The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:Lastly, I got a bit of a chuckle at Rox painting my posts as "hostile" and isn't sure whether she deserves it. I don't sincerely believe she thinks that, and I'm all the more ready to vote for her, but I'll at least give her a chance to defend herself tonight.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Not here for long.

A Rox/Splints team isn't out of the question, but all I know is that splints needs to be lynched tomorrow. She's been caught red-handed.

No, I do NOT want to do another song. I've been embarrassed enough as is. Though I appreciate your enthusiasm, G-Man. :P

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: and i am sure other people will perceive this content differently to me, so let's talk about it. i understand 75% of the people will see the massive posts and roll their eyes though.

Know this feel.

Vompatti wrote:Voted for Llama for science.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:RIP Sloonei. great syndicate debut

MovingPictures07 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Le snipped

Sloonei wrote:

sanmateo wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Elohcin -- (#1 No read or unsure, #2 Slight civilian read, #3 no change) -- DROP! Fixated on me all game, then suddenly had opinions on a ton of players with no explanation, including "leaning civilian" on Golden. Then continues to subtly push heat on me until I had an emotional breakdown, upon which she says that both (1) the breakdown doesn't bode well for me yet (2) votes Golden with literally no explanation. Could it get any objectively more scummy than this?

i think you are being manipulative with this, the problem for me isnt that she focused on you but that she had golden as a civilian read and without building a case she flipped and voted for him

at this point i think as scum team of elo + mp07 is more likely than elo + epi, if elo and epi were scum teams their voting would have been very clumsy. in any case i think everyone should focus on getting 1 scum and work their way back instead of trying to catch the whole scum team at once.

Another interesting observation that I'd not really considered. How common is it for scum partners to outright bus each other from Day 1 over here?

Depends on the player. Some will go after teammates left and right and some are completely adamant about throwing teammates under the bus unless absolutely necessary. For Day 1 though, I would consider that to be quite uncommon. I can't remember a time that's happened that springs to mind. But if I'm wrong, someone feel free to correct me.

I've thrown a teammate under on Day 1.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey Rox, what convinces you that G-Man's posting restriction isn't self-inflicted? Do you think it has to do with his role?

Bc as I said I have seen this type of role many times on other sites. They restriction lasts for the entire game. So yep I think its his role, I have not scoured the first page yet to see which role this restriction could fit. I have seen these type of restrictions on both good and baddie roles. So I hope Gman continues to post his thoughts more often. I do find his picture posts easy to decipher. So personally I do not find him suspicious at this time.

linky I got your Iso right here MP

That's fair enough, but how would Russ and Llama have found out about such a role, since they don't play elsewhere? I mean, I don't disagree with you, I just find it interesting you're so sure it isn't a ploy. It probably isn't, but I'm far from sure.

And lol. That's usually my ISO. But I'm not a this game. Kinda wish I was though. :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey Rox, what convinces you that G-Man's posting restriction isn't self-inflicted? Do you think it has to do with his role?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:that time i even tried to do the OT thing :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hi! Not here for long.

First off, John Nash died?!?! 'Tis a sad day. RIP.

There is definitely a lot of confusion about ISOs. I've seen people go back and read someone's posts ISO all the time, they just don't usually come in and say anything about them, though, unless there's accompanied suspicion -- and that is where the confusion is likely coming in. Instead, if someone usually goes through and analyzes someone's post in ISO and then makes a post with a bunch of quotes, it's typically because they have established a case for suspicion that they want the player to respond to. I've deviated from this in a few past games and got grilled for "flooding the thread" by a few so it doesn't surprise me that (1) I love ISOs and (2) some do not love them.

I don't understand the bad vibes going around here. Yes, I know there are different communities coming together with different viewpoints on the game, but I don't dig some of what Roxy's putting down, and I found some of what she said as potentially alienating and hostile to other approaches to the game. I think keeping our minds open to other ways of playing is good, personally, and I think she would agree.

fingersplints wrote:

Roxy wrote:

fingersplints wrote:I'm having a hard time keeping track of this game. sorry guys, haven't even done my reread of the new guys. I'm probably going to vote for one of the people with a shady day 1 vote. So far I am leaning TH, only because I think Elo is explaining herself a bit better then TH. Maybe I am a little bit clouded by my last experience with a civvie Elo in Roger Rabbit.

Does anyone have any logical reasoning that Gman could still be cursed?

I gave a reason here and I am surprised you did not think of it since you have now played on AW
The I am Groot restriction happened to Sapient.

