Hi. Sorry. I've been really sick this past week so I didn't want to respond/do things that require too much brainpower. I haven't kept up with reading either but I just finished with the past couple of pages so I'll try to respond now.
(I also thought I made a post early last week but apparently I didn't--- maybe I was just dreaming about that)
But really, I don't think I have much to say because I don't quite know where things are gonna go, or how to fully grasp some of the current arguments/lines of thinking. I guess it's both a bit of a strength and weakness since being a bit disconnected from the current game and big players means I don't really need to care how things play out and I can see things from a different perspective, even if it could be wrong. I don't know, but meh, let's get started! Also don't expect this post to be that well written or have quotes nicely put together with whatever argument I make; I mostly just want to make a post since I haven't done so in a long time + I'm kinda tired.
Anyways, the only thing I can say at the moment is who I'm suspicious of, and hopefully have the lead into thoughts on who we can lynch today before the deadline in 3 days.
There's been really only one person I've been suspicious of for the entirety of the game, and that person it seems is already somewhat suspicious in the minds of some of the players, despite their attempts to brush it off as nothing.
And that person is Vatu.
And I think I might be able to explain where that suspicion might be coming from.
I do think Vatu is scum, but I think he's been acting suspicious in a way that feels both fitting of what I believe his role to be, and done quite well in execution.
I'm having trouble wording this to what my thought process is, but bear with me.
For most of the game, there's been small instances of weird behavior, accusations, and arguments coming from Vatu that feel strange and suspicious(at least, to me anyways) But really, most of these actions aren't quite... I guess "big" enough, or major enough, and done maybe a bit too often to really have people push further or act on those suspicions, as pushing would most likely paint them as a target instead since they aren't quite that bad, or can be easily "explained away."
But I don't necessarily buy those explanations.
For the weird accusations I placed on the first day, I play by the idea that it's best to be suspicious really fast and about small things but also be able to change your mind really fast. I also like to place accusations early to test people as there can be information in their response. It wasn't an attempt to confuse or try to lynch one them, I hope that clears things up.
----------------------------
I don't really want to waste time explaining this again because I've done it many times before. It was a plan on the side, not an active plan to sabotage town. That's what I meant with it going against town win condition because it's technically an anti-town thing to say but not unreasonable from my stand point as town.
-----------------------------
Inffy quote: Well with Vat suggesting that, combined with his suspicious (in my opinion) behaviour already, he's also a big suspect of mine. I don't think a townie would have it in their mind, or even want to suggest, "hey if one of us gets infected, let's try to win with zombies" - it goes against your win condition.
Vatu quote: Sure it's an "anti-town" statement but I'm just trying to use my inn to maximise my chances of winning, I assume winning with the zombies counts too therefore I threw it out as an idea. What would I ever get from saying that as zombie leader (there couldn't have been infections yet)?
I think Vatu has been walking a fine line; acting in suspicious ways, enough to get some people on board, but at the same time doing it small enough to appear either just pragmatic or be able to easily defend himself with arguments that he can just "brush off" as no big deal, since it "just makes sense."
We see this in many of the situations around Vatu:
>One of the first things Vatu jumps on is weird accusations on the first day, which came out of nowhere, and didnt make much reasonable sense. Luckily it didn't go anywhere, but it couldve just as easily turned into a sudden bandwagon if circumstances aligned right, something which I believe we have had similar instances occur in past games. And who benefits from sudden, impulsive, or rash lynches by the town? Anyone who is anti-town, and tends to be a particularly Mafiaso action in my eyes.
I don't really buy the "I was testing people" argument. I never really do, I always feel like that's a bit of a cop-out defense that people use throughout these mafia sessions to brush off certain votes they make. Sometimes it can make sense, but here it felt too out of the blue to just be a "test," especially since there wasn't much to test. Sam had already mentioned only a majority would cause a lynch would go through the day prior; it wasn't really a "small thing" to try to push when there was barely anything there at all.
The defense to me feels weak.
>Then there's the instance of his comment in the inn about potentially having the inn side with the zombies if one of them were infected. While reading through the thread I noticed this was a major point of contention, and while I can get the pragmatism of the thought (as yes, if you get infected you forsake your previous role to win with the zombies) but again, it's a comment out of the blue, and seems uncalled for if you were a member of the town. I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a logical reason to even put forward the idea in the first place as 1)it makes you suspicious, and 2)wouldn't even do anything anyways unless the zombie leader or an infected townie was in the inn as well, AND the fact that you'd need each of the inn members to agree in the first place to such a plan, which feels unexpectedly short-sighted and rash since you probably couldn't trust at least one player to not either not agree, or even be a mafia member who couldn't win with the zombies and just betray the inn if they did agree.
