The Syndicate

I hate to say this after being quiet (mostly) by choice for the last few days, but I'm headed out of town to Riot Fest in Chicago for the weekend and will certainly not be able to keep up with the thread. But I Looked over Rico's reads, and I'm startled by how good they seem to be. Will be checking in to vote BWT until the dude is dead.

Gonna keep on the DrWilgy train. Hopefully second time's the charm, and I agree with other people that the suspiciously convenient silencing is, well, suspicious.

Well, I think I'm going to vote Dr Wilgy. I feel like I made some good points on him, I feel vindicated by llama's own suspicion, and I saw him creeping around last night without addressing any of the arguments made against him. *votes Dr Wilgy*

With that out of the way, I want to say TH's vote for me feels really lazy, and I'm frankly annoyed by it.

Turnip Head wrote:
If you're interested, check out his posts - I didn't even read all 35 (!?) of them, I started at Day 4 with his first (and only) mention of Bubbles and worked up to the present.

Any case I make would essentially just be quoting his Day 4 - present posts and summarizing them.

First, with that sly little (!?), he's criticizing the number of my posts and not their content/quality. I could easily add another 30 to 40 posts, TH, if (like you) I included OT jokes and RIPs after every lynch/NK. Second, and more importantly, quoting and summarizing my posts is not making a case. A case involves interpretation or analysis. You take your suspicions as self-evident, and that shouldn't be acceptable in this game.

Addressing Bullz:
1. I admit that the "am I bad or just stupid" quip sounds bad. Honestly, I was just frustrated at that point by dealing with what I regarded as irrelevant logical minutiae, and you have to read that quote in the context of the whole discussion, where JJJ is picking more nits than a pack of chimpanzees.
2. My Lorab vote was weak, but not entirely throwaway. I hadn't had time to consider the TinyBubbles case, and I had given time to the Lorab/Rico thing. What pinged me most was the abrupt switch of Lorab's target from TH to Rico and the way she seemed to be targeting playstyle instead of more concrete evidence. My vote was an attempt to bring attention to those points.

Turnip Head wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy, still in a penguin suit, dismounts BWT and waddles towards the sunset. On top of a oceanside cliff, the man in the penguin suit stands staring towards the setting sun. Waves can be heard crashing below, gulls can be heard soaring through the sky. The wind picks up and a beach breeze blows some mist and the smell of salt into the air. The sun reflecting off the mist, looks like hundreds of stars floating in the air. Wilgy turns away from the sun and puts both of his penguin wings to his face in an excited manner, the penguins expression even changes to that of panic...
What are bea and Boomslang doing as well!?!?

Flying under the radar
But seriously, I'm intrigued by llama's proposal to hunt among those who did not interact with bubbles before the lynch. Been looking a bit, will post a few conclusions shortly.

YOU didn't interact with bubbles.

Bah, just realized I misinterpreted llama's statement: he meant players with whom Bubbles didn't interact, not vice versa. And she did ask "what's the case" on me. However, you'll also find I did express skepticism of Bubbles on Day 4:

Boomslang wrote:Addressing the other vote leaders:

TinyBubbles wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

Bubbles, what do you think about Bass, right now, before being presented with any case?

neutral

Would you rather lynch Turnip Head than Golden or Bass?

i'd rather vote for someone who's actually going to be lynched, right now turniphead doesn't look like much of a target. it would be a wasted vote to stay with him. what are most people's reason for voting bass? and why did you go with scotty? (on that note why did scotty vote himself?!)

This is really the only thing that pings me (or, in JJJ's words, makes me "feel something") about TinyBubbles. The idea of the "wasted vote" and wanting to vote alongside others. There's more concern about causing a lynch and blending in than there is about making a personal decision, and that strikes me as fishy.

Should have followed up on that Day 5, but we can't all be right all of the time.