I have no idea what the I am Groot restriction is still, but I feel like I heard it mentioned on AW. There was loads of referenced that game I didn't get lol. Sapient did not play 1940's Hollywood mafia on AW

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Roxy wrote:Answers in color - btw anyone can pull a post out of context and spin it to make it look good or bad.

that's not the point of this exercise. the point is to find trends, or interesting moments, and ask about them. or even just talk about them. the point of an ISO is not to cast suspicion upon a player. it is to ANALYZE a player and thus influence one's own read of him/her. so i looked over your posts, found some things i didn't like and at least one thing i did like, and then came to a final conclusion -- that you are suspicious. i can understand if people around here aren't used to this approach, but i'm honestly kind of sick of seeing it treated like some kind of inferior method. give it a chance.

it's good that you've replied to my points. that's the entire purpose of this. now we're in a dialogue and we'll emerge with more thorough perspectives of each other than we had before.

I am glad you think it was good I replied

Roxy wrote:its my standard practice, unlike some on this site, to give the new people to our site a day or so to acclimate before I vote or kill them as the case may be. I am not the only one who does this sort of thing.
MP is the opposite (or used to be until this game) he would go after new people the first day and push hard for their lynch overwhelming and derailing the thread with it.

this is can believe. i don't like to vote for brand new players on Day 1 on my home site either -- it can discourage their participation in future games. but i wanted to hear you say it instead of merely say it for you.

kk-----?

Roxy wrote:I disagree and you should not be surprised. You and MP are overwhelming the thread trying to control everything and everyone. Making it very hard to keep up. If someone disagrees with a point you or someone on your rainbow list who you deem good then you inundate them with iso posts and rainbow lists. Your blanket criticism of low posters is discouraging and condescending. Sorry I do not have the spare time you have as I am a working adult with bills to pay - in order to pay bills I have to work. Work takes me away from mafia bc my boss likes when I work and not play games. I work 7 days a week. I have a life outside of work that is not an easy one right now. I am not looking for sympathy I am however asking for some compassion for those that cannot be here as many hours of the day as you are able to. Just bc I do not have a million posts does not mean I am not trying.

i had no intention of being condescending. i might even state that your criticism of MP and i even looks condescending. i am sure you don't mean it that way. so let's stow the personal feelings and just talk about the mafia game, eh? like i suggested in my last post -- i am also a working adult with bills to pay. and i work quite a lot. sometimes that prevents me from posting as much as i would like, so i understand. and it seems you're playing in more than one game right now, so that's also a valid excuse. my point was never to criticize you for having a low post count. it was to question your honesty about criticizing people with a HIGH post count. because there's nothing inherently wrong with players staying highly active and assessing others thoroughly. MP and i are just thorough players. that's our preferred style. nothing else to say about that.
Nah I am in only 1 serious game and another one that is just fun and fluffy - so really just this one game.

I am sorry but if you do not think someone with 300+ posts and another with 200+ posts is controlling and overwhelming then we will have to agree to disagree (the nearest next poster only has 100 posts) - it would really help if you two used OT button for your OT posts which are about 1/2 your posts (especially MP). It would really help those who are just trying to stay current and caught up. You know there is nothing inherently wrong with being a low poster and we can still assess others just as thoroughly in just one post that may take you 10 posts of repeating yourself. It does feel like you are down on me mostly bc of my low post count if you want total honesty. Yah my point stands and I do not mean to be condescending or mean.

Roxy wrote:TH is not playing normal idc if he is changing his style I had him pegged as bad day 2 in the champions game. I have played and hosted TH so I feel like I can judge his style better than you.

i am sure you can judge him better than i can based on meta at least. i never even suggested your read on TH is wrong. my point was that he was your sole focus, and that kind of narrow approach can be called suspicious.

He was/is not my sole focus.

Roxy wrote:JJJ: Roxy's suspicion of TH is at least in part driven by her very different read on Golden. i think this is a fair reason to be suspicious of TH, particularly given the abruptness of his vote. i wasn't that suspicious myself, but i don't struggle to imagine a townie genuinely feeling differently.

and your point here is...?

this is where you may be misunderstanding my intentions when i do an ISO. i am not just looking for suspicious posts, i am looking for posts that affect my read in any way. and that post earned a positive grade. i liked it. so i said i liked it.

all righty then----

Roxy wrote:JJJ: this bit was directed at MP. it bears the appearance of something at least mildly accusatory in implication, but it isn't at all accusatory in language. so that's something Roxy could talk about. what was your perspective of MP when you made this post, and how do you feel about him now?

Already asked and answered I thought you had read all my posts and not just pulled some to suit your needs.
My perspective was that he was being nice and it was not normal for him - read his Dr Who back and forth with poor zeek Day 1 - I think me and later MP were both recruited but my point still stands it was not normal behavior for MP day 1 this game.

but that response doesn't address my point. i believe that you were asserting MP's behavior was abnormal, i never contested that. what i suggested was that you were casting suspicion upon him without directly stating "MP is suspicious" or any such thing. and that can be called manipulative. you'd be contributing to the ongoing case against a player without taking personal responsibility for that action.

