that is probably our best course of action. Unless someone can claim a save (Palmer this would be time to say if you can confirm a hutt or a rebel, if not say who)
I saw the "anyone but Me" post, followed by a really good reasoning behind eliminating czartim prior to final three. I think then we need to eliminate our suspicious people,
If I am really the most suspicious person, then you need to eliminate me. But while you do it, pay attention to everyone, how they vote, how they delay the vote, and everything in between.
Even if you kill me, just an ordinary rebel, maybe you can learn something about the others. Especially if some one is gleeful about it.
Matter of fact, if we have no more power roles that that is probably our best course of action. Unless someone can claim a save (Palmer this would be time to say if you can confirm a hutt or a rebel, if not say who)
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Czar, there is still the possibility of eJawa's undisclosed role to be also pro-town. In that case, wouldn't you think the town's stacked enough for a 6 Hutts arrangement?
Zipped, oh yeah I see! Like, a Hutt masquerading as a very active, useful, and helpful townie, in a way like a Russian spy that overtly display American traits when embedded in America, sort of thing? Yeah. I see.
In this case, I think we should examine the flow of each discussions from the previous days. Because even if this Hutt is roleplaying a townie, and say, he may cast his early votes against other Hutts to throw off some heat off himself BUT he wouldn't be casting his final votes against his comrades. What do you think?
And since we've outed two main Hutts, maybe there are some details we can uncover using this mindset as our analytical platform?
For example, using traube's excel, as linked here, I can see that both Makai and OA voted against Setre as their first votes. And whilst others have also had their suspicions on Setre, these two (now proven Hutts) players only changed their votes to "Palmer" (who we now know to have been targetted by the Hutts on Night 2) and "No Detain".
Well, of course we need more data since this was from Day 3 and we now have Day 4 and 5 data to take into account, but at the very least, analysing it this way I think I am picking up some names to dig deeper against. For one, raindoc only cast one vote at Day 3, and it was against Palmer.
:x
redhood, to be honest, I kind of agree, there is something about eJawa that doesn't sit quite well with me either.
Traube, do you have more excel spreadsheet please :< It would be awesome if you can present the same format, for Day 4 and 5. I will pay you in credits. I'm totes good for it.
Zipped, oh yeah I see! Like, a Hutt masquerading as a very active, useful, and helpful townie, in a way like a Russian spy that overtly display American traits when embedded in America, sort of thing? Yeah. I see.
In this case, I think we should examine the flow of each discussions from the previous days. Because even if this Hutt is roleplaying a townie, and say, he may cast his early votes against other Hutts to throw off some heat off himself BUT he wouldn't be casting his final votes against his comrades. What do you think?
And since we've outed two main Hutts, maybe there are some details we can uncover using this mindset as our analytical platform?
For example, using traube's excel, as linked here, I can see that both Makai and OA voted against Setre as their first votes. And whilst others have also had their suspicions on Setre, these two (now proven Hutts) players only changed their votes to "Palmer" (who we now know to have been targetted by the Hutts on Night 2) and "No Detain".
Well, of course we need more data since this was from Day 3 and we now have Day 4 and 5 data to take into account, but at the very least, analysing it this way I think I am picking up some names to dig deeper against. For one, raindoc only cast one vote at Day 3, and it was against Palmer.
:x
redhood, to be honest, I kind of agree, there is something about eJawa that doesn't sit quite well with me either.
Traube, do you have more excel spreadsheet please :< It would be awesome if you can present the same format, for Day 4 and 5. I will pay you in credits. I'm totes good for it.
The other people who voted setre day 3 were qb, zubz, and zipp. QB unvoted immediately after setre's explanation. zubz took awhile. zipp unvoted pretty quick after his vote, but OA and Mak unvoted around the same time too.
I do not think ejawa has a power role. 6 hutts is statistically very unlikely for town to win in a 23 player game. I do not think we had enough information gathering abilities to counter this.
I do not think ejawa has a power role. 6 hutts is statistically very unlikely for town to win in a 23 player game. I do not think we had enough information gathering abilities to counter this.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
He seems to imply that he can't role claim cuz it is an important enough information that might endanger town though.
But yeah, I agree with you. Something's not clicking. I dont think there is a power role left, as I have said a number of times now. But I may be wrong. Only eJawa can really shed light on the matter. And he has refused to do so, so I can only assume that either he is LYING about his role claim, or there IS yet another important role that is pro-town.
Its not really 6 hutts though. The two undercover imperials could have been targeted by hutts possibly, which would also waste hutt actions. We dont know if they were safe from hutt kills or not. Also think if the number of shields we could have had. 4 main hutts, 2 side hutts, and johnny.
Fwiw, this is around the point that the mafia started talking more last game. It feels like rehoods posting frequency has changed the most, followed by yesno. I give the latter more leeway for now.
If we are really thinking 6 hutts, traube needs to be put back on the table. If there were 6 hutts, I do not think we can win at this point. Not to be a defeatist or anything, but it'd be 7 vs 3 and we have zero leads and an IA to find. Thinking 5 is the only thing that gives me hope
Also we need to talk about raindoc. His play style lines up the most with the 2 main hutts we know about.
Day 1 - voted no detain along with mak, OA did not vote.
Day 2 - w/e blarg day who cares
Day 3 - voted palmer with mak (OA also pushed palmer but did not vote)
Day 4 - voted mak then unvoted (to be fair so did I and matt. OA voted mak at the end too)
Day 5 - one post, no comment on OA.
Also we need to talk about raindoc. His play style lines up the most with the 2 main hutts we know about.
Day 1 - voted no detain along with mak, OA did not vote.