Notes on selected members of Llama's List (TM), regarding my assessment of their possible teamwork with bubbles:

Bea - Unlikely. She cast doubt on bubbles with a pretty substantial post from Day 3, then casts a vote that way on Day 4.

DrWilgy - Quite possible. What pings me the most is this combination of posts:
From Day 4:

DrWilgy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:*side-note to this: does Wilgy have any opinion on other players who also failed to save Golden (such as MP) or is Sorsha the only player you noticed?

The only other players I'm interested at this point are SVS, Unfurl, Sorsha, and Dom...

Followed by this from Day 5:

DrWilgy wrote:I was actually OK with the TinyBubbles lynch a day ago, but I honestly don't believe bubbles and Ubzargan being on the same team.

Spacedaisy - Maybe, but not quite as pinged as with Dr. Wilgy. She's "not feeling" the first Bubbles lynch, but then quickly changes her attitude when Bubbles posts an exaggerated innocence claim. She backs this up with a very confident claim that the baddies switched the lynch to save Bubbles; this is either a good intuitive read or a textbook case of bussing after the team bought another night's worth of time.

timmer - Again, probably not. Does a Day 4 vote on Bubbles with decent justification, then develops the case pretty fully on Day 5 while defending it against Dr. Wilgy, whom I already suspect.

tranq - Possibly, but even less than Daisy. Hard to tell with his number of posts. He seems to miss the Bubbles case on Day 4, which could be either honest or "convenient." But he does develop decent analysis on why the lynch switch would happen.

In summary, I think DrWilgy is most deserving of further inquiry.

DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy, still in a penguin suit, dismounts BWT and waddles towards the sunset. On top of a oceanside cliff, the man in the penguin suit stands staring towards the setting sun. Waves can be heard crashing below, gulls can be heard soaring through the sky. The wind picks up and a beach breeze blows some mist and the smell of salt into the air. The sun reflecting off the mist, looks like hundreds of stars floating in the air. Wilgy turns away from the sun and puts both of his penguin wings to his face in an excited manner, the penguins expression even changes to that of panic...
What are bea and Boomslang doing as well!?!?

Flying under the radar
But seriously, I'm intrigued by llama's proposal to hunt among those who did not interact with bubbles before the lynch. Been looking a bit, will post a few conclusions shortly.

Out of class/work, need to cook/go to band practice. I'm not jumping on the Bubbles bandwagon because I haven't studied the case, so I'm putting in a protest vote for Lorab based on my previous analysis of the Rico/Lorab shooting match.

Looked over the Lorab-Rico thing myself, just because it seems to have been a dominant aspect of the past day. It's important to note that Lorab started it, rather abruptly and with little previous reference to Rico; I feel like she was looking to pick a fight after her previous work against TH didn't go much of anywhere. Rico's defense against the initial attack seems rather annoyed, but not dismissive, and he makes good counterarguments. What strikes me is how quickly the conversation devolves into mutual attacks on playstyle. To me, this suggests Lorab recognizes a good defense but doesn't want to let up, and that Rico doesn't really suspect Lorab but wants to stick up for himself.

On the whole, I think Lorab comes out worse from this argument, and I get generally good vibes from Rico.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Jay, what do you make of Boomslang's attempts to hunt today more heavily compared with previously?

I wanted to be inspired, but he seemed to focus primarily on people who either aren't posting much right now or never were posting much. It's still very easy content to throw into the thread when the feeling of need for content is there.

And tell me, why is bringing attention to people who are slipping past attention a bad thing? You want to play logic? The "very easy content" descriptor is classic "No true Scottsman." I contribute, making points that need to be made, and you're saying effectively that it's "not true content." You're tunneling something fierce, and it grinds my gears.

Anyway, voting position 4. I'd prefer to run the cycle and deal with the negative powers we know than deal with unknown consequences.