I was not "casting suspicion" I was merely making an observation (mostly for the newbies benefit I might add) If I have something to say about MP believe YOU will NOT be the first to know, HE will be

Roxy wrote:JJJ: Roxy's vote for TH came at a time when i think it was quite apparent that he had no chance of being lynched (53 minutes prior to the deadline). so on that front, it could be called an inconsequential and evasive vote. Roxy did not speak much at all about the larger bandwagons of Day 1 (Golden and Bass).

and your point here is...?
This whole iso thingy seems to be more of a narrative than a suspicions post imo.

this was one of the more important points in my post. your vote was consistent with your stated suspicions of TH, that i don't dispute. but it was also highly ineffective within the larger picture of the developing lynch. there was a very low chance of Turnip Head becoming the eventual lynchee, so that you voted for him without commenting on the other cases in the conversation can be called evasive. i know i've seen mafia players avoid the ill-advised bandwagons of townies on Day 1 with throwaway votes like this one. so i made the assertion and left you to respond to it. you still haven't

Your kidding, right?

I was the only one to voice concerns over TH's vote for Golden knowing it could lead to a bandwagon. So I did comment that I felt the opposite of TH in his suspicion and vote for Golden and I voted accordingly.

Maybe your other post got buried in one of your long quotey posts I skimmed idk - but I do try a respond when questioned directly. TBH I thought I had previously responded to this.

Roxy wrote:Why are you insinuating words into my post that are not there? You can twist this all you want but I post when I have free time. I cannot be in the thread as much as you or MP. I did state my dissatisfaction with TH and his vote and reasons. Sorry i could not do it sooner due to rl.
and this post was not helpful just mean (impoo)

i had no intention of being mean, so if i was perceived that way i apologize. realize that we are playing *mafia*, and if i think something is suspicious then i am going to point it out and say why. that's the entire point of this game.

tomato/tomahtoe/potato/pahtatoe

Roxy wrote:He is not right and anyone with half a brain can see that Bubbles is a likely civ with no btsc. His lie also led to the lynch of a civ last round gtk you trust his opinion. Did you even notice he never responded to me or my questions? No you did not bc that would require something more than an iso or rainbow list :P I am trying to prevent what happened to Golden from happening to Bubbles - something you just bitched about up there^^^ that I gave no effort in helping prevent a Golden lynch. Well I have time so I am trying right now to help Bubbles and you say that I know and so I am bad - you are right I do know bc it is so obv. You should read Bubbles again.
Also make up your mind it is so contradictory.

to my knowledge i have at least half a brain and i cannot claim to be as confident about TinyBubbles as you are. and you're suggesting i'm the one being mean? sheesh.

MovingPictures07 wrote:About half my posts today (exaggeration) should have probably been in OT green, sorry skimmers.

Turnip Head wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:who has your attention for the wrong reasons, TH?

I think we would be worse off if I shared that at this time, Jay.

fingersplints wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:f but i can't help but be concerned about a player with one suspicious encounter early in the game and nothing else since other than a little detached commentary and off-topic posting.

I think she might be busy and bad.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't think Elo's bad. Especially her recent reactions read genuinely to me.

I thought TinyBubbles' vote for Elo was sketchy because, if you look back through Bubbles' posts, she was setting up suspicion of Bass and only Bass, but then MP and Jay make one post each talking about Elo being a better option, and Bubbles immediately rolls with that. The line "If you're a civvie Elo I'm so so sorry!" reeks a bit because if Bubbles was really sorry she wouldn't have voted a player she's not suspicious of. And I think it's a little hokey to allude to someone being lynched when you're literally the first person to cast a vote for that person.

That said, I thought I saw one thing in Bubbles' filter that made me think she's on the level and just playing a little loosely. So I guess what I'd like is Bubbles' answer to the following "Why abandon your read on Bass and piggyback onto the suspicion of Jay and MP?" I believe Bubbles mentioned trusting those two, and I don't think they're baddies either atm, but it doesn't mean they're right about everything either.

MP, can you once again lay out why you don't think Elo's thought process can come from a civ perspective? We've both played many games with her, we both know her perspective is not always the same as everyone else's, so I'm curious exactly what you're seeing there. And what happened to your splints' suspicion?

fingersplints wrote:Those two things have totally different meanings to me. Keeping an eye on = fairly neutral read but still wary. Suspecting = something more substantial

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:when y'all were spectating Turnip Head in champs game #3, did your brains melt when 300 different players all claimed cop?

Yes, that was so insane, lol.

