-
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
no. we win by staying alive longer than hutts. which is not going to happen if you guys continue killing our own for no reason.
... No, we win by eliminating Hutts. There is no time component to this, what are you talking about? We have to detain the remaining Hutts before they make up 50% of the game. That's how this works. There are no MOs or clues, this is a social game. Sometimes roles can help us figure it out, sometimes they can't. We lost our cop, so it's going to be more about gut feelings than ever. If we want to win we need to start detaining people we think are Hutts. We aren't always going to have a foolproof reason or be right 100% of the time, but we have to start working in that direction. We can't wait around for someone to save us with all the info we need to figure the game out.
And we stay alive longer than the hutts by eliminating them. They're not going to kill themselves. If Palmer is telling the truth, eliminating him does not get us closer to that goal and would basically amount to killing a rebel.
are you really that &@}#? the more rebels we kill, the less they have to. we're speeding up their win.
if we kill someone other than Palmer, in the worst case scenario it wouldn't just "basically amount to", it would literally be killing a rebel. one less for the hutts to kill, one step closer to our loss.
AbsolutBro
Member
Again, if Palmer is a neutral role it's the same as killing a rebel. The Hutts don't have to kill a certain amount of rebels, they just have to be half the remaining players.
5 hutts + 5 rebels is the same as 5 hutts, 4 rebels and a neutral party.
You need to take a deep breath and stop insulting people, my friend. This is a game, we're here to have fun. None of this matters. Most of your posts in this thread make it sound like it's torture for you to be here. No one forced you to sign up for this. If you can't have fun, at least don't ruin it for everyone else.
What are you talking about? I'll admit, on night one, we agreed the other's vote was suspicious, but he wanted to wait on Castamere, and I refused to vote for Exmachina because he sarcastically claimed Mafia in a game where we're looking for Hutts (Some of his earlier posts struck me as kill-thirsty, but that could just be one's playstyle). But we both totally voted for Blarg last night.
He hasn't been active in here or in our side-thread; I know who he wanted to vote for, but when I asked for specific posts to back me up, he went MIA. Because we discussed Setre's "Seer" claim and him clearing Palmer, the plan was to question Palmer all day until voting for Setre, who we were adamant was a lying Hutt. Now we (allegedly) know the truth about Setre, however. Then we got distracted about E3 stuff until I asked him about his reasoning behind voting Palmer (He mentioned a Blarg post about him hinting about wanting Palmer detained; I feel I remember it, but can't find it), which is when I lost contact.
I can tell you that he's really adamant about voting against Palmer, though; he's been at least 50% certain he's a Hutt since Day 1. And frankly, I can't entirely blame him; something about him rubs me the wrong way, too. I mean, he was in the "Arm us after we've declined" camp, he's been very aggressive, and again, just because he was inactive at night doesn't mean that he wasn't the other Undercover Imperial. I'm half-considering voting for him because he's still the player I most suspect. I just can't wring a good enough argument out of it other than "He could be the UI," "he's an aggressive player" (Which a lot of players are, admittedly, even on Rebel/Village side), my teammate wants him dead, and some post that I'm now worrying I might have imagined. And the whole "Confirmed 3rd Party" thing; it could be a lie in case someone catches on he's not a Rebel, because the one person who can detect evil is dead, but there's still a chance he's a vote that helps us out. Although as the day's nearing its end, "Most Suspicious" is still a safe vote.
Apparently I really am that &@}# (I'm assuming that's a bad thing?). I believe Palmer, so I don't want to detain him. Hey, I'm just as nervous as the next guy about detaining yet another rebel, but I'd rather risk it then just giving up this round and voting someone off just because they a technically neutral.
I have to say, your aggressive style does make me believe your a rebel. Unless it's all an act to make us think that... ack, my head again.
Matt Attack
Member
Detaining a neutral player now would be akin to accepting another day without a Hutt detainment. If Palmer were a serial killer (I do not believe that he is at this point), yes, it's possible he kills a rebel tonight- but it's also possible he kills a Hutt. So even if he were an SK, leaving him alive has a small chance of working in our favor. That's not a possibility that I'm banking on, but considering the circumstances, it's worth noting.
