Support NeoGAF

[QuantumBro]

Also, has anyone gone through any of Swamped's day one posts to see if any seem like he's trying to make contact?

 

[johnnyquicknives]

Also, has anyone gone through any of Swamped's day one posts to see if any seem like he's trying to make contact?

Not yet, I was planning to but you distracted me with all these antics! Despite my arguments I am still slightly leaning in the direction of trusting you for tonight, hence the gun vote rather than voting to detain you. I'm definitely not sold on the play at this point though.

Gun:jonnyquickknives

Actually, I support this vote for one reason!

He didn't get to shoot someone last game.

(although I'm sure if I get a gun, I'll still die before I get to give it a go )

 

[Makai]

Like my good friends in a galaxy far far away, the Rebublicans, say: Guns don't kill people, bad people with guns kill people. I'm giving everyone a chance to vote for who gets the gun. That person can't use it until tomorrow night, and hell doesn't even have to use it. And if it gets used, you know who used it. How is that like blindly firing in the dark.

Who do they shoot with their gun? They're going to pull the trigger on someone they suspect, and chances are good that person will be a rebel. If you give the gun to a Hutt it will almost certainly be used to kill a rebel. If you give a rebel a shield, they are protected from Hutt attacks. Not much changes if you give a Hutt a shield because we can detain them when they're revealed later.

And once again, I'm using a gun instead of a shield, because giving a gun to a Hutt is much worse than giving a shield to a Hutt, so people are forced to take this voting seriously. We can change to a shield tomorrow, I want to see where everyone stands today.

How about we do the move that makes strategic sense? Shields are a million times more valuable than a single round of "seeing where people stand." You should be handing out shields and ONLY shields. I'm not voting for guns because it will wind up being a mistake. Shield: Zubz

 

[QuantumBro]

Who do they shoot with their gun? They're going to pull the trigger on someone they suspect, and chances are good that person will be a rebel. If you give the gun to a Hutt it will almost certainly be used to kill a rebel. If you give a rebel a shield, they are protected from Hutt attacks. Not much changes if you give a Hutt a shield because we can detain them when they're revealed later.

How about we do the move that makes strategic sense? Shields are a million times more valuable than a single round of "seeing where people stand." You should be handing out shields and ONLY shields. I'm not voting for guns because it will wind up being a mistake. Shield: Zubz

Perhaps then you should be making a case so that you get the gun. Then you can be sure that no one can use the gun for nefarious purposes. I'm sure there are other campers who want that.

In fact, here's your first vote:
Gun: Makai

Anyway, I got an idea you'll like. From this point forward "No One" is an option for voting

 

[Blargonaut]

This trigger needs an impartial finger.

My finger.

How about this:
If you all vote to give me Quantum's blaster, I promise to not use it until the majority decides a target to hit.

I promise to refrain from using it until a suitable candidate for 'silencing' is decided upon.

If someone dies by blaster-fire during the night, it wouldn't be because I shot them. You could easily catch me out if I lied; if the gun is given to me and you all ask me to use it on someone, then I somehow don't deliver on assassinating your selected overnight target the next day, I'll give you my full permission to detain me.

I'm no trigger-happy Gungan; when I make a statement, I stick by it. The blaster is safest with me.


Sift through my post history for proof.

Quantum was already looking pretty rebel to me, so this seems to make it more so. But in mafia the only confirmed rebel is a dead one, so keep that in mind.

As for the gun:

Gun:jonnyquickknives

He's probably the most rebel to me at the moment... Well actually Blarg is, but he doesn't need a bigger target then he already has.

Interesting, why?

 

[Palmer_v1]

This trigger needs an impartial finger.

My finger.

How about this:
If you all vote to give me Quantum's blaster, I promise to not use it until the majority decides a target to hit.

I promise to refrain from using it until a suitable candidate for 'silencing' is decided upon.

