Support NeoGAF

[raindoc]

We absolutely cannot make this assumption, especially at this point in the game. If we don't vote correctly (not that I'm saying YesNo is definitely the correct vote), this game might be over for us. Rymuth could have stopped posting for any number of reasons- boredom due to being an Ordinary Rebel, boredom due to his UI partner swamped being killed, or real life and other games distracting him from his role as a Main Hutt. We simply can't know, and it would be totally irresponsible of us to take YesNo off of the list of suspects due to this assumption.

It's bad, I know. As I pointed out "yesterday", exchanging players so late in the game was a mistake, we should've killed Rymuth ourselves earlier.
It's the same for Palmer_v1 - even now that I have been identified as a his "target" I don't trust him 100%, he still could be the UI.

We can deinitely rule out Palmer (was targeted earlier in the game) and eJawa (cleared by Setre on N2 when the thief was active) as Main Hutt.

That leaves You, Matt Attack as well as me, raindoc and YesNO... and AbsoluteBro as candidates for the thief.
We need to narrow down that list and unless someone can provide new info we only have guesses left.

So let's guess: People have assumed that Rymuth left, because he didn't like his role and believe him to be the UI, because he was active on Day 1 but never seen again after the one UI was caught. Weak guess - but I also think that he would've been replaced earlier, if he had been one of "only" three Main Hutts. Hence going for YesNO seems undesirable for me at this point.

Doubting Palmer... like I said time and time again: I don't trust him 100%, but still more than others. His role claim seems valid, because it was really risky. If the true 2nd neutral (and a 2nd neutral role seems a good assumption) had role claimed or another Investigator had turned up it would have been all over for him. Furthermore, he's been friendly to me since early in the game, making people believe I was his target - had I flipped Hutt or UI it would've looked really bad for him...
So I'd say Palmer is probably telling the truth.

This, however, also makes me a less likely candidate for the Hutt or UI, not just because people feel that way, but because I am his (now confirmed) target.

So, we have (more or less) good reasons to believe that neither Palmer, Setre, YesNO or raindoc are the Thief, meaning it's either Matt Attack or AbsoluteBro.


(Disclaimer: only had one coffee yet, please double check everything I just said)

 

[Matt Attack]

Mmmm sure, but I think still.... somehow your votes are not as helpful to town's side as mine has been. OK I got on Czar's train, but it was my only uncertain call, as I have linked above. I stand by my positions that I've held against Zipped and redhood votes.

So this is our profiles so far:

• Me: Voted for Makai, OA (both Hutts) and refused to vote for Zipped and redhood (both townies). Voted for Czar (townie :<) - Since I joined on Day 4, my votes have been pro-town. And I really do not flip flop.
• MattAttack: Voted for Zipped (townie - instead of Makai), voted for OA (Hutt), voted for Zipped (RIP Zipped - townie), voted for redhood (townie) - I read pro-hutts pattern on your past voting behaviour, Matt... :< It could all be a big coincidence, of course, but all I'm saying is that it does not look good on you, know what I mean? :x

Sure, you dont have to be right all the time to be townie, but.... uh.... there's probably a tipping point between pro-town votes/posts profile ...........and then there's a pro-hutt pattern.

So I can't say I'm won over by your so called quick explanation on why you didn't vote Makai over Zipped. Town had a pretty solid lead on Makai at that time, I feel.

I've never argued that my votes have been consistently useful to town- only that they had town interests in mind, Obviously, I voted for Zipped plenty of times, in addition to arguing heavily in favor of exmachina's detainment. I have owned up to these errors- they were the decisions I felt strongly about at the time, but obviously they didn't pan out as I would have hoped.

If you'd like a fairly detailed post on why I chose not to vote Makai, look no further than this post, where I voted for Zipped. Even now, I stand by my reasoning. In hindsight, I was incorrect, but considering the circumstances at the time, it really did feel like we were being led into a trap. I could have held my tongue and followed the crowd, but I decided to make my suspicions known. If I were a Hutt, why would I throw my neck out to protect a partner who was so clearly going to be detained (an opinion I made readily apparent in said post)? if I were a Hutt, why would I fight over and over and over and over and over to detain Zipped, knowing that outside of the small chance he was the UI rather than a regular townie, suspicion would immediately fall upon me (even more illogical when you consider that the main Hutts began to drop like flies, as with less partners available, the remaining Hutt would need to play even more carefully).

No matter how you slice it, my play makes zero sense if I were to flip Hutt. Analyze every single one of my posts if you have to, ask my anything about my play that's been bugging you, if there's anything I can do to prove that I'm rebel and prevent myself from being mislynched, then please, let me know.