Palmer also brings to the table a wealth of useful discussion- I think his value as a player is difficult to understate, even if he is a neutral role.
Detaining somebody other than Palmer may indeed result in us lynching a rebel, but the chance of that player being Hutt-aligned also exists. Frankly, while I've maintained that I am somewhat suspicious of Palmer, I simply don't think we stand to gain much from detaining him today. My vote for Zipped stands at this point.
I think he's probably a rebel right now as well.
Palmer also brings to the table a wealth of useful discussion- I think his value as a player is difficult to understate, even if he is a neutral role.
Detaining somebody other than Palmer may indeed result in us lynching a rebel, but the chance of that player being Hutt-aligned also exists. Frankly, while I've maintained that I am somewhat suspicious of Palmer, I simply don't think we stand to gain much from detaining him today. My vote for Zipped stands at this point.
I think he's probably a rebel right now as well.
I know Palmer and Setre have claimed their roles, but let's not forget that people can easily be lying. We already saw that once this game with Blarg. I'm not saying that we should vote for Palmer or Setre, and I honestly trust the latter, but simply assuming that they didn't lie to get attention off of them is dangerous.
And I'm going to say it again: I trust Zipped.
And I'm going to say it again: I trust Zipped.
johnnyquicknives
Member
Seriously:
Hutt win condition: Kill Rebels AND Neutrals
Rebel win condition: Detain Hutts
Killing a Neutral is a direct benefit to the Hutts, it is literally a part of their win condition. The only reason we would want to make that sacrifice is if we are fairly sure that they are doing something detrimental to the Rebels. The odds that Palmer is a serial killer seem absolutely tiny and honestly I don't think we learn very much from killing him.
I'd say the odds that Palmer is likely to be harming us/a Hutt directly is ~15%.
The odds of Makai, eJawa, raindoc, OceanicAir, zippedpinhead, etc I have sitting at around 50%.
I'll take the 50% chance over the 15%.
Hutt win condition: Kill Rebels AND Neutrals
Rebel win condition: Detain Hutts
Killing a Neutral is a direct benefit to the Hutts, it is literally a part of their win condition. The only reason we would want to make that sacrifice is if we are fairly sure that they are doing something detrimental to the Rebels. The odds that Palmer is a serial killer seem absolutely tiny and honestly I don't think we learn very much from killing him.
I'd say the odds that Palmer is likely to be harming us/a Hutt directly is ~15%.
The odds of Makai, eJawa, raindoc, OceanicAir, zippedpinhead, etc I have sitting at around 50%.
I'll take the 50% chance over the 15%.
Matt Attack
Member
Correction, my bad.
I went back and checked, and I've never found a point where Blarg was antagonistic towards me.
I voted for Johnny to have the gun, so that part is just flat out incorrect. I was definitely aggressive towards TWE on Day 1, cause I thought he was a similar role to me. It's still entirely possible, in fact. Nothing says there can't be more than one Unlyncher. As for me being an Undercover Imperial(or any other Hutt), I simply do not comprehend how that makes sense. If it was true, the only person that could have exposed me died N2. If I was a Hutt, I wouldn't have said anything. It's fairly obvious that most people trusted me yesterday. Why in the fuck would a Hutt draw attention and speculation by claiming a 3rd party role at that point? Did I even have any votes on me when the day ended yesterday? The SK speculation is at least somewhat logical, though again, the logical thing to do in this case is to continue acting like a rebel and not draw attention to myself
Your flimsy arguments are making me suspect you more. Are you having trouble calling me out because you have a similar role and don't want to risk being exposed further? That's really what this sounds like to me. It would also explain the "confusion" over how your deaths work when you're detained or killed. Only one of you immediately loses if the other is detained/dies. I feel like this is the goddamned duplicate sleepwalker situation again. If I'm right, it at least helps confirm that you're rebel-friendly, and not the UI and a Hutt.