If someone dies by blaster-fire during the night, it wouldn't be because I shot them. You could easily catch me out if I lied; if the gun is given to me and you all ask me to use it on someone, then I somehow don't deliver on assassinating your selected overnight target the next day, I'll give you my full permission to detain me.

I'm no trigger-happy Gungan; when I make a statement, I stick by it. The blaster is safest with me.


Sift through my post history for proof.





Interesting, why?

None of what you say works. Role blocks, protections, etc. all set up incredibly convenient lies for someone that wants to misuse a gun. For good or ill, guns will only cause the game to end faster, and probably in the Mafia's favor.

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

Interesting, why?

Because of your posting style.

 

[Blargonaut]

None of what you say works. Role blocks, protections, etc. all set up incredibly convenient lies for someone that wants to misuse a gun. For good or ill, guns will only cause the game to end faster, and probably in the Mafia's favor.

Role-blocking and protection?

Not a barrier if it's in my hands, trust me.

The enemy will be shot.

 

[Blargonaut]

Because of your posting style.

Oh.

Good.

 

[TheWorthyEdge]

I'd vote gun: CzarTim or gun: Blargonaut

 

[TheWorthyEdge]

Gun:Terrabyte


He seems the most knowledgeable and trustworthy of the bunch.

 

[johnnyquicknives]

If you all vote to give me Quantum's blaster, I promise to not use it until the majority decides a target to hit.

Great plan! If only we had the means to decide by majority someone to kill/detain every day

I was fully behind detaining day 1, and I'm fully behind detaining day 2. But this early I am not behind voting on a double elimination. We wouldn't get any more knowledge from that than we do from our normal vote, and knowledge is what we want. It's kind of why I like Quantums 'vote for the gun' game, theres always a bit of chat about who seems more rebel-y but the added focus on it is interesting, and will likely build knowledge than the detain arguments alone (it's why despite agreeing with Makai that a shield is more beneficial I'm ok with Quantum sticking to his gun plan).

Hell, maybe this whole thing was a play by Quantum purely to generate discussion in this direction and before the deadline he'll drop some exmachina recants on us. I do think I'd be pretty suspicious of that move now though.

 

[TheWorthyEdge]

Forgot TB. He seems the most knowledgeable besides Johnnyquicknives

 

[TheWorthyEdge]

Guys its pretty obvious Blargonaut knows who one of the Hutts is. Soooo I'm starting to think that him, or TB should get the gun.

 

[TheWorthyEdge]

Sorry. I've been downtown Tatooine (Houston) for a while have just been catching up.

 

[QuantumBro]

Hell, maybe this whole thing was a play by Quantum purely to generate discussion in this direction and before the deadline he'll drop some exmachina recants on us. I do think I'd be pretty suspicious of that move now though.

Let's just say, I'm waiting for everyone to call in before the flop.

 

[eJawa]

Maybe I missed this, but since it's being decided publicy who gets the gun, what is to prevent the hutts from immediately targerting the receiver that night?

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

Maybe I missed this, but since it's being decided publicy who gets the gun, what is to prevent the hutts from immediately targerting the receiver that night?

Who says they have to use it right away?

 

[eJawa]

Who says they have to use it right away?

Why would that matter to the hutts? If they know a rebel has a gun, i'd think that they would want to eliminate that possible future threat as soon as possible. I guess they might hold off if they think they could infliuence that person into killing another rebel later on (or if the receiver is a hutt).

I see now what Blarg is doing, by apealing to both sides and essentially giving the group a double lynch day, sometime later.

 

[Setre]

Gunalmer_v1

His posting style has been consistent in that he seems to be trying to help the Rebel cause the most. He's voted for pretty much everyone but has used it as a probing method to get them to defend themselves and see what they come up with.

 

[Blargonaut]

Maybe I missed this, but since it's being decided publicy who gets the gun, what is to prevent the hutts from immediately targerting the receiver that night?

Quantum could easily switch the gun with the shield at the last minute without telling any of us.