Day 2 - w/e blarg day who cares
Day 3 - voted palmer with mak (OA also pushed palmer but did not vote)
Day 4 - voted mak then unvoted (to be fair so did I and matt. OA voted mak at the end too)
Day 5 - one post, no comment on OA.
If there were 4 main hutts then day 3 is really weird to me, OA did not vote and mak had a vote on Palmer. One vote on palmer / redhood / barry would have tied it and 2 votes would have guaranteed a dead rebel. Instead they let the day end with us thinking redhood had the votes (so does this clear redhood?) or they knew mak had the votes and did nothing to stop it. So then either they knew traube would use his ability (in which case he is hutt, maybe redhood too) or they really thought redhood had the votes in which case he is a rebel.
If there were 4 hutts day 4, they really did not put up a fight about mak at all. If there were 3 hutts day 5, same with OA.
If there were 4 hutts day 4, they really did not put up a fight about mak at all. If there were 3 hutts day 5, same with OA.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
To be honest, (bear in mind I have no frame of reference to compare this against): I kind of feel the Mafia is a bit disorganised in this game? Is it just me?
For example, OceanicAir seems to me as if he just gave up once he was cornered. Im not sure if he was bussed or if he just was not active enough even at the Hutt's secret board.
Makai put up a better survival struggle, in Day 4.
I am in agreement with AbsolutBro's assessment about there yet remaining two main hutts:
plus one Imperial Agent.
So, four main hutts to begin with, plus 2 imperial agents.
About traube, it is amazing that he's still here to me, with that Override ability. Maybe he's PALPATINE. His voting pattern sure looks really dubious, in my opinion.
But. I... want to get those excels from him... and I think his excel spreadsheet helped our discussions so far, so.... :x
Palmer! You are here now! Can you elaborate on your previous eJawa theory??? Czar has explained to me his, but it stands on the assumption that there are 5 hutts to begin with and not 6. You said, as I quoted in the previous page:
Can we still prove your theory by detaining eJawa?
For example, OceanicAir seems to me as if he just gave up once he was cornered. Im not sure if he was bussed or if he just was not active enough even at the Hutt's secret board.
Makai put up a better survival struggle, in Day 4.
I am in agreement with AbsolutBro's assessment about there yet remaining two main hutts:
- one main hutt with an ability (the thief)
- one vanilla hutt without an ability except voting
plus one Imperial Agent.
So, four main hutts to begin with, plus 2 imperial agents.
About traube, it is amazing that he's still here to me, with that Override ability. Maybe he's PALPATINE. His voting pattern sure looks really dubious, in my opinion.
But. I... want to get those excels from him... and I think his excel spreadsheet helped our discussions so far, so.... :x
Palmer! You are here now! Can you elaborate on your previous eJawa theory??? Czar has explained to me his, but it stands on the assumption that there are 5 hutts to begin with and not 6. You said, as I quoted in the previous page:
Can we still prove your theory by detaining eJawa?
I'm not lying about anything, since I've only said I don't want to role claim. I feel that if I were an ordinary or power, it would only be a good idea to role claim if I thought it would actually help. If I was an oridinary rebel, claiming so would not change much at all, but give the hutts a better picture on who to kill. If they were to think I am a power role when I'm not, they may target me instead of somone who can be a better asset to the group. If I was a power role, that I think can be usefull to the group, but is not at the moment or during the day, then I wouldn't want the hutts to know. It made sense early on that Setre role claimed when he did. He provided some usefull info, that helped lead to the detaiment of a Hutt. I don't have that same luxury unfortunately.
I'm trying to contribute more because the days before I really wasn't. And I have more free time too now.
No, or I would have kept pushing for it.
Last chain of votes day 3 were because of OA's incorrect vote count. Honestly think hutts thought redhood had the votes (as did most of us during the craziness.) I don't think Hutts would have let redhood get the majority if he were a hutt. OA had not voted and did not feel compelled to weigh in on redhood vs barry or vote one way or the other. Mak and OA were seemingly safe. I feel like OA would have voted if he knew the real count.
Also redhood was around and unvoted. Not sure why a Hutt wouldn't swing the vote to save himself.
I do not think traube is a hutt to the point that I'd bet the game on it.
Why was OA so concerned with the shielded person? Trying to appear townie or did a Hutt get shielded night 2? Honestly don't know why OA didn't defend himself better yesterday. I feel like he had a few things he could have pointed to.
traube 2 things I noticed wrong with your chart: it says I voted for myself when I voted mak & palmer had 3 votes.
Can you explain what the theory was? I was finding the push to detain me odd, when we had 2 clear suspects. You had given reasons to be suspicious of me, but nothing concrete enough to justify me over Makai or even Oceanic. I sort of see why you were hesitant to vote Oceanic the next day, since I agreed it seemed a little too easy, but I still though he was the best choice. On their own, neither of these would stand out too much too me, but being back to back, when we had good targets, comes off suspicious. To be honest, this is how I would expect the IA to act.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Okies. But, like eJawa says, what was the theory? Out of curiosity.
Part of it was just seeing who might be willing to vote for you for very little reason. I didn't push anything because I didn't have much beyond gut feelings at the time.
Okay, makes sense. I had a feeling it might be something like that and wanted to make sure.
Yeah. I noticed that too. I think I switched one vote of Makai and you in the first version. I only fixed the vote of Makai in the new version. I also forgot to update the vote count. But Makai still had the majority. So no change there.
I'm also still in that akward spot where I can't always say everything due to my win condition. I don't want to give the Hutts another easy 2 for 1 kill. I'm kind of keeping silent and letting my target do it's own thing without intervention. I'll jump in if I think they're actually at risk though.