Thanks for the rainbow list, JJJ, as it got me to take a closer look at Tranq. And I don't like what I see. There seem to be a couple places where he backpedaled from a course of action when he saw something else was becoming more popular. The first is when he asks LoRab to clarify a BWT suspicion:

Tranq wrote:

LoRab wrote:EBWOP: Screwed up the ticking off who he had named. I think I started ticking off the ones he didn't name and then changed part way through. It is fixed below.

Do you think BWT intentially left people off his low-poster list because he either already has BTSC with them/plans to recruit them later? Is this why you voted for BWT?

Then stops asking questions and says:

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with a BWT vote.

The second is when he proposes asking the Brutal Executioner to kill JJJ, then says it was just a theory to spark discussion and doesn't post at all for the following day. These actions, combined with a basically unjustified vote on Sorsha, are why I am now *voting Tranq.*

Daisy, if you liked Angry Orchard, then you'll love Ace Perry Cider. Much crisper, less sweet, highly recommended.

Wanted to chime in on the Sorsha discussion, because I haven't really looked at it too much.

There's a lot of early uncertainty tied to her previously announced absence from the thread, which is fine. The most pressing thing she comments on is her own survival in the early days; again, not to be unexpected, especially in an unrecruited stage.

Day two she starts to get a lot more outwardly focused. Talks about how leaving the Golden-Epi disagreement in the thread would be a good thing for baddies to hide behind, but stays wishy-washy when it comes to determining lynch subjects. Votes TinyBubbles for the drive-by, then does a bit of a NO U on TH when she's called out on it.

She then goes on a tangent about Golden being set up, which doesn't make sense to me; Golden claimed he had succeeded in baiting the baddies, he wasn't claiming a setup. I find this interesting because it seems very unlikely but becomes a focus of thread discussion, much like the Golden-Epi back and forth she feared would give baddies a place to hide earlier. And she doesn't really follow up on that suspicion because she votes bubbles again.

I think an is indeed worthy here.

Now that Russ has a replacement, my attention turns to Dom. More posts than me, but not by crazily much, and the majority of them involved in the Golden debate. A definite quietness after the lynch result, saying only "I need to think a little more." Also seemed supportive of DFaraday's comparative quiet when JJJ prodded him with a vote. Still thinking over there?

Synonym wrote:Good morning Syndicate,

I have no idea who I've replaced but I'm probably going to be more active so that's a positive.

Trying to figure out the nuances of this site so bear with me for a phase or so. I'm guessing the giant pole at the top is how we vote? Are we allowed to change votes or is it a lock once you choose one?

>Giant Pole


But seriously, welcome. Changing votes depends on the game, but this particular game is in fact changeable votes.

Wait a minute, you know who's really flying under the radar? Russtifinko. Only 9 posts the entire game, and none after Day 1?! There are a few good points he makes that early, mostly about the need for neutrals to basically play civ unless otherwise recruited, but also some filler. The only vote he's justified so far has been for Timmer, and that because Timmer was an adjunct to the points MP had been making. What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Russ?

Nutella just stated the issue exactly. Ok, Golden can't know for sure that Epi is on a different baddie team. But if he strongly suspects Epi of being bad, then he's taking Premise 4 to be true anyway. I can combine assumptions because this is Mafia, and that's what people do, guess what other people are guessing and make decisions based on those assumptions. I also agree with Nutella that this logic tangent has lost its value, and I'll be making no further comment so as not to clog the thread even further.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

That's the problem. You can't combine Golden's assumption with your own and then suppose a sensible point can be drawn from it. Under all circumstances it would be impossible for Golden to know Epignosis was on a different baddie team.

This isn't some minor point I'm harping on. You based your accusation of Golden partly on this concept, and it doesn't make sense. My supposition is that you might have made it up and made a logical mistake in so doing.

I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?

Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

JJJ, you're still missing my point. In addition to your two premises I had assumed Premise 0: Golden is on a baddie team. This was untrue, as we found out, but it was not known to be false at the times I voted.