That way, the proud new "gun"-owner would be entirely safe from retaliation, while a Watcher-role could monitor the gunner to see who visits him/her.

That way, we still have a locked-and-loaded blaster to use, an intact survivor and the free identities of possible Hutts.

There's your anti-Hutt insurance policy, at no extra charge.

 

[eJawa]

Quantum could easily switch the gun with the shield at the last minute without telling any of us.

That way, the proud new "gun"-owner would be entirely safe from retaliation, while a Watcher-role could monitor the gunner to see who visits him/her.

That way, we still have a locked-and-loaded blaster to use, an intact survivor and the free identities of possible Hutts.

There's your anti-Hutt insurance policy, at no extra charge.

I like your thinking.

gun: Blargonaut

 

[Makai]

Quantum could easily switch the gun with the shield at the last minute without telling any of us.

That way, the proud new "gun"-owner would be entirely safe from retaliation, while a Watcher-role could monitor the gunner to see who visits him/her.

That way, we still have a locked-and-loaded blaster to use, an intact survivor and the free identities of possible Hutts.

There's your anti-Hutt insurance policy, at no extra charge.

Quantum said the shield doesn't become usable until the next night.

Good Question!

1. I'm only having gun as an option today, because that essentially turns the voting into voting for the person you trust the most with an item that could kill you. Having both as an option, or just the shield as an option would have everyone take it less seriously since it's only a shield. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to give away a shield at some point in the future if I'm still alive.

2. The shield isn't that great. It doesn't activate until the next night, so if I sent one out to someone who was going to be targeted for a kill, it wouldn't help them.

 

[Blargonaut]

Quantum said the shield doesn't become usable until the next night.

Welp, there goes that plan.


I still want the gun though.

 

[CzarTim]

All the votes on ex in the order received:

Terrabyte20xx
QuantumBro
Lord of Castamere
~ ex claims mafia ~
Blargonaut
Zippedpinhead
Matt Attack
TheWorthyEdge
raindoc
eJawa
~ ex claims town ~
swamped
Lord of Castamere
redhood56
QuantumBro
Lord of Castamere

swamp's vote was super weird in hindsight since it comes out of nowhere after people had already unvoted moved on.

 

[CzarTim]

Blarg, don't answer this if you don't want, but you said the message you received was vague. Do you feel like it was purposefully vague in an attempt to convey a hidden message? I say that because I don't know why a rebel would benefit from being vague unless it was a limitation on the power.

I trust your judgment for now, so I guess my question is what is your gut feeling on it?

 

[Zippedpinhead]

So the three people we are seriously considering for the gun are blargonaut, terrabyte, and palmer.

I've already voted Palmer, but if I wanted could I switch my vote? I think blarg with a gun is hilariously effective. Not that I don't think Palmer would use the gun well, just that I think blarg might know something, and is in character diary would be awesome.

 

[Makai]

Perhaps then you should be making a case so that you get the gun. Then you can be sure that no one can use the gun for nefarious purposes. I'm sure there are other campers who want that.

In fact, here's your first vote:
Gun: Makai

Anyway, I got an idea you'll like. From this point forward "No One" is an option for voting

See, giving the gun to anyone is a waste. Think about how good your role is. We can make it impossible for the Hutts to win. If there are N Hutts, all you have to do is distribute shields to N + 1 rebels. Don't tell us who you give them to, at least not until their shields are active. This would probably go even better if we voted No Detain every day.

This role is absolutely incredible and we started with TWO. Either the Hutts have some crazy abilities to match ours, or there are a lot of them. I don't fully believe you are an armorer because two armorers sounds ridiculous. Maybe this is why the game was delayed for "balancing."

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

See, giving the gun to anyone is a waste. Think about how good your role is. We can make it impossible for the Hutts to win. If there are N Hutts, all you have to do is distribute shields to N + 1 rebels. Don't tell us who you give them to, at least not until their shields are active. This would probably go even better if we voted No Detain every day.