I'm definitely taking advantage of mafia norms elsewhere to introduce to folks here. But I also plan on enjoying continuing to subject others to our ways of insanity as well. It's refreshing to play different approaches, in my opinion.

Sloonei wrote:How do votes normally play out on this site? Is it typical for some players to cast votes super early in the day, as we've seen a bit of today? Or do people usually wait for the end of the phase before using it?
On RYM we usually have unlimited vote changes and everyone's voting and unvoting every twenty seconds.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Ooh sneaky, maybe I'll have to recant my opinion about you being a good guy
I'm not milking the noob card I just skim a lot and miss things, it's as lame as that >_>

Anyway, I'm just gonna go ahead and Vote Elohcin. I'm assuming you're not a lying dirty wolf in sheep's clothing misleading me; apart from Bass I don't really know who else to vote for and don't really want to spend more time on it. Elohcin if you're innocent i'm TRULY SORRY and to everyone else, please don't bandwagon. I don't want to be responsible for lynching an innocent. That's probably what got Golden killed.

Hey Sloonei, look at the bit i just bolded up there in that quote.

TinyBubbles, why don't you want to spend more time thinking about your vote? you have quite a long time before the deadline, and who knows who else might influence you? how you might feel yourself? and why trust me so thoroughly as you just drop a vote on the one name i gave you as a suspect?

I could think of 2 reasons TinyBubbles might drop a vote so early on your main suspect:

1) Possibly he's buddying up to you, and wants you to think he's a civ by comparison.

2) If Elo is lynched and flips civ, he could use it as a way to put responsibility on you. I.e. "I only voted Elo because I agreed with JJJ" or something along those lines.

Sloonei wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Also, do any of this community's regulars have tips for us noobs on how to proceed with the scumhuntery sans role reveals?

You are doing fine with how you are approaching the game. There is no hard and fast way to find baddies, each of us have our own unique way of playing - no one way is right or wrong - so make your own kind of music

Thank you, I certainly appreciate the uniqueness of everyone's styles. My music right now wants to know what your style is telling you at the moment, Roxy. Who do you suspect? Who do you not suspect? And, because I've got a vested interest in it, what can you tell me about both/either of Bass and Elohcin?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:You do realize I marked it as fluff, right? I wasn't meaning to make any point with it.

And if I am to make a point, I don't think the posters who make millions of posts per hour are as much more effective than the ones who make none. I feel like the useful information gets buried when you put it in the middle of 10 posts with 10 quotes each.

(Of course, I'm in no position to say other people's styles are wrong. Just voicing what I think).

But speaking of useful information Roxy, what do you think of this?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Roxy wrote:I am torn betwixt TH and Metalspammer.

I have not previously spoken about the Spamming Newt so I will be laying a vote on TH. I did not like his vote or reasoning he later expressed.

I have zero time til. I am home

Roxy's vote for TH came at a time when i think it was quite apparent that he had no chance of being lynched (53 minutes prior to the deadline). so on that front, it could be called an inconsequential and evasive vote. Roxy did not speak much at all about the larger bandwagons of Day 1 (Golden and Bass).

Roxy wrote:Bye Golden this site hates people who return after long absences - Idk why.

I knew he was civ and am so surprised MP did not immediately feel the same.
I also wish others. who know him better would have spoke out more.

this is probably the most interesting snippet from Roxy's post history so far for me. it's true that she had expressed a positive read of Golden earlier in the phase in response to TH's vote. but beyond that she didn't seem to make any strong effort at all to prevent his lynch. in this post she laments that MP and other Syndicate regulars didn't speak out for him more, and that "she knew he was a civ". i would assert that if she felt that way, nobody in the game was better suited to save his butt than she was. so why didn't you speak out for him more, Roxy?

you were apparently present in the thread at least once during the final stretch (in the post i previously highlighted at 53 minutes 'til the deadline). it'd seem you had an opportunity then to stand up for him and try to change people's minds.

Roxy wrote:TH - your Golden vote and subsequent reasoning was so shady. When I read your elaboration fr your vote it read like it was something you came up with bc you needed something to explain your vote. I knew that new players would listen you and MP but I thought they would be able to see through that charade of a vote.

this is face value mafioso to me. Roxy doesn't make this negative assessment of TH's vote until after the lynch has been finalized and the town flip has been revealed. she asserts in this very comment that she felt that way at the time TH posted it, before the lynch finalized, and even that she thought other players would "see through the charade". but again, she made very little concerted effort herself, if any at all, to do anything about it when it mattered. she made this accusation retrospectively when it no longer made any difference because the damage was done. it reads to me like this, in so many words:

"you guys made a huge mistake. i can't believe you guys made that huge mistake. i wouldn't have made that huge mistake. i thought you guys would realize it'd be a huge mistake."

and that is not helpful.