To me it just doesn't make sense.
At first I thought this was meant to be a sort of ploy to I guess, "test" to see if any of the group members were apart of the zombie faction and reveal themselves, just so Vatu could reveal it to the town and get that person killed, or do it himself as I originally suspected this mightve been done if Vatu was the Zombie hunter--- but now that Fal has claimed that role I don't really see that being the case anymore, especially since I don't recall seeing that being one of Vatu's choices for defense of this action, relying more on the "hey I'm just being pragmatic" defense. (although I may have just not been paying attention).
...
And while yes, thats a reasonable thing to believe, it doesn't make much sense to say it right out of the gate. (iirc Ltin posted the convo Vatu said this in was apart of Night 1 so it was right at the start of the game). It's random, out of the blue, and while Vatu claims he wants to maximize his chances of winning, it doesn't really feel like it does--- does it?
What does telling random town members, even if they are in your inn, about potentially joining the zombies if 1 of them were infected (especially if they dont get infected in time if that zombie infected/kill ratio kicks in however that mechanic is supposed to work).
I mean--- wouldn't just suggesting that instead
hinder your chances rather than trying to keep your options open.
To me it just doesn't make sense.
...At least, it doesn't make sense for a townie.
It makes total sense if Vatu is scum. And I believe he is.
I believe, and am formally accusing that Vatu is the
Suicide Bomber.
Suicide Bomber - Wins if Mafia have majority
-Does NOT attend mafia meetings
-Kills last person to lynch OR whomever kills them at night
Admittedly, I think this next part which I just thought of tends to undermine my argument, but I still think its important to take into account.
I want to highlight the underlined.
Now, I don't know if the Mafia know who their Suicide Bomber buddy is, and unless Sam would like to clarify(I doubt he will), then I'm going to believe that they don't know who the suicide bomber is, hence the suicide bomber not attending Mafia meetings.
Part of my thought process on Vatu's strange and suspicious behavior and arguments was that he was walking a fine line between being just suspicious enough which could hint his fellow Mafia at who he was, as well as potentially have enough suspicion to get lynched/die to blow up key players (as the suicide bomber role states that they kill the last person to lynch them(I assume) or kills them at night. At the same time while acting suspicious he can brush it off just enough to not be just on the edge of making sense and not being targeted for a lynch if it comes to that, which would be important if the Mafia were low in numbers.
And while its a bit iffy since while one of the major contention points has been through Ltin mentioning Vatu's comment about joining the zombies, and that may not have been brought to light otherwise (and thus, may not have hinted fellow Mafia members toward his identity) I still think there have been enough small instances for that line of thinking to still work.
...Okay I don't think I made any sense in that last part of my argument but eh, I did say I didnt quite know how to word my thought process.
Anyways I think Vatu is the Suicide Bomber. He's acted suspicious enough to have a target on him but hasn't done enough to really be worth lynching or etc.
..And I don't think we should lynch him anyways if he is the suicide bomber, at least not right away anyways.
If he was a suicide bomber then lynching would just potentially kill of a townie, which would be bad, unless someone used a gun.
Plus-- now that I just looked through the role list again--- I just realized the suicide bomber is apart of the anti-zombie brigade alongside the zombie hunter and I guess suspicious samurai. The town doesn't really have any roles that can kill at night directly outside of the zombie hunter. Thus the only ones who can really cause the suicide bombers effect to go into place would be the zombie hunter themselves--- or the zombies who can only kill Mafia members, not convert them.
It's probably a bit bad that I mentioned that last part (and Im sure I'm gonna get some flak because whenever I say something like "I think X person is X person of the town" it always seems to get some responses) but I think someone would've said that anyways after I posted and It was something I just realized now since it also counter-balances the somewhat OP nature of the zombie faction, which I think someone mentioned a few posts ago.
Thats basically all I have to say. I don't really think I've said anything new or anything-- I may even just have said something that was probably laid to rest already-- I don't know. This post was mostly to hopefully push us in the direction of whittling down who's who in who's left. There's 10 players left. 4 of whom can't be infected, 3 of which who are mafia, the other, our zombie hunter. If we can confirm who the mafia are now, we can shrink the options on who are potentially zombies and go from there. That was mostly the goal of this post. Hopefully it did something. Maybe it didn't. I'm basically done.
Now I just want to jump into Primordia already since I missed the opening.
Also Happy New Year.