This role is absolutely incredible and we started with TWO. Either the Hutts have some crazy abilities to match ours, or there are a lot of them. I don't fully believe you are an armorer because two armorers sounds ridiculous. Maybe this is why the game was delayed for "balancing."

I think there's one thing about this role that we need to confirm:

Are they one-shot abilities?

 

[Blargonaut]

Blarg, don't answer this if you don't want, but you said the message you received was vague. Do you feel like it was purposefully vague in an attempt to convey a hidden message? I say that because I don't know why a rebel would benefit from being vague unless it was a limitation on the power.

I trust your judgment for now, so I guess my question is what is your gut feeling on it?

It was a whisper of data to come, a promise and nothing more.

I have no value as a third-party informant if I'm *dead*, that's the one certainty.

 

[Palmer_v1]

I don't particularly want the gun. I'm fairly good at picking people NOT to kill, i.e. exmachina this game, various people last game, but I've also latched onto people wrongfully several times, i.e. TWE this game, Irfanaator and amir0x last game.

I don't even know who I want to Detain right now, where at least people can talk me down.

I'd probably just hold it for later in the game when we have more information.

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

See, giving the gun to anyone is a waste. Think about how good your role is. We can make it impossible for the Hutts to win. If there are N Hutts, all you have to do is distribute shields to N + 1 rebels. Don't tell us who you give them to, at least not until their shields are active. This would probably go even better if we voted No Detain every day.

This role is absolutely incredible and we started with TWO. Either the Hutts have some crazy abilities to match ours, or there are a lot of them. I don't fully believe you are an armorer because two armorers sounds ridiculous. Maybe this is why the game was delayed for "balancing."

I think there's one thing about this role that we need to confirm:

Are they one-shot abilities?

Welcome!

You are a Rebel Armourer.

You are aligned with the Rebel Alliance.

Once per night phase, you may send a blaster or a personal energy shield to one player. To do so, PM me the command BLASTER: MattyG or SHIELD: MattyG. The blaster may be used by the owner one time to kill another player, while the shield will protect the owner once from any form of death (aside from lynching). Players who have already received an item may not receive another.

You win when no remaining players are Hutt Mob-aligned.

You have some 'splaining to do...

VOTE: Makai

 

[Makai]

I think there's one thing about this role that we need to confirm:

Are they one-shot abilities?

Oh, right. I forgot that bit. They're one-offs according to the role PM.

 

[Makai]

Actually, it shouldn't matter if the Hutts can only kill one person per night and we can still reach the unwinnable state. If they can consistently kill more, then my premise is false.

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

Actually, it shouldn't matter if the Hutts can only kill one person per night and we can still reach the unwinnable state. If they can consistently kill more, then my premise is false.

Welcome!

You are a Rebel Armourer.

You are aligned with the Rebel Alliance.

Once per night phase, you may send a blaster or a personal energy shield to one player. To do so, PM me the command BLASTER: MattyG or SHIELD: MattyG. The blaster may be used by the owner one time to kill another player, while the shield will protect the owner once from any form of death (aside from lynching). Players who have already received an item may not receive another.

You win when no remaining players are Hutt Mob-aligned.

And if they decide to double-tap? (Aka, spend two nights on the same guy)

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

Also, the bolded above is probably a big why we have two. I have a suspect that there is another element in play to this game... Or rather a lack thereof.

 

[Makai]

And if they decide to double-tap? (Aka, spend two nights on the same guy)

Oh shit, lol. Did not even notice that line. Ok, I need to think about this more, but this probably wouldn't work. I still prefer shields to guns.

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

Also, the bolded above is probably a big reason why we have two. I suspect that there is another element in play to this game... Or rather a lack thereof.

Quote edit, because autocorrect sucks.

 

[Makai]

What do you mean by "lack thereof?"

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

Thinking about the gun thing more, and if my suspicion is correct(which I REALLY hope it's not.) I'm starting to second guess the gun thing, especially because of the only one item rule.