Not sure what you mean by the bolded part. Nobody has confirmed me as a Neutral. My client MIGHT be able to(I'm not sure if they know), but definitely should not, for obvious reasons.
Matt Attack
Member
Okay, I just deleted my entire post by accidentally editing in my correction (that was actually supposed to be a new post). Didn't realize that hitting the edit button is where the quote button is, at least on mobile GAF. Damn it.
Matt Attack
Member
I suppose it's also possible that raindoc is the second Undercover Imperial, and is using this abrasive tone to signal that fact to the Hutt players- it's certainly a tone that is unique to raindoc at this point, and is somewhat suspicious. They may be pushing for Palmer's detainment following the same logic AbsolutBro pointed out.
Palmer, as a (supposedly) neutral player, could potentially be an easier target to rally the rebels to detain than somebody who's allegiance is still in serious question. Furthermore, it pretty much is a kill that's just as good as a Rebel kill (as far as the Hutts are concerned). It's the sort of Hutt-beneficial detainment that's a little easier to disguise as Rebel-beneficial.
For the record, I'm of the opinion that if this were to be the case, it would be really risky. It would require the Rebels to be both hasty enough and shortsighted enough to not realize that Palmer's detainment helps the Hutts as much as a Rebel detainment (obviously, we almost immediately pointed out this fact). Also, I still am getting pro-town vibes from raindoc's posts, so it wouldn't be surprising for the Hutts to feel the same way. just wanted to see what
Palmer, as a (supposedly) neutral player, could potentially be an easier target to rally the rebels to detain than somebody who's allegiance is still in serious question. Furthermore, it pretty much is a kill that's just as good as a Rebel kill (as far as the Hutts are concerned). It's the sort of Hutt-beneficial detainment that's a little easier to disguise as Rebel-beneficial.
For the record, I'm of the opinion that if this were to be the case, it would be really risky. It would require the Rebels to be both hasty enough and shortsighted enough to not realize that Palmer's detainment helps the Hutts as much as a Rebel detainment (obviously, we almost immediately pointed out this fact). Also, I still am getting pro-town vibes from raindoc's posts, so it wouldn't be surprising for the Hutts to feel the same way. just wanted to see what
sorry guys, i'm frustrated by this game. town fucked up each and every decision so far and shows great learning-resistance.
maybe you guys are having fun (i hope so, i really do), but i'd much rather be in the other game than this pub brawl.
I'll hold myself back now and watch this train wreck unfold. if you keep ignoring me although I've previously proven to make better decisions in the town's interest there's no point in participating in debates anymore.
maybe you guys are having fun (i hope so, i really do), but i'd much rather be in the other game than this pub brawl.
I'll hold myself back now and watch this train wreck unfold. if you keep ignoring me although I've previously proven to make better decisions in the town's interest there's no point in participating in debates anymore.
Matt Attack
Member
There's my pre-correction post, I promise!
;-; I've been found out!
Matt admitted to being a Hutt before the edit, everyone vote him
;-; I've been found out!
Setre
Member
Just skimming over the entire thread and these are some things that stuck out to me.
Seems a really odd thing to say when he's a Combat Buddy. This question also seemed to come out of nowhere. He did ask it right after MattyG had posted so maybe he was expecting a reply from him.
Again why ask this sort of question if he's a Combat Buddy with Zubz? If he and Zubz have a private forum to talk in why wouldn't the Hutts? He of course posts a minute later saying it was a stupid question but it's still odd that he'd ask.
Worthy is an experienced offline Mafia player. He should know the roles pretty well unless the games he plays in just use Townie and Mafia roles. He should also know that the Hutts know who the others are.
The scenario I present is as follows:
Worthy and Zubs are both Hutts, they along with maybe another Hutt or two are discussing the game in their private forum. They see that Worthy is about to be voted out so they latch onto Ex. Worthy claims he has a role so he wont get voted out. They discuss what role they could possibly have and come up with Combat Buddies. It gives them no real power other than to vote. The tricky part is if this is true than we have two Hutts confirming themselves in front of all of us hoping we'll believe their Combat Buddy story.
