Well, If you were Mafia you would need the protection from night kills that can be done from Town's side (Vigilantes). I know it's not like Game #2 where the Mafia had to hide from the Mad Hatter + Vigilantes. Another reason why Mafia would try going after the Mayor role would be to prevent anyone else from getting that protection. I'm sure the Mafia do not want to go through the hassle of first finding that bodyguard amongst the Town players. It's better for the Mafia to take that spot so no Town member get protected from night kills. Especially if the Town member that gets elected is a useful blue role. It's all about delaying the other side for as long as possible. Even if we have a safe exit near by (lynch mayor if acting suspicious) it doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy to do .. especially with 19 different Town minds to convince.
Chances are that a vig will not successfully shoot mafia or even shoot at all. They have no one to trust right now and are going to be firing blindly into a crowd of twenty-two. Plus, why would the mafia even try running this game? The first election, people just carried the two mafia elects to their positions. The second election when mafia was attempting to get elected, it was instantly called out. I don't see it happening. Only one body guard to kill makes it kind of easy for the mafia to not try in the election and still win the game while staying hidden, tbh.
iLoveYou said:
My problem here is simply that Town players do not have a good record with the official roles, in terms of trust. For some reason we all tend to believe them right away no matter how many times they put emphasis on "do not trust me right away". I can only hope that Town players would have learned by now not to throw themselves at the Mayor.
Even though what you said about your behaviour is true, I'm sure by now you may have taken the time to improve on obvious tells. I personally won't be relying on your behavioural tells for this game, as chances are you may have improved and learned from previous mistakes.
Chances are if you reveal your role to me, I am not even going to trust you anyway. And okay if you're really set on trusting the electeds, don't JUST PM them. PM someone else that you can trust and tell them everything you tell the mayor and actually tell them that you are talking with the mayor. And if you ever reveal your role to the mayor without 100% trusting them, tell someone else. That way if you're killed during the night, that person will get highly suspicious of the mayor.
1) If you have just revealed information to a former non-suspicion and they now have became suspicious to you, how will you deal with it without causing any more damage to the Town?
I seriously
hate "what if..." scenarios as 95% of the time, they never even come true. Yet the can be the determining factor of an event, nonetheless. However, to answer your question, depending how suspicious I am of them, I'd tell someone about it, get advice on what to do about it, and probably end up lynching that person.
I really like what Tina is saying here. Especially with the whole "putting every thought forward" during the night and her offer to put up suspicions for those who may be too afraid to post due to not wanting to be killed.
You do realize that someone coming to her telling her to inform the town of their own suspicions is a huge
BLUE FLAG, right? This is not a good idea unless you trust the mayor.
I'd like to ask all the candidates a question: if you're elected, will you base you're first lynch candidate on reasons other than inactive-ness, because quite frankly, I think lynching someone based solely on being inactive is a weak reason. An inactive townie would be more beneficial for town than an active mafia, correct?
I would lynch an inactive if the Town fails to put up a name or there is no clear choice. An inactive is VERY harmful to town. The mafia isn't targeting inactives, so eventually the game would be ruled by inactives that would just follow the only people left talking...the mafia. It's best to get the inactives out early so they know this behavior isn't tolerated.
Actually, I somewhat agree.
I think that SP could be scum...
Because SuperPenguin started questioning oath2order's mayoral post precisely ten minutes after oath2order posted, and was even the first to do so.
But, I would not be surprised if I were wrong.
I questioned his post early because I was online at that time, so I was able to post. I wasn't going to just wait around five hours and come back to post about it just to seem less suspicious.
Yes, I could very well be scum. So could Tina, so could Oath.
I'm set on Trundle because I believe he could lead us Bolsheviks to get the White Russians nailed to a wall.
And, I played on the game Trundle was mayor, so... he just stands out most to me.
Tell me how Trundle was a good mayor and how he actually led you last game. 'Cause I didn't see him do anything.
You get your wish.
I am worried that SP is mafia. ( Reasons above.)
Believe it or not, I already hinted at my role in an earlier post.
Of course. Basically, he stressed that we don't need to worry about scum mayors. This automatically sets off alarm bells in my head. Why wouldn't we need to worry? If he is scum, he would want us to be confident in the innocence of our leader, right? Like I said, complacency is the way to die. As far as I'm concerned, one cannot worry too much when playing Mafia.
You don't need to worry about scum mayors, cause they are still just a player! Lynching them is just as easy. Just because someone is elected doesn't mean you all have to blindly follow them like sheep!
Honestly, I don't want you to be confident of my innocence. Confidence leads to carelessness. The more weary you are of the mayor, the better. This will prevent roleclaims that shouldn't be happening without full trust.