So, we have (more or less) good reasons to believe that neither Palmer, Setre, YesNO or raindoc are the Thief, meaning it's either Matt Attack or AbsoluteBro.


(Disclaimer: only had one coffee yet, please double check everything I just said)

I'd say we have a great reason to assume that Setre isn't our thief, so maybe grab another coffee.

Serious time: I trust you more than anybody in the game right now- you've been town for me for many days now. I'm inclined to trust Palmer too, because frankly if he's been lying, I think we're pretty screwed anyway. eJawa can't be our thief either for obvious reasons.

I don't think YesNo is the thief, but he is probably the UI. If this is the case, I think it's likely that he has used his lack of knowledge as to the identity of his Hutt partners to play pro-town without guilt (thus building a fairly solid defense in case of emergency). By not knowing OA and Makai's roles prior to their detainment, he was able to react similarly to the rebels in the face of information that threw suspicion onto them, and he ultimately decided that as their guilt was likely, he would throw them under the bus to keep his own reputation intact, in the hopes that the game would still drag out long enough to pull of a Hutt win. This is all 100% conjecture, but I think it's an absolute possibility for how a UI would play the game without their partner. And thanks to process of elimination in addition to how frequently he's been bringing up his voting pattern, I'm currently thinking that YesNo is our man.

 

[Matt Attack]

To elaborate further on how the UI and the Hutts utilized the fact that they didn't know each other's identities, it means that they were able to regard each other with the same amount of suspicion as any other player, and as a result would not have easily signaled that they were on the same side.

 

[raindoc]

I'd say we have a great reason to assume that Setre isn't our thief, so maybe grab another coffee.

That's why he's on my list of people I do NOT regard as the thief! Got another coffee (two, actually) anyway.

To elaborate further on how the UI and the Hutts utilized the fact that they didn't know each other's identities, it means that they were able to regard each other with the same amount of suspicion as any other player, and as a result would not have easily signaled that they were on the same side.

I think the Hutts screwed up with their use of the "Night messages". They should've used that to hand out secret codes to identifiy themselves/the UIs. Nothing we know about the messages indicates that happened, so everything they know about each other, we know too.
This, means that they do not know their identities for sure - they are both at 6-1 /-1 = themselves) possible candidates for the other baddie, while we are at 6, but chances are that's not enough for them to ID each other - which is good for us, since the last remaining Hutt might kill the UI.
But if the Hutt does not kill the UI tonight and we lynch another Townie, it's game over for us and since we can't identify any of them, I think we should go after the Thief/Hutt, not the UI.
If we were going after the UI, I'd vote YesNO right now, I think, but like I just wrote: the Hutt is so much more important and we can't be sure about YesNO...

 

[raindoc]

BTW - I'm having two wisdom teeth removed in about 5 hours. If I don't report in later, you can assume that I'm either dead or in jail for killing my dentist in "self defense". If I do report in, assume that I'm on drugs.

 

[Matt Attack]

I agree that the thief should be our priority, since they can night kill (I'm assuming our UI is like swamped and cannot). By means of process of elimination, I think it's likely that AB is the droid we're looking for, but I'm hoping to peek more through his posts and build up an actual case against him (or a defense, considering I've trusted him up to this point).

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

BTW - I'm having two wisdom teeth removed in about 5 hours. If I don't report in later, you can assume that I'm either dead or in jail for killing my dentist in "self defense". If I do report in, assume that I'm on drugs.

Yikes. Good luck!

You can vote for me, but I'm just an ordinary rebel.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Oh sorry, didn't realize my previous short message got posted, was tabbing out onto a different thread and had meant to type more but then phone decided to post anyway. Treacherous phone!!!

...uh on second thought I'll post later when I'm on the computer &#128517;

Replying mafia thread on phone is a pain &#128532;

 

[Matt Attack]

Replying mafia thread on phone is a pain &#128532;

Story of my life.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Too many posts to quote so I am just going to lay out my thoughts:

There are 2 reasons I cant be the thief or the main hutt (more on this in a second):

1. If I were the main hutt there is no way in hell I would have killed Czar last night. Not only was he already under suspicion of being a Hutt via Raindoc, but that left 2 all-but-confirmed non-Hutts alive. When down to 6 players? No way I would want 1/3 of them to be "safe" rebels. I would let Czar live and let Raindoc lead the vote against him for me. I mean, I voted for Czar yesterday (sorry dude, even if I switched later), would it have been hard for me to play along with Raindoc's vote? Not even a little. Leaving Czar alive would have practically rolled out a red carpet for a hutt victory.

