The Syndicate

You're all making a gigantic mistake. Obviously nothing I can say now will help. But lynch DH when I die, please?

For everyone left to vote, I just want to put this out there. What's more likely? That I'm a brilliant baddie who has carefully structured his posts and information over the entire game to give the impression of being Face of Boe? Or that I actually am said role and just played the game?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Lizzy wrote:Wow! I'm still alive!

So I'm all laptop'd up (and at work and with law exams on the way) and ready to resume, if that's all right with you.

I'll try to catch up as much as I can, but if anyone wants to make a summary of what's been going on, that'd be awesome beyond awesome k.

Boomslang is Bad and Tyler has betrayed us, vote Boomslang.

DH is gunning for me with shoddy reasoning and startling blindness toward better lynch candidates. Read MP's last post and vote Mongoose.

DharmaHelper wrote:1) Dom and Boomslang have several exchanges starting at D1 despite Dom voting for MetalMarsh and Boomslang voting for me. Despite their exchanges, Dom's vote for Boomslang never really mattered

He voted 16th overall (including host option) in the Day 1 lynch, giving Boom 3 votes when I'd already gotten 5 and MM had 3. Shortly thereafter, Boom voted for MM along with Eloh giving MM 7, pretty much knocking Boom out of the running

The only other time Dom voted for Boom, he voted late again (15th overall) and was one of only two people to do so.

2) Boomslang has made at least two posts that pinged me:

Boomslang wrote:I really am having trouble figuring out what to say this lynch. Obviously, I'm somewhat happy that Dom is getting attention, because I sure as hell don't deserve the tunnel vision hunt he's been throwing my way ever since Day 1. But jumping on that will make me seem bad, so... maybe I better keep my opinions to myself.

And

Boomslang wrote:Caught up, frankly still unsure what's going on. Just let it be noted that Dom has been gunning for me this whole game; I think that burnishes my civvie cred a bit.

The first seems odd, because why would a civ care if they sounded bad if they genuinely thought what they were saying was true?? The second is classic distancing.

3) Boomslang's noncommital votes, as I stated, bug me.

So yeah I can see Boomslang being a Sorcerer.

You're continuing to make a case against me based on these points, so I'm going to address them again.

First, I'm insulted by "Dom's vote for Boomslang never really mattered," because obviously it did. It basically has kept me in the discussion as a lynch candidate for this entire game, despite the evidence I have presented to the contrary. Votes matter, even when they don't agree with the majority, and saying otherwise is flippant and facetious and frankly a bit strong-arming. The same argument applies to point 3. My votes were not "noncommittal." They were committed to my viewpoints at the time, and you saying that they did not matter or contribute to your perceived civ bandwagon is a blatant privileging of your high-horse viewpoint. MP in particular was and continues to be a dangerous role, and I wanted to indicate that we should think about getting him out of the way. I was incorrect in my vote for SVS, but I based that off of the information I had available at the time. Regarding point 2, I've said it before and I've said it again: I'm trying to be as clear with my motives and information as possible. I figured that talking out the way my statements might be perceived would help defuse tensions before they arose, because not all of us can get away with holding hostage whatever "information" we might have.

Lynching me is a grave mistake, and if I end up dead, I hope you all remember who lead you down this road.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

juliets wrote:DH why are you so sure? In my situation I know he is right about me and it seems he would have to be the role he hints to know that about me.

Except not. There are *At best* 2 mafia left, so his odds of being "right" when saying someone is a civ are astronomical.

I'm sure. He's bad.

And the odds of you being right when calling someone a baddie are equally astronomical. In this case, as it refers to me, they are precisely zero. You're barking up the wrong tree, and your sudden turn to "absolute certainty" seems rather desperate without additional information.

Desperate? Yes, I am very desperate to avoid a wrong step in this lynch. Addtional information? Some of us prefer not to dump information

And some of us don't actually have any information to dump...

timmer wrote:If Boomslang is a sorcerer, then he knows full well who his remaining partner is, and can label anyone else he pleases as civ, since he's clearly trying to say he is face of boe without saying it.

I've got to think.

This is heading to WIFOM city. I really wish I could indicate who the baddies are, but I don't have the certainty that DH appears to have. I'm still skeptical of Mongoose, however, and will likely end up voting that way unless startling new info arises.

DharmaHelper wrote:

juliets wrote:DH why are you so sure? In my situation I know he is right about me and it seems he would have to be the role he hints to know that about me.