One more thing before I move on. I don't know how much MattyG knows about Star Wars but I would assume he knows quite a bit seeing as how he's running a Star Wars themed game. So let's look at what Zubz said:
have a Jedi Mindlink thing
The only types of people in the Star Wars universe who can use a Force Meld / Battle Meditation are Force Users. I would think that MattyG would know this. Neither Worthy or Zubz claimed to be Force Sensitive. So maybe they're both Dark Jedi / Sith?
Of course MattyG could not know that much and I could just be looking to far into it like some others were the flavored kill texts.
Next thing I want to bring up concerns Traube. I'm going to use some of the logic that was used against me. Traube has mentioned Empire a total of 33 times. He also has a Stormtrooper avatar. These probably don't mean anything but if I were a secret Imperial Agent trying to contact the Hutts I'd probably do it that way.
Where this reasoning falls apart though is him voting for swamped (which admittedly could be Worthy / Zubz situation) and that he hasn't bandwagoned.
These are just thoughts I had while skimming through the thread again. They probably don't mean anything else to anyone but me and I'm sure holes will be shot through these theories relatively quickly.
Seems a really odd thing to say when he's a Combat Buddy. This question also seemed to come out of nowhere. He did ask it right after MattyG had posted so maybe he was expecting a reply from him.
Again why ask this sort of question if he's a Combat Buddy with Zubz? If he and Zubz have a private forum to talk in why wouldn't the Hutts? He of course posts a minute later saying it was a stupid question but it's still odd that he'd ask.
Worthy is an experienced offline Mafia player. He should know the roles pretty well unless the games he plays in just use Townie and Mafia roles. He should also know that the Hutts know who the others are.
The scenario I present is as follows:
Worthy and Zubs are both Hutts, they along with maybe another Hutt or two are discussing the game in their private forum. They see that Worthy is about to be voted out so they latch onto Ex. Worthy claims he has a role so he wont get voted out. They discuss what role they could possibly have and come up with Combat Buddies. It gives them no real power other than to vote. The tricky part is if this is true than we have two Hutts confirming themselves in front of all of us hoping we'll believe their Combat Buddy story.
One more thing before I move on. I don't know how much MattyG knows about Star Wars but I would assume he knows quite a bit seeing as how he's running a Star Wars themed game. So let's look at what Zubz said:
have a Jedi Mindlink thing
The only types of people in the Star Wars universe who can use a Force Meld / Battle Meditation are Force Users. I would think that MattyG would know this. Neither Worthy or Zubz claimed to be Force Sensitive. So maybe they're both Dark Jedi / Sith?
Of course MattyG could not know that much and I could just be looking to far into it like some others were the flavored kill texts.
Next thing I want to bring up concerns Traube. I'm going to use some of the logic that was used against me. Traube has mentioned Empire a total of 33 times. He also has a Stormtrooper avatar. These probably don't mean anything but if I were a secret Imperial Agent trying to contact the Hutts I'd probably do it that way.
Where this reasoning falls apart though is him voting for swamped (which admittedly could be Worthy / Zubz situation) and that he hasn't bandwagoned.
These are just thoughts I had while skimming through the thread again. They probably don't mean anything else to anyone but me and I'm sure holes will be shot through these theories relatively quickly.
I actually thought I was somewhat safe from the Hutts being a Neutral, but you're right that from their win perspective, killing me is as useful as killing an Ordinary Rebel, but less useful than killing a rebel power role. On the other hand, I'm always going to be a lightning rod now. If one of the Hutts is at risk of detainment, all it takes is a few ill-informed rebels to give the Hutts exactly what they need.
Anyway, I think my vote is still on Redhood at the moment, but I seem to be alone in wanting to get rid of inactives. Other candidates seem to be me, Setre, Quantum, eJawa, and Makai.
I still think Setre is just inexperienced. If eJawa turns out to be a Hutt, or a power role, we obviously need to revisit this. This message bullshit that he and Blarg received concerns me. Blarg was lying about a lot of other things, so why not this? I guess we'll see what comes of it.