Addressing the other vote leaders:

TinyBubbles wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

Bubbles, what do you think about Bass, right now, before being presented with any case?

neutral

Would you rather lynch Turnip Head than Golden or Bass?

i'd rather vote for someone who's actually going to be lynched, right now turniphead doesn't look like much of a target. it would be a wasted vote to stay with him. what are most people's reason for voting bass? and why did you go with scotty? (on that note why did scotty vote himself?!)

This is really the only thing that pings me (or, in JJJ's words, makes me "feel something") about TinyBubbles. The idea of the "wasted vote" and wanting to vote alongside others. There's more concern about causing a lynch and blending in than there is about making a personal decision, and that strikes me as fishy.

Lorab just seems to be going back-and-forth with JJJ about the meaning of neutrality in this game, which I think we're all kind of wrestling with. I tend to disagree when Lorab says "no, lynching neutrals is neutral." Lynching neutrals is more favorable to baddies because it increases the ratio of baddies to everyone else, making them more influential in lynch polls. Conversely, I like how Lorab defends the use of Day 0 material when voting Turnip Head: the game is in fact cumulative. JJJ has said that we should be less trusting of our early suspicions, which makes me wonder what people will turn out to have skeletons in their closets as the game progresses.

Linki w/JJJ:
1. The yellow bit means that if Golden had remained unlynched, it would have allowed actual baddies to claim similar shenanigans without being lynched.
2. You'll notice that, in the orange bit, I don't claim to have civ tells. I just claim not to have baddie tells.
3. You say "exaggerated bullshit," I say rhetoric.
4. If Golden were baddie he would have known if Epi were on his team. He thought Epi was bad. If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team, Epi must have been on the other baddie team. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Ok, I've finally got time to sit down and write a substantial post. So let's do it.

My self-vote was an experiment to see how quickly I could get bandwagoned based on practically no other "baddie" tells. And with that single action, I nearly got lynched. To me, that showed how many people were willing to protect Golden at the drop of a hat. My voters wanted to encourage a game environment in which someone can claim responsibility for a death (CAUSED BY A BADDIE, as Rey pointed out) and not get lynched for it. Although Golden did not flip bad, I maintain that if he had not been lynched for his statements on the death of Epi, it would have opened up the space in which baddies could operate.

I also want to point out that JJJ's "case" on me is built almost entirely on an absence of evidence. Of things that I did not do, of brilliant points that I could have made Day 0 or 1 but didn't, of a vote for Bass that was entirely justifiable but not justified by more than one post. Of "confusing" post about G-man's support of Golden that JJJ interprets correctly at the same time he's denouncing it for being confusing. He doesn't have a leg to stand on, and he knows it.

The one point I'll concede was that my post on the Golden-Epi interaction could have been confusing to someone not inside my head. But here's what my thought was at the time: Golden claimed he wanted to kill Epi because he suspected him of being bad. He claims that he baited one of the baddie teams into killing Epi. Golden could not have known that this strategy would work for sure unless he knew for certain which baddie team Epi was on. Golden would only have this knowledge if he were on the other baddie team. Therefore, I interpreted this as a slip of Golden trying to distance himself from being on a baddie team. Obviously that interpretation was incorrect.

I've been in class all day and still don't have time to post. My self vote was indeed a protest. And you all jumped on it predictably. Point made.

Let's try voting for myself! Seems to give you a get-out-of-jail free card these days!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Boomslang!

Vote Boomslang

aapje is going to murder me

I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to defend my points on Golden when the guy is literally asking to be lynched. That's all I needed to know for today, honestly.
*votes Golden*

reywaS wrote:Facts: Golden expressed sincere desire to see Epignosis killed. Epignosis is killed on night 1 by Azura.