Basically the point is that it seems you waited until Golden was lynched to express your indignation about what happened. Which is suspicious.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:looking at Roxy's 10 posts for anything intriguing...

NOTE: there are few points in this post where i pose a question for Roxy. a neutral observer might think they know the answer she'll provide, and if so i ask that you DO NOT say it. at least not until after she has responded. that has happened a couple times now -- it's ideal to allow a person to answer questions directed at them before sharing your own perspective. please don't give them answers before they even have to think about it. thanks.
This I found quite hilarious

Roxy wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:My thoughts so far - a few newbies (DDL, JJJ, sanmateo, sloonei) are running straight into a drive by lynch of one of them. Not that I support that, I just feel like it's what you risk by generating so much discussion here on day one.

if our conduct to this point has been that unusual by Syndicate standards, i would urge caution in those who'd perceive it negatively by default. "generating so much discussion on Day 1" is honestly exactly how i'd describe the most productive town approach (indeed, i truly struggle to imagine it being perceived as inherently suspicious). if it's abnormal here, very well. i look forward to seeing the reception we get from the other regulars.

I agree that discussion is the most productive approach. But I didn't mean people would find it inherently suspicious, and don't want to discourage it from occurring. Rather, just that drive by votes can happen here (especially on day one), and visible people are easier targets to manufacture a case on. Right now, I think you guys are already in a place where it would be very easy for others to come in and make the day one conversation only about the four of you, and guarantee by doing that that one of you would be lynched.

I just wanted to get in and discourage that from occurring before it did. If others come in and begin to form opinions about the four of you, perhaps it will begin to help us all form opinions about a wider range of people.

I agree and I will not vote for a new player on Day 1.
I do not see the harm in discussing them though obv.

this might be an interesting statement. Golden's prediction of a drive-by lynch proved eerily correct -- and he ended up the victim of that himself. so Roxy wasn't wrong to agree with the assertion. but her stated refusal to vote for a new player on Day 1 is still striking. in so doing she immediately eliminated 6 players from candidacy, 4 of whom were highly active in the game and providing plenty of content to potentially be viewed with suspicion. so i ask you Roxy: why not vote for one of us?

its my standard practice, unlike some on this site, to give the new people to our site a day or so to acclimate before I vote or kill them as the case may be. I am not the only one who does this sort of thing.
MP is the opposite (or used to be until this game) he would go after new people the first day and push hard for their lynch overwhelming and derailing the thread with it.

Roxy wrote:High posters make it harder to find their true thoughts in walls-o-texts epsecially if they just pull quotes and slap a couple of sentences after each to make it seem like they are trying. Making a reread far less likely to happen by some players. Low posters have nothing to hide behind in their few posts and usually respond when directly questioned. So feel free to question any player and guage them on their responses and not the quanity of their posts. Quality > Quanity any day imo.

this may just amount to philosophical/cultural differences, but when i think someone makes a point that is fundamentally wrong it could be viewed with suspicion. this blanket criticism of high-volume posting is a means of discouraging an active game thread, which is beneficial to anti-town players in essentially any possible Mafia setup regardless of rules or roles. this is made especially true when she endorses low-volume posters instead. i agree with her that pure quality beats pure quantity, but i would assert that the best case is always quality AND quantity.

I disagree and you should not be surprised. You and MP are overwhelming the thread trying to control everything and everyone. Making it very hard to keep up. If someone disagrees with a point you or someone on your rainbow list who you deem good then you inundate them with iso posts and rainbow lists. Your blanket criticism of low posters is discouraging and condescending. Sorry I do not have the spare time you have as I am a working adult with bills to pay - in order to pay bills I have to work. Work takes me away from mafia bc my boss likes when I work and not play games. I work 7 days a week. I have a life outside of work that is not an easy one right now. I am not looking for sympathy I am however asking for some compassion for those that cannot be here as many hours of the day as you are able to. Just bc I do not have a million posts does not mean I am not trying.

Roxy wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think it's pretty dangerous that people are taking the notion that one of the 5 players to kickstart the game MUST be scum as a foregone conclusion. That encourages a narrower focus of suspicion not only in Day 1, but in all ensuing days until the alleged scum is identified.

There's more to Mafia than mere probability.

I agree.

Consequentially, I'm voting for Golden. I think he's bad news this game.

This vote vote twitched my nose badly - its still twitching :o
This is your second in game post and the first on topic post. You have given no. reason or clarity for your vote - classic drive by - why?

off the top of my head, the only player i can recall Roxy expressing suspicion of in any significant way was Turnip Head. here's the start of that. we'll see if my memory serves me poorly as i continue.

TH is not playing normal idc if he is changing his style I had him pegged as bad day 2 in the champions game. I have played and hosted TH so I feel like I can judge his style better than you.