I don't particularly believe Qunatum's story, but do feel like he's rebel-aligned.
eJawa is one of the relatively inactive players I'm inclined to detain. It would also give us some valuable information about Setre. If Setre is being truthful, we probably just lose an Ordinary Rebel at worst, and an Ordinary Hutt at best. Otherwise, he hasn't given me any particular Hutt vibes.
Makai, much like Zubz, TWE, and Raindoc, seems to be using some pretty terrible logic to accuse me. I still believe that playing the game with Blarg only stood to benefit the Hutts. Of all the candidates, he seems to have done the most to hurt the rebels. Could be ignorance, could be malice. I'm not sure.
Vote: Makai
johnnyquicknives
Member
Thats rubbish. You've taken a wishy-washy, middle of the road path completely unwilling to make any kind of tough decision while you wait for power roles to out themselves with clear evidence. The only times you were willing to risk an accusation was when someone admitted to being a Hutt.
None of us has claimed to be hutt today. I'd say that is proof that we're learning!
You did vote to arm me, though.
I forgot it was before I declined, but you did vote to arm me.
You also said that you were a neutral party, and not a Rebel. I have years of experience from playing Werewolf with friends in-person, but I've only played Forum Mafia, like, once: does 3rd Party mean something different than Neutral? I'm not trying to sound rude; all of these acronyms and titles we never used because we went for a "Sleepy Village" setting and were actually in the same room talking to one another over a 2 hour span are confusing me a bit.
Also, I have another question that I don't want to quote because it's driving me up a wall that my mouse died and I'm out of batteries: You said you had "Cop-like info inherent to your role." What was it again?
Edge & I discussed in the side-thread that we should try to cast doubt on whether or not we were teammates; maybe that was him trying to do so, like how he voted for me as an "inactive" example knowing I'd show up later that day? Or maybe he was genuinely asking about other players.
The forum's literally just Edge, myself, and for a second because of E3 stuff, Matty. Worthy latched onto Ex because "He's seen Mobsters act like this before." I didn't think that was a good strategy, or that anything was really wrong (Most of the posts I said about suspecting Exmachina were me trying to get people off of Edge at a time where they were neck and neck in terms of "popularity").
And for the Jedi Mindlink? That was a phrase I heard a friend say once. I just used it because I wanted to sound smart. I'm 110% serious when I say that I know next-to-nothing about Star Wars. You guys may know enough about it, but "The Rebels were the good guys, right?" may or may not have been a thought that crossed my mind going into this thread (Although I kind of want to see them now; again, I saw Episode IV a few years back, but it was as an adult, watching another non-Star Wars movie in the same day so the details didn't even really stick)... I just assumed that this was supposed to be a "Jedi Mindlink," but the Role PM doesn't mention it at all. It just says we have our own channel.
OceanicAir
Member
I think the main reason people suspect you Palmer is that your role is impossible to confirm, it is a fairly uncommon role (at least I think it is), and you have admittedly kept info away from us. You could very well be the unlyncher yourself with how often you change your votes! I already came to conclusion that lynching you now would be a mistake and I do think that you being a Hutt is out of the question with your previous explanation.
I can't do anything about being uncomfirmable. 3/4 of the players are usually uncomfirmable. I could have been an Ordinary Rebel, which is impossible to prove. You don't detain people because of something that cannot be proved. Detain them because they are not helping the rebels win. Think about it in the reverse. What in the fuck does a Hutt gain by doing what I'm doing?
As for withholding info, of course I am. Look at the cluster fuck TWE caused with Zubz. People were seriously considering detaining a semi-confirmed rebel just to give the Hutts a slightly more difficult choice at night. That should NEVER have happened.
Sorry for my lack of posts.
@raindoc: So what would your way of winning be? Vote No Detain and hope that the cops survives long enough to find all the enemy players?
Just FYI. In the last game there was no cop at all. Two Mafia players got caught because they screwed with their postings.