Except not. There are *At best* 2 mafia left, so his odds of being "right" when saying someone is a civ are astronomical.

I'm sure. He's bad.

And the odds of you being right when calling someone a baddie are equally astronomical. In this case, as it refers to me, they are precisely zero. You're barking up the wrong tree, and your sudden turn to "absolute certainty" seems rather desperate without additional information.

Alright, LC, let's talk for a minute about the mechanics of Face of Boe. We've had nine night periods, so FOB could check up to nine statements. Some statements may be made by people with immunity due to secrets, and some nights the power might be blocked through targeting of FOB or the target of the lie detection. So it's likely FOB has gotten off fewer than nine usages of the power. Additionally, because of the existence of the role, baddies are unlikely to gambit with civ claims unless they know FOB is dead, which they don't. So FOB will be stuck checking civ claims by civs, providing little insight into baddie team makeup. Hard for FOB to be a leader with that sort of information.

Also, juliets is civ.

zeek wrote:It's not like she has a problem wasting her vote...

Like she did voting Hedgeowl the day before (who then got lynched because of game mechanics).

Or voting Daisy the day after.

Or in fact when she voted Lizzy D5, despite everybody else voting Dom except TH (who seemed to have his vote forced).

I'm a bit pinged by the phrase "wasting her vote" here. So if you don't go along with the dominant vote, you're wasting it? Or are you expressing honest doubt and trying to spur discussion on a different candidate?

On further review of the evidence, I've come around to the SVS as civ conclusion; I apologize for not getting there more quickly. In terms of the other candidates, I know I'm not a Sorcerer, and I'm getting good vibes on a reread of Blooper, especially in the baddie hunt for Made.

This post of Mongoose's caught my eye:

Mongoose wrote:

zeek wrote:Btw if he flips Sorceror, Mongoose is totally the other one.

I wish. But I was not blessed to be born with a wand.

Which could either be just poetic or a well-worded attempt to avoid making a statement checkable by Face of Boe.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Boomslang, who are the players you suspect right now?

Based on my thoughts about the innocence of Spacedaisy, DH and SVS have attracted my attention due to their cases earlier in the day. I also noticed a bit of agreement/coordinated discussion between these two, possibly propelled by BTSC. I'm not too hyped about the Made push; I'm not reading anything crazily baddie.

DharmaHelper wrote:1) Dom and Boomslang have several exchanges starting at D1 despite Dom voting for MetalMarsh and Boomslang voting for me. Despite their exchanges, Dom's vote for Boomslang never really mattered

He voted 16th overall (including host option) in the Day 1 lynch, giving Boom 3 votes when I'd already gotten 5 and MM had 3. Shortly thereafter, Boom voted for MM along with Eloh giving MM 7, pretty much knocking Boom out of the running

The only other time Dom voted for Boom, he voted late again (15th overall) and was one of only two people to do so.

2) Boomslang has made at least two posts that pinged me:

Boomslang wrote:I really am having trouble figuring out what to say this lynch. Obviously, I'm somewhat happy that Dom is getting attention, because I sure as hell don't deserve the tunnel vision hunt he's been throwing my way ever since Day 1. But jumping on that will make me seem bad, so... maybe I better keep my opinions to myself.

And

Boomslang wrote:Caught up, frankly still unsure what's going on. Just let it be noted that Dom has been gunning for me this whole game; I think that burnishes my civvie cred a bit.

The first seems odd, because why would a civ care if they sounded bad if they genuinely thought what they were saying was true?? The second is classic distancing.

3) Boomslang's noncommital votes, as I stated, bug me.

So yeah I can see Boomslang being a Sorcerer.

Three points:
1) The behavior of literally everyone else in the game besides Dom and me should not be used as evidence to mark me as baddie. I can't control what others vote; I can only vote how I see fit, and Dom could only vote as he saw fit.

2) Everyone wants to act and sound civ. The fact that I'm voicing my opinions as to how I come across is just stating the obvious. WIFOM that all you want; that's basically what this game is about, anyway.

3) Hilariously, I made those votes in part to confirm my first point: any irregular action is seized upon and used as a case for baddiness.

I know that Spacedaisy, Long Con, and myself are not bad. Talk amongst yourselves as to why/how I would say this.

Almost certain Daisy isn't bad due to my read. Therefore, voting SVS.