For now: VOTE: No Gun

Remember everything we know, the mob knows.

 

[Terrabyte20xx]

What do you mean by "lack thereof?"

Thinking about the gun thing more, and if my suspicion is correct(which I REALLY hope it's not.) I'm starting to second guess the gun thing, especially because of the only one item rule.

For now: VOTE: No Gun

Remember everything we know, the mob knows.

Because of the bolded, I really don't want to say.

 

[Palmer_v1]

Possible theory for Blarg's shit:

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Inventor

A variation on Inventor may be in the game. The Armorer role is basically this as well. Whichever one gave Blarg something last night may have been an investigative 1 shot item. It would explain his vagueness for now, as well as why he thinks it could eventually do something useful.

Far more likely that he's just talking out his ass though.

 

[Blargonaut]

You know what? 'Third-party' is the wrong word.

Call me 'Private'.

I don't particularly want the gun. I'm fairly good at picking people NOT to kill, i.e. exmachina this game, various people last game, but I've also latched onto people wrongfully several times, i.e. TWE this game, Irfanaator and amir0x last game.

I don't even know who I want to Detain right now, where at least people can talk me down.

I'd probably just hold it for later in the game when we have more information.

Now see folks, you really don't want this kind of attitude behind an aiming reticle.

I know a hesitant trooper when I see one, and *that* guy will DEFINITELY HESITATE.

Rebel or Imperial, no flyboy or flygal wants their wingman to HESITATE with that laser shot that could've saved their life, their friend's life; their flag's life.

I don't hesitate.

I lock, then I kill.

Vote to arm me.

Gun for Blargonaut.

 

[Blargonaut]

Possible theory for Blarg's shit:

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Inventor

A variation on Inventor may be in the game. The Armorer role is basically this as well. Whichever one gave Blarg something last night may have been an investigative 1 shot item. It would explain his vagueness for now, as well as why he thinks it could eventually do something useful.

Far more likely that he's just talking out his ass though.

No ass, all game.

If this holoprojector thingy is a trap, then I'm set.

Come at me Hutts, tonight by the wrecked thrusters. Attack me, that's a double-dare.

Hutts don't even know.

 

[Zubz]

How about we do the move that makes strategic sense? Shields are a million times more valuable than a single round of "seeing where people stand." You should be handing out shields and ONLY shields. I'm not voting for guns because it will wind up being a mistake. Shield: Zubz

The problem is that Shields take a night to go off, so unless I got lucky, that's not the most useful thing (I'd rather have a shield than a gun, though). Plus, that just means the Hutts can go after Worthy. Kinda wish he waited on describing the role, but oh well. The only way I can see one of us surviving is if the other gets detained, leaving the non-detainee a Vanilla Rebel. ... Or the Hutts try to turn you against us.

Besides, I think I can trust Blarg with a gun.

Gun: Blarg

 

[Zatoth]

I suck at reading. You made yourself a shield.

gun: truabe

I am totally for that.

 

[Zatoth]

Oh and btw.. Isn't it against the rules to copy/paste your role information in the thread?

Assuming that really is his role information.

 

[Palmer_v1]

Oh and btw.. Isn't it against the rules to copy/paste your role information in the thread?

Assuming that really is his role information.

Technically, he's only quoting what MattyG or Crab posted when we lynched him.

 

[raindoc]

Goddamn it guys, this is NOT a race. We you already killed Armorer #1 and the next guy that was on the public hit list also turned out to be a rebel. We have no clue who the Hutts are, but now you want to hand out blasters, despite shields being available.


head -> wall

 

[Zatoth]

Technically, he's only quoting what MattyG or Crab posted when we lynched him.

Okay. Missed that.

So the shield will last indefinitely? But will be lost once someone tries to kill you? And can only be used once on each person, right?

Do you really think we'd have two of those roles on the rebel side? Considering that we also had LoC, who also was able to kill someone with his power.

I can't really believe that. The Empire would need a lot of players and/or powered roles to counter that.