Roxy wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I guess the difference is I'm being obviously un-TH like and Golden feels like he's trying to hide it.

I can elaborate when I get home tonight but if you're interested in looking into it just read his filter.

I for one cannot wait for this elaboration.
I feel the opposite about Golden.

Roxy's suspicion of TH is at least in part driven by her very different read on Golden. i think this is a fair reason to be suspicious of TH, particularly given the abruptness of his vote. i wasn't that suspicious myself, but i don't struggle to imagine a townie genuinely feeling differently.

and your point here is...?

Roxy wrote:I do find it very odd that you did not single a new player out, make a case and vote. Its been your norm for so long!
Is this a new strategy you are trying with this game?

this bit was directed at MP. it bears the appearance of something at least mildly accusatory in implication, but it isn't at all accusatory in language. so that's something Roxy could talk about. what was your perspective of MP when you made this post, and how do you feel about him now?

Already asked and answered I thought you had read all my posts and not just pulled some to suit your needs.
My perspective was that he was being nice and it was not normal for him - read his Dr Who back and forth with poor zeek Day 1 - I think me and later MP were both recruited but my point still stands it was not normal behavior for MP day 1 this game.

Roxy wrote:I am torn betwixt TH and Metalspammer.

I have not previously spoken about the Spamming Newt so I will be laying a vote on TH. I did not like his vote or reasoning he later expressed.

I have zero time til. I am home

Roxy's vote for TH came at a time when i think it was quite apparent that he had no chance of being lynched (53 minutes prior to the deadline). so on that front, it could be called an inconsequential and evasive vote. Roxy did not speak much at all about the larger bandwagons of Day 1 (Golden and Bass).

and your point here is...?
This whole iso thingy seems to be more of a narrative than a suspicions post imo.

Roxy wrote:Bye Golden this site hates people who return after long absences - Idk why.

I knew he was civ and am so surprised MP did not immediately feel the same.
I also wish others. who know him better would have spoke out more.

this is probably the most interesting snippet from Roxy's post history so far for me. it's true that she had expressed a positive read of Golden earlier in the phase in response to TH's vote. but beyond that she didn't seem to make any strong effort at all to prevent his lynch. in this post she laments that MP and other Syndicate regulars didn't speak out for him more, and that "she knew he was a civ". i would assert that if she felt that way, nobody in the game was better suited to save his butt than she was. so why didn't you speak out for him more, Roxy?
bc I work Jimmy, obv something you do not have to do on a regular basis quite yet. There are plenty of others who have played as much with Golden as I have. splints, BR, MP have also played with him tbh I was surprised no one else saw his civ game for what it was.

you were apparently present in the thread at least once during the final stretch (in the post i previously highlighted at 53 minutes 'til the deadline). it'd seem you had an opportunity then to stand up for him and try to change people's minds.

bc I like to eat and have a glass of sweet tea when i finish work and sometimes I shower.

Roxy wrote:TH - your Golden vote and subsequent reasoning was so shady. When I read your elaboration fr your vote it read like it was something you came up with bc you needed something to explain your vote. I knew that new players would listen you and MP but I thought they would be able to see through that charade of a vote.

this is face value mafioso to me. Roxy doesn't make this negative assessment of TH's vote until after the lynch has been finalized and the town flip has been revealed. she asserts in this very comment that she felt that way at the time TH posted it, before the lynch finalized, and even that she thought other players would "see through the charade". but again, she made very little concerted effort herself, if any at all, to do anything about it when it mattered. she made this accusation retrospectively when it no longer made any difference because the damage was done. it reads to me like this, in so many words:

"you guys made a huge mistake. i can't believe you guys made that huge mistake. i wouldn't have made that huge mistake. i thought you guys would realize it'd be a huge mistake."

and that is not helpful.

Why are you insinuating words into my post that are not there? You can twist this all you want but I post when I have free time. I cannot be in the thread as much as you or MP. I did state my dissatisfaction with TH and his vote and reasons. Sorry i could not do it sooner due to rl.
and this post was not helpful just mean (impoo)

Roxy wrote:Turnips - Why dear vegee are you voting so early with no reasoning again? You were so wrong about Golden and now you try and do the same with Bubbles. I hope no one will follow this silliness again since the results proved disastrous last lynch. You are my biggest suspicion right now based solely on the way you are voting and your reasoning against Golden was unfounded.
Who are your top 3 suspects and why? What do you think about MM and Epi dying? Why slap an unchangeable vote down with over 24 hours yet to go? Why not say your suspicion and give Bubbles a chance to respond?

and this is a strangely predictive comment. it looks to me like Roxy already knows that a potential lynch of TinyBubbles would end in a town flip, and is throwing shade over TH now instead of then.