MP argues that we don't need to kill him to win. However, we don't need him alive to win, and his unknown qualities worry me. Voting MP

Caught up, frankly still unsure what's going on. Just let it be noted that Dom has been gunning for me this whole game; I think that burnishes my civvie cred a bit.

Dom wrote:Note: next time I'm getting heat-- I'll just say I can't play for a week-- no one will vote for me.


(Not saying Bass is lying, I'm just pointing out how dumb that is)

Agreed. In the interest of making Bass a more valid option for discussion and to forestall a Dom bandwagon picking up steam, I'll vote now.

I really am having trouble figuring out what to say this lynch. Obviously, I'm somewhat happy that Dom is getting attention, because I sure as hell don't deserve the tunnel vision hunt he's been throwing my way ever since Day 1. But jumping on that will make me seem bad, so... maybe I better keep my opinions to myself.

Well, I'm posting this from my phone before class and so have basically no time. But I agree with Timmer and his LC analysis.

juliets wrote:

juliets wrote: I was making a statement for the lie detector, Boe, if he she wanted to check it. Also someone, I think Made, asked several people including me about the contrast in our good and bad alignment behavior. Someone, maybe llama, maybe someone else, answered the question immediately. My impression was thats why they were making that statement. I just can't remember who it was. I think tha'ts what you may be remembering and if i had to guess I would say it was llama.

Boomslang wrote:Nevertheless, the statement makes a pretty firm commitment to a "civ" game. Because if Boe does check it, and finds it to be false, things could get awfully hairy for you. Unless you're an indy role with some secret that blocks lie detection... Hatter's insanity could be related. Just throwing that out there for consideration.

I don't think we disagree. I am making a firm commitment to a "civ" game. Maybe I'm missing your point but I think we agree.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that making an absolute commitment to saying "I am civ" is painting a target on your back for being NK'ed, unless you have powers to prevent it (or are not in fact civ).

thellama73 wrote:I think I will revert to "Llama Classic" playstyle for this game and vote for someone who missed the first poll. Not very champion-like, you guys. Tsk tsk. The lucky people are:
Timmer
Mongoose
Lorab
and Hedgebaddie.

I wonder which one I will choose.

Wait a minute... how did this pass completely without comment from you, Dom? If you're going after me for indicating Day 0 absentees as worthy of discussion, and not after llama... who turned up civ. Metalmarsh voted SVS first day to draw out discussion, then shifted gears. Also turned up civ. I don't think my behavior has been out of line.

juliets wrote: I was making a statement for the lie detector, Boe, if he she wanted to check it. Also someone, I think Made, asked several people including me about the contrast in our good and bad alignment behavior. Someone, maybe llama, maybe someone else, answered the question immediately. My impression was thats why they were making that statement. I just can't remember who it was. I think tha'ts what you may be remembering and if i had to guess I would say it was llama.

Nevertheless, the statement makes a pretty firm commitment to a "civ" game. Because if Boe does check it, and finds it to be false, things could get awfully hairy for you. Unless you're an indy role with some secret that blocks lie detection... Hatter's insanity could be related. Just throwing that out there for consideration.

Regarding my MP vote, dude basically had the poll won by the time I was able to vote. Haven't been getting baddie vibes off of him so far, so went to confirm the safe option.

Linki with Dom:
1) My statement was WAY too early to indicate "possible lynch candidates"; I was opening a line of discussion, not throwing suspicions right off the bat.
2) You don't know if INH was silenced or if he was just not wanting to help me out of spite and earlier suspicion. His night post certainly threw a lot of shade my way; I was honestly trying to show good faith and was rebuffed.
3) Regarding those questions (of which there was actually only one, if you read your own post):
a) Civvies behave essentially randomly, especially at the start, while, Mafia do not. Civvies have no information, Mafia enjoy the knowledge of who is on their team.
b) I don't have to justify that there are baddies in the group I looked at. I was adding my perspective, not assigning absolute blame, like you seem willing and able to do on shaky ground at best.

bea wrote:

zeek wrote:Okay, so I am making the biggest U-turn in the world ever. Made wasn't lying.

And the Mad Hatter is a very naughty boy.

sooo...how does this change how you see things? I'd imagine you see things diffently now?

btw - I'm not suprised that some one is having to make a u-turn on made - or that it's you.

also RIP INH. I wanted to fuck with you "program" more than I got to.


