[Mafia] Village Mos Erdru - COMPLETE

By BiggsIRL, in Star Wars: Armada Off-Topic

Posted at
Just now, Tirion said:

See my response above

Yeah that also works

Posted at
Just now, Tirion said:

It's not that I trusted you it was a way of determining that very thing.

So wait you dont trust me? But I'm so lovable!

Posted at
1 minute ago, Madaghmire said:

So wait you dont trust me? But I'm so lovable!

I want to trust you. I want to be able to wrap my arms around that a wing body and not worry about being stabbed.

Posted at
Just now, Tirion said:

I want to trust you. I want to be able to wrap my arms around that a wing body and not worry about being stabbed.

No worries. I mean, Dagger Squadron flies B-Wings.

Posted at
14 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

My reaction to JJ was based on the fact that he was quick to propose a hanging (P.S. I don't like to use the word Lynch because of the racial connotations). With the odds so heavily stacked against us on day one, I see the scum as the most likely to advocate for a killing. A bad hanging on day one is the REAL "free" kill, not passing. Passing lets us see 1) who pushes hard for a kill and 2) lets the power roles have a chance to work. Frankly if you push hard for a day one hanging, I consider you suspect. I will give JJ a pass for friendly banter and getting the ball rolling for the sake of discussion...for now.

P.s. PT's inability to remember if we are hunting Scum or Rebels is either comical or a clever deception.

Fair enough, especially point 2. Being regular town, I forget we have special roles that could give us some insight when if we choose not to hammer. That said, time is not our ally, which is why I push for a hammer. Obviously it can be harder to come to an agreement day 1, which is fine, so long as discussion is happening.

Posted at

Something that came to my mind:

Let's say at least one of the bad guys is clever enough to build a strategy to kill us and cover themselves. Is this an incredible speculation? I think is not.

We usually find some kind of dual approach for every thing:

- if you don't talk you are mafia.

- if you talk you are mafia pretending to be townie.

- if you don't want to lynch someone at day 1 you are mafia.

- if you want to lynch someone you are mafia pretending to be townie.

Etc.

So, what would be the perfect tactic (IMO)?: to put a finger on every cake.

So we could argue, with some basis, that at least one hutt would defend the no-lynching claim.

Then we would have a 1/3, better than the ?/11 right?

Posted at
10 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Then we would have a 1/3, better than the ?/11 right?

Kind of but not really, I think a few people are scarred of repeating Lothal, and don't really count me in on the "avoiding to lynch" cause I realized how it is more likely to be benefitial to take the first day lynch than leaving it. But honestly, I think that first day is very hard to distinguish instinctive behaviour from pressuring behaviour from calculated behaviour from panic

Posted at
3 minutes ago, Visovics said:

Kind of but not really, I think a few people are scarred of repeating Lothal, and don't really count me in on the "avoiding to lynch" cause I realized how it is more likely to be benefitial to take the first day lynch than leaving it. But honestly, I think that first day is very hard to distinguish instinctive behaviour from pressuring behaviour from calculated behaviour from panic

Also, as it was said before, people wanting to really reinforce the lynch may also be hutts,

hitting the submit button by accident is really annoying with the no edit rule

Posted at

@CaribbeanNinja Any thoughts? You've been pretty quiet.

Posted at
1 minute ago, Truthiness said:

@CaribbeanNinja Any thoughts? You've been pretty quiet.

And it isn't by absence, he was on half an hour ago

Posted at
4 minutes ago, Visovics said:

And it isn't by absence, he was on half an hour ago

I said it last game I'll say it again this game just because you haven't posted in a little bit doesn't mean anything

Posted at
16 minutes ago, Tirion said:

I said it last game I'll say it again this game just because you haven't posted in a little bit doesn't mean anything

Nor was I trying to imply anything. I just want to hear his take.

Posted at
5 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Yeah I don't know about the conventional wisdom about lynching somebody straight away (it really hurt last game). But that said I can see Onid's point. At least that way we discuss things.

Wow time flies. I cannot believe this was 5 hours ago.

Im still of this belief. It is my second whole Mafia game...so I'm not very experienced. :)

Posted at

Well I'll make my position official. I'll keep an open mind, but with a 67% chance of killing a fellow townie, I'm going to need a very convincing argument. Keep in mind, we are flying blind without the power roles having a night to work, were as the Scum are not. They know exactly which names to feed us, but don't have any of the baggage that that later rounds will reveal. This will probably blow back on me since I appear to be in the minority, but I'm doing it for the good of the town.

##vote no kill

Posted at

Oh wait, we have 11 players, not 9. The odds are even lower of finding Scum.

Posted at

I've got a bad feeling about this.....

Posted at

Hmm...

Still of the opinion that a d1 hanging (I'll respect your nomenclature preference @Truthiness ) is the most effective strategy. In fact, on the other forum I play this on, opposition to a d1 hanging is considered grounds for suspicion.

However, the hammer mechanic changes the logistics of it (even if I think that the theory is still sound).

When you have to convince 50% of the remaining town to vote asking with you, it's tough to pull it off.