"i hope no one will follow this silliness again"

what if he's right? and he didn't even vote btw. his lie proved effective at least in generating responses from players like this one.

fingersplints wrote:I'm having a hard time keeping track of this game. sorry guys, haven't even done my reread of the new guys. I'm probably going to vote for one of the people with a shady day 1 vote. So far I am leaning TH, only because I think Elo is explaining herself a bit better then TH. Maybe I am a little bit clouded by my last experience with a civvie Elo in Roger Rabbit.

Does anyone have any logical reasoning that Gman could still be cursed?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:MovingPictures07 310
JaggedJimmyJay 230
Metalmarsh89 120
Sloonei 107
Dragon D. Luffy 89
Golden 88
sanmateo 79
Epignosis 78
Turnip Head 42
G-Man 38
fingersplints 35
Elohcin 31
Bass_the_Clever 25
birdwithteeth11 25
Black Rock 18
Russtifinko 15
acrosstheaether 13
thellama73 13
TinyBubbles 13
Roxy 10
Vompatti 5
Dom 1
Ricochet 1
Yep, that's a pretty difference in number of posts from the top posters to the bottom ones.

Dragon Luff wrote:How do you people from his site usually deal with this kind of situation? How do you act when you know who a player is? Do you wait, or do you find a way to reveal it asap? It would help to get some ideas.

Sloonei wrote:Also, do any of this community's regulars have tips for us noobs on how to proceed with the scumhuntery sans role reveals?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Roxy wrote:Jimmy jj- I quoted what I did bc I found you suspicious for posting that we should appreciate you more bc of your new role. ofc you would say that - everyone would but for me it is the fact you have to qualify yourself with that statement.

i didn't mean you should appreciate me more. i meant you should care about my current role more than my previous role. because my previous role is irrelevant to this game.

Sockwalk wrote:Regarding my "different" style of play, Elohcin has provided a tangible reason, that I'm "cheerful", and several players have said that I seem more considerate of others' opinions. This is fair enough. But since it is clearly evident to practically everyone that I'm playing a different style, I have to know, is that all? What about my style is really different?

Roxy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Committing to slight civilian read on DDL. I believe him.

Is this a new style for you?

I am so surprised you have not locked onto any new players accussing them to be bad in massive wall-o-texts
Jk but still a small to you.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i have to take note that Epignosis is active lurking right now. he is aware of the game, seemingly following the game, and contributing nothing to it. at face value and independent of meta (which i cannot know beyond MP's descriptions), i find that suspicious.

Good luck pinning Epi down I think I have gotten his alignment right only when I am bad

Also lol at the top posters at this point are seeing each other as good (mostly) (pg 6 standard ppp)

Turnip Head wrote:I guess the difference is I'm being obviously un-TH like and Golden feels like he's trying to hide it.

I can elaborate when I get home tonight but if you're interested in looking into it just read his filter.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:My thoughts so far - a few newbies (DDL, JJJ, sanmateo, sloonei) are running straight into a drive by lynch of one of them. Not that I support that, I just feel like it's what you risk by generating so much discussion here on day one.

if our conduct to this point has been that unusual by Syndicate standards, i would urge caution in those who'd perceive it negatively by default. "generating so much discussion on Day 1" is honestly exactly how i'd describe the most productive town approach (indeed, i truly struggle to imagine it being perceived as inherently suspicious). if it's abnormal here, very well. i look forward to seeing the reception we get from the other regulars.

I agree that discussion is the most productive approach. But I didn't mean people would find it inherently suspicious, and don't want to discourage it from occurring. Rather, just that drive by votes can happen here (especially on day one), and visible people are easier targets to manufacture a case on. Right now, I think you guys are already in a place where it would be very easy for others to come in and make the day one conversation only about the four of you, and guarantee by doing that that one of you would be lynched.

I just wanted to get in and discourage that from occurring before it did. If others come in and begin to form opinions about the four of you, perhaps it will begin to help us all form opinions about a wider range of people.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i am finding myself liking DDL's defenses, particularly the most recent. he is earnestly trying to describe a Day 1 strategy that is inherently a bit volatile but potentially highly productive for a townie. i am particularly familiar with what he is describing because i employ a similar approach myself. i like that he is willing to play a little dangerously, because dangerous play generates controversy and thus meaningful and readable content from others. it isn't terribly townie behavior, in my opinion, to play tentatively merely for the sake of alleviating suspicion upon oneself. welcoming a little suspicion with the promise to create a bonafide Mafia game right away in Day 1 is good play.

good strategy doesn't imply innocence of course. but i like that he is open about his methods, and his descriptions do seem to reflect both his posts so far and the way others have perceived him.

Do you want to know what I look for?