2. I can now prove that the thief and the last hutt are not the same: QuantumBro gave me a shield on night 2. Last night, that shield was stolen. I dont think I can quote the whole PM, but to paraphrase I was asleep in my tent when the sound of someone rifling through my stuff woke me up. The thief dashed off with my shield.

I know that will undoubtedly raise "OceanicAir" red flags, but like I have previously said I am passed caring. We are down to the wire on this vote. We know that the thief cant be a Hutt; if he was then the game would be over by now: 1 UI + 1 thief + 1 killer.

So

 

[AbsolutBro]

Stupid mobile. I hit the "post" button trying to go back to my messages. Long story short, someone has been running us in circles like I thought. We know that the thief cant be hutt aligned, if they were the game would be over, so that means they must have their own win condition ala JQK. Sound like anyone we know?

 

[raindoc]

2. I can now prove that the thief and the last hutt are not the same: QuantumBro gave me a shield on night 2. Last night, that shield was stolen. I dont think I can quote the whole PM, but to paraphrase I was asleep in my tent when the sound of someone rifling through my stuff woke me up. The thief dashed off with my shield.

I know that will undoubtedly raise "OceanicAir" red flags, but like I have previously said I am passed caring. We are down to the wire on this vote. We know that the thief cant be a Hutt; if he was then the game would be over by now: 1 UI + 1 thief + 1 killer.

So

Hmmm. I'm not ready to believe you - but also not saying that you're lying (noone's been more suspicous of Palmer than me, who conveniently wound up his "target"):

For one, I think Makai claimed that he got his Blaster that same night? Why didn't you say something? I can't find Mak's post though (on mobile), could've been N3 too.

What I did find while looking for Mak's post, was you asking QuantumBro what message he got when he had his shield stolen - coincidence?

But what makes me REALLY doubt this story is that we had two rebel armorers. The thief is the only counter to that role, he has to be a Hutt.

 

[raindoc]

The more I think about this, the less I like it.
You're one of two possible Hutts according to our list and now you come up with a story about Palmer being the thief, when he is the only one we can be 100% sure of that he's NOT a Hutt.

I'm about to leave for the butcher dentist and I don't want to vote just yet - but atm you're on top of my list.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Hmmm. I'm not ready to believe you - but also not saying that you're lying (noone's been more suspicous of Palmer than me, who conveniently wound up his "target"):

For one, I think Makai claimed that he got his Blaster that same night? Why didn't you say something? I can't find Mak's post though (on mobile), could've been N3 too.

What I did find while looking for Mak's post, was you asking QuantumBro what message he got when he had his shield stolen - coincidence?

But what makes me REALLY doubt this story is that we had two rebel armorers. The thief is the only counter to that role, he has to be a Hutt.

I got my shield N2. The night after QuantumBro had his vote to see who would get a gun and before Makai claimed gun; we dont know who got something that night but I think we can assume it went to a hutt.

I asked Quantum what the message was to clarify if someone tried to kill him (and we had to look for a SK) or if someone stole it; he seemed unsure of exactly what happened to him. And yes, I realize it makes me look suspicious to ALSO have my shield stolen, but nothing I can do about that.

As for Palmer being your unlynchee, he said he didnt know what faction his target is, but knew the target's role name. Only you know if you are an Ordinary Rebel for sure, but if you are, dont you think just knowing the role name would have made it clear what faction you were on from the start?

The other thing a 3P thief would do is raise the question of eJawa. He didnt take an action the night the thief acted, but if hes not the thief that no longer clears him of being a hutt; someone else could have have sent the kill command that night.

 

[AbsolutBro]

The more I think about this, the less I like it.
You're one of two possible Hutts according to our list and now you come up with a story about Palmer being the thief, when he is the only one we can be 100% sure of that he's NOT a Hutt.

I'm about to leave for the butcher dentist and I don't want to vote just yet - but atm you're on top of my list.

I figured I would move to the top of several lists, but like what is my other option? Say nothing and keep information from the Rebels? If we lose, it wont be because I kept my mouth shut.

 

[raindoc]

Palmer's not the only one, eJawa is also cleared of being a Hutt/the thief.

 

[Matt Attack]

1. If I were the main hutt there is no way in hell I would have killed Czar last night. Not only was he already under suspicion of being a Hutt via Raindoc, but that left 2 all-but-confirmed non-Hutts alive. When down to 6 players? No way I would want 1/3 of them to be "safe" rebels. I would let Czar live and let Raindoc lead the vote against him for me. I mean, I voted for Czar yesterday (sorry dude, even if I switched later), would it have been hard for me to play along with Raindoc's vote? Not even a little. Leaving Czar alive would have practically rolled out a red carpet for a hutt victory.