By your posting style it looks like you are taking this game way to serious. Kinda reminds of on player in the last game. egruntz? But he was lynched because of it.
@raindoc: So what would your way of winning be? Vote No Detain and hope that the cops survives long enough to find all the enemy players?
Just FYI. In the last game there was no cop at all. Two Mafia players got caught because they screwed with their postings.
By your posting style it looks like you are taking this game way to serious. Kinda reminds of on player in the last game. egruntz? But he was lynched because of it.
Sorry for my lack of posts.
@raindoc: So what would your way of winning be? Vote No Detain and hope that the cops survives long enough to find all the enemy players?
Just FYI. In the last game there was no cop at all. Two Mafia players got caught because they screwed with their postings.
By your posting style it looks like you are taking this game way to serious. Kinda reminds of on player in the last game. egruntz? But he was lynched because of it.
I might have to go back and look at that rant from egruntz to see if he was right at all.
If Makai is hutt, accepting Blarg challenge does make sense. If he lost, he could just lie and say he is a ordinary rebel. If he won, he could hope that Blarg tells told the truth and would reveal his true role, giving the hutts needed info. Losing would put some of the spot light on him, but no more than anyone else declaring themselves a rebel.
I'm also looking at OceanicAir's posts and I'm not seeing any evidence of being a rebel. At this point, that is almost a good enough reason for a vote.
I'm also looking at OceanicAir's posts and I'm not seeing any evidence of being a rebel. At this point, that is almost a good enough reason for a vote.
So it really was egruntz? Good times.
I am really not sure who to vote for. I guess waiting one more night before we consider QB is acceptable.
I tend to believe the story of Palmer for now. Still is probably a good option to vote against today.
But I'll stay with my feeling from day one.
Vote: OceanicAir
Sorry.
Btw. any update on Rymuth?
So it really was egruntz? Good times.
I am really not sure who to vote for. I guess waiting one more night before we consider QB is acceptable.
I tend to believe the story of Palmer for now. Still is probably a good option to vote against today.
But I'll stay with my feeling from day one.
Vote: OceanicAir
Sorry.
Btw. any update on Rymuth?
At this point, I'm half-interested in voting for OceanicAir just to see why you're so certain about voting for him.
As for Rymuth,I think the replacement will just pop in at the beginning of Day 4.
I feel like I am suspected because Blarg ended up being a cop. How would you feel if he really was Undercover Imperial? Eveything you said applies to any allegiance.
I knew dueling would draw a lot of attention to myself, but I thought getting some info on the most suspicious player in the game was worth the risk. For a little bit, it looked like it paid off. don't have a strong role like armorer or cop, so there's no hard feelings. But I did want to play for longer.
johnnyquicknives
Member
I should probably hop in since I feel I started aiming people towards you, and reading back my explanation was worded fairly poorly.
For me the Blarg thing was part of a pattern. Looking at your post history I thought that your posts seemed to fall into 3 main groups: Day 1, Quantums role claim and the Blarg game.
Day 1:
To me you came out the gate fast with a lot of posts. Reading them back though there wasn't a huge amount of content. Not a huge issue on day 1 really since theres not much to go on but at the time I noticed it.
Quantums role claim:
The next bout of posts was around Quantums claim to be armourer. I actually agreed with a lot of your posts here and I mentioned earlier it actually made me a bit less wary of you. Looking back though its an easy place to keep up regular posting while only really discussing something very specific.
Blarg game:
As has been mentioned its a pretty easy place to keep yourself visibly posting, but without really discussing the game. The outcome was really irrelevant since it's easy enough to lie.
Each taken on their own is fairly easily explained, but to me it stood out as a pattern of posting plenty and keeping visible at times when you didn't have to really contribute much.
As I've mentioned there are other people I'm suspicious of and if anyone else comes up as a better suspect I'll listen to the arguments and vote accordingly. If you're a Rebel and we detain you it sucks but the reasons above are as good as anything I have right now.