I don't get why peeps said that was an odd kill choice any more than I got why peeps thought br was an odd kill choice. Killing INH - puts suspish directly on booms. Whom Made was made to vote for and Dom voted for of his own accord.

If I were really baddie, do you think I'd be so foolish as to complain about INH and then kill him on the very next night?

Russtifinko wrote:

juliets wrote: MP, lol I didn't play Cars but I understand what you mean in the games we have played together. I think it's because my style is pretty consistent regardless of alignment.

So this is not the best example of what I'm pointing out, but it's at least a reasonably decent one until I have time to go back and hunt for one. Lots of people (at least 4 that I've counted, though I forget who) have self-analyzed their play style so far, and this goes as far back as Day 1. Did I miss something and that's normal now, or is it a new norm? In my experience, people saying they're playing their civ game is both pointless (because 1. if they knew they had a "baddie game" then of course they wouldn't play it because it would get them caught and 2. they could be lying) and pingy as hell. It seems mostly like it's being let go this game, though.

As I said, juliets' post isn't the best example. But someone definitely said "I'm playing my civ game" or something very similar a while ago. If I find them, I plan to suspect them, and any help finding them would be appreciated.

Juliets did say, without hesitation, "I am not afraid of being closely looked at because I am civ, not bad or indy." Which seems pretty distinctly to say "I'm playing my civ game."

Dom wrote:

Made wrote:yo dom, what's your argument against boomslang btw, I'm not sure i understand it clearly. Same/similar to INH's?

I agree with INH on his recent assessment, and only waited to say anything about it because I wanted to see if INH would post at all on day 2 to see if he was silenced.

For your reading enjoyment, in reverse chronological order:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 28#p105628
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 05#p105605
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 12#p105412
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 99#p105299
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 98#p105298
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 62#p105162
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 45#p104945


I never received a response to what he meant by this:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 95#p105295


Not that it matters now.

I thought what I posted was quite obvious: Metalmarsh said something to the effect of "you'll be sorry if you lynch me," which I interpreted as threatening. In retrospect, he was warning us of regret rather than threat, so I misinterpreted that.

Also, INH, you'll notice I never called for a lynch on you. I was just concerned. Additionally, almost everyone else in the thread voted for their respective partners in the poll. You did not; as I've said before, we have to look for abnormal events to tease apart baddies and civvies in this game.

DharmaHelper wrote:RE: Dom/Boomslang/INH

I don't like the idea of placing suspicion on someone who is absent. That said, I too would like to see more from INH.

I'm not saying I want an INH lynch due to absence, I'm just personally peeved that he hasn't said anything, which has discouraged me from posting due to the contest. I'm also more unsure than I think most people are about the Made case. Putting out something so straightforward and fact-checkable as "my vote was forced" seems like a foolish baddie move. I know we've gotten interesting evidence from the host, but there are a good deal of secrets in this game as well. The play-acting versus truth argument quickly gets very WIFOM-esque...

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.

So, host... if I picked someone for my tag team, and said person didn't return the tag... what happens?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Rezz please.

RIP, my disagreeable aardvark. At least this night should be fun, what with the Cards Against Humanity and this mysterious tag-team. INH, as an olive branch, I'm going to send my tag your way.

Yeah, I'm not dying tonight. *votes DH*

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Just want to throw this out there, but I'd recommened that y'all don't lynch me.

For those of you keeping score at home, there's the vague threat of retribution!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

Who do you plan to vote? Your strategy must lead you to a certain, potentially educated PoA right?

Right now, I feel like early voting is the outlier behavior of most concern. This being Day 1, we really need all the evidence we can get, and voting without as much as possible strikes me as irresponsible/stirring up trouble. So honestly, looking at you and reywaS pretty hard.

insertnamehere wrote:*votes Boomslang*

(Do we still do this?)

I'm glad you took frustrated sarcasm for "freaking out." Thanks for assuming the best...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

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.

DharmaHelper wrote:

bea wrote:or you know. That up there.

Still never hurts to keep an eye on the crafty DH.

As long as you don't go making a federal case.

Three times in a game? Now I'm really suspicious...
But yeah, I've heard it before as well. A bit archaic, but I've heard it.

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.

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.

Well, it's been a very long time since I've been on these forums, but I've gotta go with WWE. I remember some great BTSC, fun with roleplaying, and learning more catchphrases from The Rock then any one man should really know...