Yeah, honestly I have zero clue what the Hutt was thinking killing Czar- it almost comes off as a pro-town move (or at least, as close to one as a Hutt can make). He was the player I was most certain wouldn't die last night, and look at how that turned out.

2. I can now prove that the thief and the last hutt are not the same: QuantumBro gave me a shield on night 2. Last night, that shield was stolen. I dont think I can quote the whole PM, but to paraphrase I was asleep in my tent when the sound of someone rifling through my stuff woke me up. The thief dashed off with my shield.

I know that will undoubtedly raise "OceanicAir" red flags, but like I have previously said I am passed caring. We are down to the wire on this vote. We know that the thief cant be a Hutt; if he was then the game would be over by now: 1 UI + 1 thief + 1 killer.

I feel really stupid right now but I still can't see why the thief couldn't be Hutt. Can you help me out and tell me why the roles are mutually exclusive in this situation?

 

[AbsolutBro]

I feel really stupid right now but I still can't see why the thief couldn't be Hutt. Can you help me out and tell me why the roles are mutually exclusive in this situation?

Er, I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that they could only take one night action. That is, if the thief is a Hutt, the could EITHER steal OR kill. Since they killed Czar, they wouldnt be able to ALSO steal my shield.

Am I wrong? Going to feel REAL dumb if theyre allowed to do both.

 

[Matt Attack]

Er, I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that they could only take one night action. That is, if the thief is a Hutt, the could EITHER steal OR kill. Since they killed Czar, they wouldnt be able to ALSO steal my shield.

Am I wrong? Going to feel REAL dumb if theyre allowed to do both.

I mean, I'm not sure either, so you could definitely be right. I guess we'd need clarification (unless this came up before and I just don't remember, in which case don't pay me any mind).

 

[Palmer_v1]

On mobile and been pretty busy.

It's possible that the Thief could put in a steal and kill command in the same night. Best way to check is to see if Makai could have sent a message and killed as well. Can someone pm mattyg and ask bim to confirm that here in the thread.

I'm inclined to think he can though, due to czartim's death. The only way he makes a lot of sense is that the thief probably stole from him the same night they killed traube, before he became a detain target. The thief couldnt risk targetting someone else who might have a shield when they knew czartim didnt.

For Raindoc's role, if he wants me to reveal it, I will.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Still on phone &#128550;

I agree with Matt on Czar's hit, it was super surprising for me too. The only reason I could come up with was that they didn't want to risk a no-kill night since if they hit Palmer or raindoc there is a chance the kill would have been nulled by Palmer's PROTECT command.

plus, killing Czar would sow further confusion in the subsequent day as they saw we had no real leads yesterday. which means, they may believe that it's quite likely for them to lead the vote towards a pro-hutt outcome, yet again.

mmm on AbsolutBro's story, I'm not sure what to think yet... it does remind me of OA's story a fair bit, but I also am not sure why AB would try to spin that ... at this stage of the game.... unless he's the UI and he's trying to signal to his comrades that he is, like OA, is Hutt?

x___x

donnnnnoooooo though. I'm still where I was, at the moment i can only clear Palmer and raindoc... and definitely eJawa isn't main Hutt..... the rest are all ?????

 

[raindoc]

Back from the dentist. took less than 15 mins from the first inhection to the removal of the last root. love that guy.

Raindoc's role, if he wants me to reveal it, I will.

since so far only the two main suspects are eager to hear it: hell no.
if YesNO and eJawa want to hear it: go ahead.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Back from the dentist. took less than 15 mins from the first inhection to the removal of the last root. love that guy.



since so far only the two main suspects are eager to hear it: hell no.
if YesNO and eJawa want to hear it: go ahead.

what the hell! I want your dentist!!!!!

&#128563;

i donno if it would aid town to hear raindoc's role... palmer, if you think revealing the role will give valuable information to town, WITHOUT giving too much benefits to the hutts, then please reveal. however, id rather you not reveal it if you think its going to work against town's winning chance... i trust in your discretion.

as for makai's reveal, im on the mobile, so i can't quote/link very well but i think this link should work *crosses fingers*

 

[Matt Attack]

For the record, I'm inclined to trust both Palmer and raindoc, so I don't actually need to know the role. I merely wanted raindoc to confirm that it is indeed his role, which could sort of double confirm the two of them (of course, we wouldn't technically know the affiliation, just that there is indeed a connection- hopefully a non-Hutt one).