Blarg turning out to be a cop doesn't really figure into my reasoning (at least consciously), since hutts probably have no idea who the agent is either. I guess hutts would maybe hesitate accepting his challenge for fear he might be the other agent and actually come clean. Then again, they might have assumed he'd show common sense and lie if he lost. Common sense ended up not really figuring into all of this, making it really hard to guess how I would feel if he really was the agent.
Over all I think rebels would be less likely to accept the challenge. If they lost and revealed their role, it would give valuable info to the hutts, even if they were just an ordinary rebel. If they lied, it could cause trust problems later on with fellow rebels. Hutts have to constantly lie about who they are, so them losing and having to lie about being an ordinary rebel, wouldn't seem that big a deal.
johnnyquicknives
Member
Also since OceanicAir seems to be the main competitor just now does someone (most likely Traube since he's kind of hell bent on detaining him) want to put together a quick summary on him. I'm going to go over his and zippedpinheads posts before the deadline and wouldn't mind having main arguments summarised to compare.
OceanicAir
Member
I am pretty that ejawa has more votes against him then I do. Traube is the only person voting for me right now.
My strategy is to find contradictions. The outcome of the duel was not irrelevant because liars must perpetuate their lies. We're here to lynch them when they eventually slip up. e.g. Blarg was already making soft role claims and so we would lynch him if he claimed Ordinary Rebel.
I still suspect Setre, but there is another player who I suspect and has a couple votes on him.
VOTE: Palmer_v1
He has already admitted to lying to encourage people to vote for Blarg ("he goes or I go"). He is potentially hazardous to us if he is a Serial Killer. I do not think he is being honest about his role.
You say you look for contradictions, and then fail to point out a single one I've made while voting for me. At least be honest and admit that you're just trying to bus me to save your own skin.
Fucking bullshit. As far as I can tell, I had a single vote on me yesterday, and it was from TheWorthyEdge. He did end up changing his vote to Blarg, but I was never in danger of detainment yesterday. Again, I can't decide if you're being deliberately misleading, or just not fact-checking. Either way, it's detrimental.
Also, your proof of my contradictions is a lie I told, and then willingly admitted to after I realized it was a mistake. That is surely some damning evidence.
Once more, I ask everyone that thinks I might be a Hutt, why would any Hutt in their right mind do any of the stuff I've done? Suspicions about my Neutral role are warranted, but I honestly do not understand why anyone would think I'm a Hutt.
You are a neutral, not a Hutt.
Barrylocke
Member
Preparing a vote count now.
AbsolutBro
Member
You're not making a whole lot of sense Makai. If you think he's neutral, why worry that he lied to get Blarg detained instead of himself? I mean, he even explained why he did it.
Preparing a vote count now.
Thanks! I considered doing it, but I'm kinda burnt out.
OceanicAir
Member
But do you really think he is a detrimental neutral e.g. SK? Because then I could understand, but right now it's too early to tell what alignment he is. If he is then that would mean there was some kind of shield/doctor going on last night. Which again is too soon to tell.
Zippedpinhead
Member
Thank you, I'm pretty sure votes are mostly for makai and eJawa, with me, Palmer and setre as dark horses (long odd, outside chance) detains.
Barrylocke
Member
18 are alive, so 10 to lynch. Please point out if there's errors.
Makai(4): johnnyquicknives, Zippedpinhead, Palmer_v1, CzarTim
Palmer_v1(3): TheWorthyEdge,QuantamBro, raindoc, Makai
ejawa(2): Barrylocke, redhood56
OceanicAir(1):traube, Palmer_v1, CzarTim, traube
Zippedpinhead(1): Matt Attack
Setre(1):Zubz , Quantambro , Makai, OceanicAir, Zippedpinhead
Quantambro(0):ejawa, traube
redhood56(0):johnnyquicknives, Palmer_v1
Makai(4): johnnyquicknives, Zippedpinhead, Palmer_v1, CzarTim
Palmer_v1(3): TheWorthyEdge,
ejawa(2): Barrylocke, redhood56
OceanicAir(1):
Zippedpinhead(1): Matt Attack
Setre(1):
Quantambro(0):
redhood56(0):