Black Rock wrote:How is Gman cursed already?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Metalmarsh, why do you think I'm your main scum candidate? I see you quoting a lot of people and making quick agreements/disagreements on them, but I'dlike to see what YOU think. In your opinion, what makes you think me as a mafia?

i'm saying this because I'm seeing a slowly bandwagon forming on me, and if that's true, I might as well try to spot the mafiosos who are likely being part of it. Now, some players, like sanmateo and Epi, have attacked me directly. But other, like you, Sloonei, cross and Elohcin, seem to be content in just agreeing with them and slowly join the bandwagon without elaborating much. That is, in my opinion, a prime scum behavior.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:It's true. Unfortunately, at the Syndicate, you cannot win a game as a civilian unless you survive to the end of the game, or you have some other secret win condition that is fulfilled. Thus, survival is important to civilians, as well as finding mafia.

Wait, what? This is terrible lol. This completely goes against the spirit of the game, imo. Which is that townies should work together to find scum and prioritize the team's victory over their own survival. If this is true, then I suppose it probably encourages the people on this site to be the game badly.

I mean, if all my effort to catch scum will be rendered moot since I might get day 1 lynched for putting myself in the spotlight, then I might as well shut up and try not to be too productive instead, if only to maximise my chances of survival. Seriously, this is beyond terrible.

Of the 4-5 players that got this game rolling, I found your comments to be more fluffy than some others'. JJJ is on my radar too, but for different reasons. I don't know why he thinks that he should be suspected for the same reasons as you. You are twp different players playing two different games. I don't see a corollation in your games at all.

And I agree about the win conditions. I am not a fan, but I will say that not every host does it. There is a little discretion involved sometimes, but that is the usual practice. Some hosts, like MovingPictures07, will include secret win conditions in every players' role, so that they can still be met even if the player dies. It's not unlike your win condition in Monogatari Mafia, if I remember correctly.

Sloonei wrote:It's not that high posters "have less to hide", it's that people should have less room to hide if they're being forced to talk and answer questions they don't want to answer.

Turnip Head wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think it's pretty dangerous that people are taking the notion that one of the 5 players to kickstart the game MUST be scum as a foregone conclusion. That encourages a narrower focus of suspicion not only in Day 1, but in all ensuing days until the alleged scum is identified.

There's more to Mafia than mere probability.

I agree.

Consequentially, I'm voting for Golden. I think he's bad news this game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Committing to slight civilian read on DDL. I believe him.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i have to take note that Epignosis is active lurking right now. he is aware of the game, seemingly following the game, and contributing nothing to it. at face value and independent of meta (which i cannot know beyond MP's descriptions), i find that suspicious.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Btw, I think it's very interesting how Jay started talking about making cases right after the second role was handed out. Which is interesting since the game was pretty much a blank state at that point. Though to be fair, he did say he had nothing at that point.

That could indicate an alignment change. If a player who has done nothing gets a new role and suddenly starts being proactive, it might mean a townie who became mafia, or vice-versa. Just a theory.

the validity of your assertion here is debatable. i'll leave you and others to explore the notion that my Day 0 conduct was indicative of an alignment change, and offer my input when the content demands it. however, i find myself more interested in the implications of this theory you've proposed. based on what you saw from me in Day 0, which side of that theory do you find more plausible? that i was town and became scum, or that i was scum and became town?

the distinction is obviously important.[size=150p my current role ought to mean a great deal more to everyone than my previous role.[/size]

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:one unfortunate note, at least for me:

the phases here will apparently be ending at inopportune times for me. i'll be leaving for work hours before the lynch deadlines, and i have no access to this game at work. i don't work at a desk, and moreover even when i am at a computer this site is blocked there. i've checked. i might be able to get involved on my phone a tiny bit, but i can't make promises. so most of my involvement in this game is going to have to be in the first half of day phases; i've no choice.

of course, that problem might be alleviated some if this game will be employing a hammer. will lynches be immediate upon reaching a majority vote, or are the deadlines fixed?

I've never seen a game here where the deadlines weren't fixed; the player with the most votes at deadline will be lynched. I have no reason to believe this will not be the case, but the hosts can clarify for sure.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Some players like to stay in the shadows when they're town.

rest assured, i don't like to stay in the shadows when i'm anything.

i think the most fundamental and simple means of scumhunting is merely to post a lot. a high-activity thread is a bigger challenge for scum teams than a low activity thread, obviously. and it isn't just because there is more content to assess -- it's also because real-time communication is more difficult for players with a reason to second-guess the things they say. and when post counts/content slack in an obvious way, it can be very exposing.

of course many experienced scummers have learned to cope with this. but it's still beneficial. so i love to post constantly, and when the content allows it provide thorough analysis.