The other reason why I'm even pushing this is because today could potentially be our last day. From my perspective, we don't really have much to lose at this point, and as such any information at all could come in handy.

 

[AbsolutBro]

mmm on AbsolutBro's story, I'm not sure what to think yet... it does remind me of OA's story a fair bit, but I also am not sure why AB would try to spin that ... at this stage of the game.... unless he's the UI and he's trying to signal to his comrades that he is, like OA, is Hutt?

If I were the UI I would have just kept my mouth shut and hoped my silence clued them in. Instead I am basically putting myself in the crosshairs of the entire group. Not a great move for a Hutt, but holding information at this stage is bad for the rebels.

Back from the dentist. took less than 15 mins from the first inhection to the removal of the last root. love that guy.



since so far only the two main suspects are eager to hear it: hell no.
if YesNO and eJawa want to hear it: go ahead.

1. Your dentist is amazing.
2. I was definitely NOT asking you to reveal yourself. I was basically saying "if you are an OR, Palmer should have known what side you are on from the start. He said he didnt. Ergo if you are an OR then Palmer lied." Like I said, only you know if youre an OR or not. If youre not, sure keep it quiet in case we bag a hutt or the hutt kills the UI. If you are... well, i dont even know honestly.

 

[eJawa]

Unless the thief is neutral, which I'm don't really believe could be the case, it seems either Matt Attack or AbsolutBro are it, which fits with my suspicions. Unfortunately, I don't have a strong feeling towards one over the other. I've already stated my suspicions of Matt , but as for Abosolut, his waiting for someone to start the vote against redhood, before casting his own caught my eye. He was also defensive in a previous day, after posting his suspicions about redhood, making sure we knew he was wasn't advocating a vote against them, at least for the moment.

My post was never intended to be "this is why we should definitely vote to detain them", rather it was meant as "these are the things that made me suspicious". It's not going to be concrete evidence; we don't have any and are pretty unlikely to find any.

He was defending Czar, then later voted for him, once he started gaining votes. When I voted for redhood , putting him back in the race, (ugh...) he switched to redhood. If he is the hutt, he maybe thought Czar was going to be detained either way and wanted to get his name of that list or thought there was a better chance of Czar being the UI. Also, I was his number 2 suspect Day 7, so it was kind of weird that he used my vote as a validation to change his. There seems to be a pattern of willing throwing his suspicions out there (he had a lot for Day 7), but being very careful with his votes. Him throwing confusion on whether a hutt can take 2 night actions makes it seem like he is rebel, since the hutt would know for a fact, or it could be a bluff trying to throw off discussions.

The only thing I know for certain is that this is going to be a stressful vote.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Unless the thief is neutral, which I'm don't really believe could be the case, it seems either Matt Attack or AbsolutBro are it, which fits with my suspicions. Unfortunately, I don't have a strong feeling towards one over the other. I've already stated my suspicions of Matt , but as for Abosolut, his waiting for someone to start the vote against redhood, before casting his own caught my eye. He was also defensive in a previous day, after posting his suspicions about redhood, making sure we knew he was wasn't advocating a vote against them, at least for the moment.



He was defending Czar, then later voted for him, once he started gaining votes. When I voted for redhood , putting him back in the race, (ugh...) he switched to redhood. If he is the hutt, he maybe thought Czar was going to be detained either way and wanted to get his name of that list or thought there was a better chance of Czar being the UI. Also, I was his number 2 suspect Day 7, so it was kind of weird that he used my vote as a validation to change his. There seems to be a pattern of willing throwing his suspicions out there (he had a lot for Day 7), but being very careful with his votes. Him throwing confusion on whether a hutt can take 2 night actions makes it seem like he is rebel, since the hutt would know for a fact, or it could be a bluff trying to throw off discussions.

Want to clear up a few things here:

1. If you look at my first vote post, you will see both why I defended then voted for Czar, and why I was so ready to switch to Redhood. I had been suspicious of redhood, I said that and layed out my suspicions in my post. When raindoc moved for the vote on Czar I went back and looked and posted what I saw; it didnt look good for someone I was sure was a rebel. Like I said, hindsight in this thread can be a mixed bag. I didnt want Czar to be a rebel; but I also didnt want that trust for him to blind me to the possibility that he was lying. After all, two people are. I even say in my initial vote post that I rewrote it several times trying to decide between my suspicions, and being blinded by my trust. In the end they were both bad choices, which doesnt speak well of my suspicions I guess, but as far as Im aware we are out of power roles who can point us towards specific people. Suspicions are (mostly) all we have.

