The Syndicate

Boomslang wrote:

Dom wrote:

Made wrote:Hey, yo guys, so uh my vote was forced so I'm just gonna get that out of the way now.

Voting Boomslang.

I'm not going to post the exact message, so that way we can have a sort of key to prove when someone is telling the truth, and someone is lying about being vote forced.

So next time someone claims votes force i'll ask for like the 5th or 3rd word in the message and if they match up, they're clear.

Thoughts?

I don't believe you. I think you are bad
Let's analyze this for a moment:
I do not believe for a second Epig would allow someone to say their vote is forced. Made is not new anymore and should know this is generally frowned upon. Here's where the logic breaks down for me:
1) You say you won't post the exact message so you can use it as a key to see if people are lying about forced votes. You cannot copy and paste host PMs, anyway. that is a standard rule of mafia since the dawn of time.
2) And then, we're supposed to just believe you about the coded message? Why?
3) And I'm supposed to believe that Epig would let the integrity of a role die like this?

None of this adds up to me. Welcome to the suspicion list.


Boomslang, who do you advocate for lynching?

Well, I've been trying to wait for INH to acknowledge my existence, as I tagged him for my partner and I don't want to hand out points to other teams willy-nilly. But I feel like it's been long enough to at least acknowledge that he hasn't posted yet in Day 2 and didn't vote in the partner poll, both of which are a little pingy. I've been left high and dry here.

First off, I've been fairly busy with my own game, and with real life things. So, I'm sorry that I haven't been super duper active lately.

Personally, I've found all of your attitude towards me to be more than a little bit "pingy".

So, during Day 1, I post saying that one of your quotes sounds pretty stupid, and that combined with some other "pingy" actions by you caused me to throw a vote your way.

You respond by accusing me of accusing you of sexism, which is pretty obviously false to anyone who actually read what I said, and dodging all questions.

Then, you decide to choose me as your partner as an "olive branch". Ha. I'm guessing that you thought that maybe everyone would be listed on the poll with their partner, and that you would force me to not vote for you, or something along those lines.

I already knew that since Boomslang voted for me, I was already locked into having him as my partner. So I thought that me also voting for him would be kind of unnecessary. Not sure how that is "pingy".

I've been unable to post here since Night 1, which really isn't that long ago.

Apparently, since I've been gone, Boomslang is now saying that the fact that I've been gone for 2 days is suddenly super-suspicious.

I think that he is just using my brief absence as an excuse to lynch one of his accusers.

Long Con wrote:My prediction is that the tag team partners will be together on the next lynch poll, so we vote for two people, and then.... ???

I'm guessing not fun times.

*votes Boomslang*

(Do we still do this?)

thellama73 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Dom wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Excellent, game on. The Day 0 poll really doesn't give us much to go on compared to previous games, but those who failed to check in are certainly the outliers here.

Does being an outlier make them bad?

My reasoning is that, if the majority of players are civvies, then the majority/average action taken is most likely to be civvie. It's not perfect, but it's playing the odds.

So, the majority of players are civvies, right? And the majority of the people playing this game are men, right? So, therefore, all women are evil and we must lynch all of them.

But really, this is a pretty stupid thing to say. It makes me a little bit nervous about Boomslang, and sounds like a pre-emptive defense for when someone accuses him of being too "blendy" and not coming up with original ideas.

Another player who's caught my eye is DH. He's been fucking hilarious this game, and is almost a parody of how some people play mafia. I'm pretty sure this is intentional, but it reminds me a lot of my very special performance in the first Champions game. It's enough to get both an eye-brow raise and a salute from me.

*facepalm* Yes, INH, that's exactly what I'm saying. Justifying sexism from mathematical reasons... I'm disappointed you took my argument off the slippery slope right off the bat.

I think you missed INH's point. He was using reductio ad absurdum to reveal the flaws in your argument (which was indeed flawed) not accusing you of sexism.

That's exactly what I meant, and the fact that Boomslang immediately started freaking out and insulting what I said as opposed to actually responding to it makes him a fairly easy Day 1 vote for me.

It's not exactly a federal case by any means, but it's strong enough for me to throw a vote his way.

Boomslang wrote:

Dom wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Excellent, game on. The Day 0 poll really doesn't give us much to go on compared to previous games, but those who failed to check in are certainly the outliers here.

Does being an outlier make them bad?

My reasoning is that, if the majority of players are civvies, then the majority/average action taken is most likely to be civvie. It's not perfect, but it's playing the odds.

So, the majority of players are civvies, right? And the majority of the people playing this game are men, right? So, therefore, all women are evil and we must lynch all of them.

But really, this is a pretty stupid thing to say. It makes me a little bit nervous about Boomslang, and sounds like a pre-emptive defense for when someone accuses him of being too "blendy" and not coming up with original ideas.

Another player who's caught my eye is DH. He's been fucking hilarious this game, and is almost a parody of how some people play mafia. I'm pretty sure this is intentional, but it reminds me a lot of my very special performance in the first Champions game. It's enough to get both an eye-brow raise and a salute from me.

So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.