For reference sake, I'm used to games where a plurality of votes at the end of the cycle is sufficient for hanging. So if 6 players abstain, 2 vote on one suspect, and 3 vote on another, the 3 vote suspect dies. In such a circumstance, it's easier to get a hanging in the first place. Which means that the threat of being killed d1 is more pressing and therefore the incentive to defend oneself is greater.

And, as I said before, the most important thing is discussion. And it's hard to get good and useful discussion without the threat of hanging.

That sort of pressure makes people slip up. Which means that hanging on d1 is actually better odds than just rolling dice and eliminating someone at random. But only if you can get a good discussion going.

However, with all that said, it looks like I'm fighting an uphill battle here, so I'll shut up.

Just for the principle of the thing, though - ##vote Visovics

Posted at
9 hours ago, Madaghmire said:

How familiar are you with mafia? Have you played before?

Because honestly that reads to me either as;

1. New player genuinely trying to ascertain if theres information we could be taking into account that we are not

or

2. Slimey slug sucking spice slingin' Hutthead trying to fish out our power roles

I played so many versions of Mafia I realized I don't know which version we are playing :P

Posted at
4 hours ago, Onidsen said:

Hmm...

Still of the opinion that a d1 hanging (I'll respect your nomenclature preference @Truthiness ) is the most effective strategy. In fact, on the other forum I play this on, opposition to a d1 hanging is considered grounds for suspicion.

However, the hammer mechanic changes the logistics of it (even if I think that the theory is still sound).

When you have to convince 50% of the remaining town to vote asking with you, it's tough to pull it off.

For reference sake, I'm used to games where a plurality of votes at the end of the cycle is sufficient for hanging. So if 6 players abstain, 2 vote on one suspect, and 3 vote on another, the 3 vote suspect dies. In such a circumstance, it's easier to get a hanging in the first place. Which means that the threat of being killed d1 is more pressing and therefore the incentive to defend oneself is greater.

And, as I said before, the most important thing is discussion. And it's hard to get good and useful discussion without the threat of hanging.

That sort of pressure makes people slip up. Which means that hanging on d1 is actually better odds than just rolling dice and eliminating someone at random. But only if you can get a good discussion going.

However, with all that said, it looks like I'm fighting an uphill battle here, so I'll shut up.

Just for the principle of the thing, though - ##vote Visovics

I agree with you and...

8 hours ago, Visovics said:

Kind of but not really, I think a few people are scarred of repeating Lothal, and don't really count me in on the "avoiding to lynch" cause I realized how it is more likely to be benefitial to take the first day lynch than leaving it. But honestly, I think that first day is very hard to distinguish instinctive behaviour from pressuring behaviour from calculated behaviour from panic

In fact no one of the no-lynch team played the last game. Yes, they could follow the game but their reactions are bigger than the guys who already played it.

Even with that my though on at least one hutt being between those three remains on me.

8 hours ago, Visovics said:

Also, as it was said before, people wanting to really reinforce the lynch may also be hutts,

hitting the submit button by accident is really annoying with the no edit rule

And that sounded like trying to scare people from putting pressure on suspects.

I will ###vote Visovics

Posted at
16 hours ago, Visovics said:

What is our vanilla to special ratio?

15 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

As I said I trust Onidsen and PT106 (for the moment).

@Truthiness

All suspicious behavior in my opinion.

Posted at
5 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

In fact no one of the no-lynch team played the last game. Yes, they could follow the game but their reactions are bigger than the guys who already played it.

It's dispassionate analysis of the previous effort. It is near impossible to discern the liars in the first round, especially without any physical tells. With a 72% chance (assuming we have 3 Scum in our midst) of killing a fellow townie, the odds are not in our favor shooting blindly. If I'm the first to die because of that analysis, then I'll die a martyr for the town. I have a working theory, but I'm going to hold it close to the vest for now. If I'm alive come next round and some folks come forward with information (which will have to be vetted obviously), then I'll share my theory.

Posted at
9 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

@Truthiness

All suspicious behavior in my opinion.

I already said why I was goig to trust Onidsen and PT106 for this day.

While some wanted to avoid lynching, both defend the point about why is interesting to put some pressure and why don't lynching doesn't give more info respectively. Both brought rational argumentation while we were stuck on "man, we screw it the last time, better we don't do anything".

Posted at
4 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

It's dispassionate analysis of the previous effort. It is near impossible to discern the liars in the first round, especially without any physical tells. With a 72% chance (assuming we have 3 Scum in our midst) of killing a fellow townie, the odds are not in our favor shooting blindly. If I'm the first to die because of that analysis, then I'll die a martyr for the town. I have a working theory, but I'm going to hold it close to the vest for now. If I'm alive come next round and some folks come forward with information (which will have to be vetted obviously), then I'll share my theory.

I don't want to kill someone blindly. That is the reason I came to a thought that make me think that at least one of the "no-lynching" lobby is a hutt. I could say the same about the "lynching" lobby (which actually doesn't want free lynching, just move things in order to figure out something). For sure at least one hutt is there too but the numbers are worse.