2. "Throwing out suspicions but being careful with votes". Frankly, this is what rebels should be doing. Throwing out suspicions makes people talk. When people talk, you can look for mistakes. Czar got a lot of crap for talking a lot and moving the discussion, but with no power roles what are we supposed to do?

I will PM matty about the whole double night action thing. I know Im not the only one that thought that the thief couldnt both kill and steal in the same night.

 

[MattyG]

I will PM matty about the whole double night action thing. I know Im not the only one that thought that the thief couldnt both kill and steal in the same night.

I'm going to have to answer this as vaguely as possible: If the person has the proper clearance, yes, they can take multiple night actions.

 

[Palmer_v1]

I feel like the Thief is probably able to give two commands at night due to being the last main hutt alive.

If the thief were a different main Hutt, we would have lost already. The two Hutts would just need the UI to role claim so they can lock down the voting. If it were the UI, it would mean they don't match Swamped 100% which is odd. If they're a rebel, they've actively fucked us over by robbing Quantum, not confirming OA was full shit, and not confirming AB right now. If they're neutral, I have no idea what win condition they could possibly have. It feels like this was Johnny's role, so having another similar one is unlikely.

 

[AbsolutBro]

I'm going to have to answer this as vaguely as possible: If the person has the proper clearance, yes, they can take multiple night actions.

Am I wrong? Going to feel REAL dumb if theyre allowed to do both.

Welp. Sorta possibly vaguely feel dumb right now. Thanks for the clarification Matty.

I would say "disregard my post", but I suspect it is a little late for that. I know I am at the top of a probably all of your lists right now, but I honestly thought I had something we could use.

 

[Palmer_v1]

Welp. Sorta possibly vaguely feel dumb right now. Thanks for the clarification Matty.

I would say "disregard my post", but I suspect it is a little late for that. I know I am at the top of a probably all of your lists right now, but I honestly thought I had something we could use.

I dunno what to think yet. My inclination is you or Matt Attack, with YesNo being the dark horse. eJawa is last on my list and I'm obviously not voting for Raindoc. I've mostly trusted you, which is why I was sort of trying to use you as a second option for my target all this time.

Speaking of which, if anyone still doubts my role claim at all, see this post from Day 1 and ask yourself if that's really a coincidence. Bolded for emphasis:

Relatively common, yes.

Also, there can be variations that are Hutts without knowing who the other Hutts are, and vice versa, but there probably wouldn't be more than one.

In my opinion, there are anywhere between 3-6 Hutts. The more there are, the weaker their roles probably are. 4-5 with a few power roles is my guess.

Neutral roles exist as well. There's also probably 1 or 2, that don't specifically care about Hutts or Rebels. Their win conditions can vary wildly, but they normally don't end the game if they achieve their goal. As an example, Karkador was a serial killer last game that had to kill each night, and won if he was one of the last 3 alive. You could also have a survivor that only needs to last a certain number of days to escape and win. You could also have Neutral roles that have a quota of some kind to meet. There's a Piper we use sometimes that basically picks someone every night to add to his dancers, and he wins if everyone alive is under his control. We also like a Babysitter role, who only wins if they can keep a specific self-destructive role alive.

Definitely going to be at least 1 bounty Hunter, who I'd assume is Neutral. There's no way MattyG made this game without including AT LEAST 1. They probably need to find and kill someone specific to win.

On the other hand, they might already know their target, but can't act directly. This was my biggest concern with TB, but obviously that did not pan out. I still don't want him lynched, but we'll see what happens as the game goes on. I don't have strong feelings about anything yet. I'd vote if I did. Making any assumptions is dangerous. We spent 3/4 of the last game assuming a Cop would eventually jump in to provide info when they never even existed.

Can't say for sure how aggressive MattyG has gone with this game though. I'm curious to see if we have two deaths tonight or not.

I wasn't joking when I said I was an open book.

 

[eJawa]

Want to clear up a few things here:

1. If you look at my first vote post, you will see both why I defended then voted for Czar, and why I was so ready to switch to Redhood. I had been suspicious of redhood, I said that and layed out my suspicions in my post. When raindoc moved for the vote on Czar I went back and looked and posted what I saw; it didnt look good for someone I was sure was a rebel. Like I said, hindsight in this thread can be a mixed bag. I didnt want Czar to be a rebel; but I also didnt want that trust for him to blind me to the possibility that he was lying. After all, two people are. I even say in my initial vote post that I rewrote it several times trying to decide between my suspicions, and being blinded by my trust. In the end they were both bad choices, which doesnt speak well of my suspicions I guess, but as far as Im aware we are out of power roles who can point us towards specific people. Suspicions are (mostly) all we have.

2. "Throwing out suspicions but being careful with votes". Frankly, this is what rebels should be doing. Throwing out suspicions makes people talk. When people talk, you can look for mistakes. Czar got a lot of crap for talking a lot and moving the discussion, but with no power roles what are we supposed to do?

I will PM matty about the whole double night action thing. I know Im not the only one that thought that the thief couldnt both kill and steal in the same night.

Thanks for clarifying. This helps ease my suspicions of you. With regard to number 2, it was mainly the fact that your votes tended to follow other people. However, I am guilty of that too. I admit to being nervous about being the first person to vote for someone, so I tended to wait until someone else starts, helping to validate my reasoning. Day 7's vote kind of reinforced this sadly. While I wasn't the first one to vote for redhood that day, I decided to cast my vote, when there was currently no votes for redhood, since I didn't believe Czar was hut. The tide turned and... here we are. With MattyG's confirmation, I don't think you would make a bluff like that, so now I'm leaning more towards Matt Attack.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

If I were the UI I would have just kept my mouth shut and hoped my silence clued them in. Instead I am basically putting myself in the crosshairs of the entire group. Not a great move for a Hutt, but holding information at this stage is bad for the rebels.

Ya. Which is why I have no idea what to do with your reveal of having a shield but that it is now stolen. It's just odd.

But .... I've had this hunch all game long that you are town aligned :< I think since you voted Makai and held fast on Day 3 or something. I donno.

*squints eyes at you*

I do like your diagram. They were great. Specially for Day 2



Palmer, wow that's quite a HINTSHINTS drop you did there! Amaze~ ....

Hold on, what do you mean self-destructive role? :O

 

[Palmer_v1]

Ya. Which is why I have no idea what to do with your reveal of having a shield but that it is now stolen. It's just odd.

But .... I've had this hunch all game long that you are town aligned :< I think since you voted Makai and held fast on Day 3 or something. I donno.

*squints eyes at you*

I do like your diagram. They were great. Specially for Day 2



Palmer, wow that's quite a HINTSHINTS drop you did there! Amaze~ ....

Hold on, what do you mean self-destructive role? :O

Nothing. That part was fluff.

 

[raindoc]

can someone give me a summary on Matt Attack. he's been on people's lists for days but I never felt the love hate.


also, Palmer_v1 - you may proceed with exposing my role.

 

[Matt Attack]

can someone give me a summary on Matt Attack. he's been on people's lists for days but I never felt the love hate.


also, Palmer_v1 - you may proceed with exposing my role.

I'm assuming that most of the suspicion primarily comes from A) my focus on Zipped (confirmed rebel now) and B) my relatively low posting frequency in comparison with some players, which could be perceived as me trying to stay under the radar. Combined with the fact that the potential candidate list is pretty narrow, I think it's not surprising that people would be suspicious of me (although I still maintain that my actions only make sense from the perspective of a rebel). If there's anything else, I'd also be very interested in knowing!

 

[AbsolutBro]

I am at work so combing MattyG posts isn't really an option right now. I guess we are mostly waiting on Palmer?

 

[AbsolutBro]

Wow.. phone autocorrect from "Matt's" to "MattyG". GG Matty. gg

 

[eJawa]

One thing that doesn't quite make sense with Matt being the hutt, is that he was the first one to point out the odd choice of offing Czar. Even if he is bluffing, killing Czar, just so you can bluff seems more riskier than just letting Czar take the heat today.

 

[raindoc]

I am at work so combing MattyG posts isn't really an option right now. I guess we are mostly waiting on Palmer?

Even assuming this was all an elaborate plot - he can't be the Hutt, they attacked him. We're wasting time talking about/waiting for him.
And you keep bringing him up...

 

[Palmer_v1]

Sorry, sorta busy at work. Role is Rebel Suspect. I looked that up of course, and there are a few variants, so I'm not entirely sure what it means, but they all seem to be Town aligned. On D1, I thought MattyG might be using it as a secret hutt role, but once Swamped flipped, it seemed unlikely for their to be 3 hidden Hutts. Plus we would have lost today. It's part of why I pressed Setre on how his role worked exactly when we thought he was a cop.

 

[Palmer_v1]

We need to start voting a bit to see how things shake out.

YesNo said something that stood out to me today. Basically didn't want to be judged by Rymuth or his inactivity prior to joining. Now I wonder if that's a hint to the Hutt that he really is the UI, since most of us have discounted that. Bear in mind that we don't actually lose with a mislynch today if the Hutt goes on to accidentally kill the UI. So basically the Thief has no particular need to play any differently, but it's definitely inthe UI's interest to make himself known if possible. I was going to post more, but I realize I'm not sure how I affect the game if it comes down to 2 town vs 2 mafia.

For now, to get things moving: Vote: YesNo

 

[Palmer_v1]

That is to say, 2 town vs 2 mafia + 1 neutral, since I'm still a swing vote.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Even assuming this was all an elaborate plot - he can't be the Hutt, they attacked him. We're wasting time talking about/waiting for him.
And you keep bringing him up...

also, Palmer_v1 - you may proceed with exposing my role.

Er, this is what I was referring to is all.

I'm aware that Palmer isn't the last main hutt and haven't suggested otherwise. I did accuse him of being the Thief but only because I didn't think the Thief could take two actions in the Night.

 

[raindoc]

Sorry, sorta busy at work. Role is Rebel Suspect. I looked that up of course, and there are a few variants, so I'm not entirely sure what it means, but they all seem to be Town aligned. On D1, I thought MattyG might be using it as a secret hutt role, but once Swamped flipped, it seemed unlikely for their to be 3 hidden Hutts. Plus we would have lost today. It's part of why I pressed Setre on how his role worked exactly when we thought he was a cop.

Confirmed.
What it means, is that I'm a (from the flavour text): "former imperial officer who only recently joined the ranks of the Alliance".
If I'd been investigated, I would have looked suspicious - it's basically a Mafia Boss in reverse: he's a baddie who does not look suspicious, I'm one of the good guys, but would have looked bad.

Pretty lousy role - and it's why I "had" to take on such an aggressive pro-town stance since Day 1.

 

[raindoc]

Er, this is what I was referring to is all.

I'm aware that Palmer isn't the last main hutt and haven't suggested otherwise. I did accuse him of being the Thief but only because I didn't think the Thief could take two actions in the Night.

You are one of two candidates for the last remaining Hutt and brought accusations up against one of two confirmed non-Hutts.

This may not be my final vote, but I'm not going after the UI if we have a better (50/50) chance of getting the last killer tonight.

Vote: AbsolutBro

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Agree with Palmer with the need to get things moving. I have faith in raindoc's reasoning, despite yesterday's outcome. I think his deductions are sound. But I can't vote for AbsolutBro yet. He strikes me as pro-town yet though I'm less convinced now with his stolen shield story.

Wow, that's a pretty tense role for you, raindoc! Quite a burden to carry and quite meeting on Palmer's description that it may be a self-destructive role since if blarg had investigated you, you'd look hutt-aligned... Very drama! &#128517;

We still have two days and a bit. But yes, I think it's a good time to start the votes going. I promise I'll cast mine earlier than usual this time even if it might means that I will join the ranks of swing-voters.

 

[AbsolutBro]

You are one of two candidates for the last remaining Hutt and brought accusations up against one of two confirmed non-Hutts.

This may not be my final vote, but I'm not going after the UI if we have a better (50/50) chance of getting the last killer tonight.

Vote: AbsolutBro

I've said my piece repeatedly about why I said what I did against Palmer. I misunderstood the game rules, which have since been clairified. That's all I can really do.

I thought it might be a mistake to say something about my shield this late. I clarified with Matty it was stolen, but not the whole actions thing. Guess I was right.

 

[Palmer_v1]

Just so we're all clear on the current consequences:

We won't immediately lose due to a mislynch today, because there's a chance the Thief will go on to kill the UI on mistake, making tomorrow 1 Hutt, 2 Rebels, and me. OTOH, if we detain a rebel, and then anyone other than the UI is killed, we lose tomorrow. If we do mislynch, it makes me the next obvious kill target, since my death would make it an obvious 2v2 loss tomorrow. Knowing that though, I may or may not protect myself instead of Raindoc, making that a 50/50 shot for the Thief. If he goes after the other 2 instead, he's still only 50/50 on picking the Rebel instead of the UI. I assume he'd go after Raindoc or me though, cause a failure there leaves the game 3v2 instead of 3v1.

Basically, if we mislynch, we still have a 50/50 shot on getting another day at some fairly miserable odds.

If we lynch correctly, however, we end up with me dead tonight, and a 3v1 tomorrow. Since Raindoc is confirmed, we'd have a 33% chance of lynching the right person with a mislynch effectively being the end of the game.

So there you go!

 

[Matt Attack]

VOTE: AbsolutBro

It's exceedingly unlikely that eJawa is our thief. I trust Palmer and raindoc. I don't think a YesNo would have played the way he has if he were a main Hutt. That leaves the list of suspects for the last main Hutt as you and myself. And I know better than anyone that I'm a rebel. As far as I'm concerned, it could only be you.