How Golden and his new cheerleader MovingPictures come off to me:

"Hey, guys, look I know that I/Golden am/is responsible for Azura (A confirmed baddie) killing Epignosis when literally the only person going after Epig was Golden, but he's getting a bad rap and I think everyone just needs to trust the guy. I promise he's not bad. You're crazy for going after him. Actually, you read as bad to me because you aren't giving Golden a free pass."


It's insanity. lol

THIS.

Been away for most of today, and don't have time to catch up completely. However, I noted that Dr. Wilgy finally came through on the explanation and seemed to do a good job of it. Briefly looking at things, I'm really very pinged by G-Man changing votes to Bass despite claiming that this change "has very little to do with any suspicion of Bass." I'm more pinged by him saying this move is to "keep Golden around." As I'm already suspicious of Golden, this claim makes me want to ensure that Golden doesn't stick around. *votes Golden*

linki: Heh, Dr. Wilgy is on call all day every day.

DrWilgy, I see you creeping this thread. Care to explain your switch vote to MP? Because that's really, really sketchy, especially as you've been less than forthcoming with your llama vote analysis (other than to say you "got what you wanted" out of it). Right now, you strike me as very opportunistic.

Now that we've got this MP/Llama stuff, can be return to talking about Golden? The whole "I baited the baddies into a making the kill for me" line seems... unlikely to me. How could he have known that Epi was on the baddie team opposite from the one making the kill, unless he himself was on the baddie team making the kill?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm confused. I mean I know what is going on with MP voting llama, but where are these other votes coming from? I feel like I've missed a step somewhere...

I definitely agree with this. I see llama throwing some shade at MP and MP throwing his weight around to discourage that shade. But that's a one-on-one interaction, and I don't see much else that justifies the votes of MM or DrWilgy. They seem opportunistic.

linki: And there's DrWilgy with a vague threat! The plot thickens!

What do you make of what Llama has thrown at me?

Whose actions are justified? Why?

Although MM did vote for Llama first, you'll see that the timing of his vote post (11:37) comes after Llama's initial attack on you (10:09) and immediately after your response (11:36). I'm willing to bet he saw that tension brewing and threw in his vote as a contribution to the reaction you're now leading. Smart play, and a good assist to possibly knocking him out. DrWilgy just kind of did a drive-by; analysis is apparently forthcoming, but I don't see why he didn't delay his vote until he could post that justification, as we still have plenty of time.

I think Llama has a point, and I think you've been very aggressive in your defense. Which doesn't make you bad, but it does indicate you're taking the suspicion fairly seriously.

linki: Gah, this game moves so fast.

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm confused. I mean I know what is going on with MP voting llama, but where are these other votes coming from? I feel like I've missed a step somewhere...

I definitely agree with this. I see llama throwing some shade at MP and MP throwing his weight around to discourage that shade. But that's a one-on-one interaction, and I don't see much else that justifies the votes of MM or DrWilgy. They seem opportunistic.

linki: And there's DrWilgy with a vague threat! The plot thickens!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Boomslang is online now. I will not vote for Boomslang today.
I also recall Bullzeye being a strong contributor today. I will not vote for Bullzeye today.

Linki: speak of the devil.

Linki 2: you're off my list you.

Thanks bro! Anyway, not sure where I'll be in two hours, so I should probably vote now. Although I'd like to pursue the points I've raised earlier throughout the game, I think the case on Bass is the most evidence-based at this point. A very suspicious post, built on spurious reasoning and not followed up, is not civ behavior. *votes Bass*

Roxy wrote: Are you saying there are not 5 different factions in this game?
Also if you are saying this is a good vs evil game then what do you call the neutrals (which most of us are) - good or evil?

There are five different factions. However, please note the following, from the host post: "These are not teams, just origins." The "factions" are just flavorful ways to inform different roles and spice up some of the position changes. There may be some clan dynamics things that go on, but that doesn't change the essential civ vs. bad nature of this game. In the end, no matter your initial clan, you're going to end up as either good or bad (or neutral, if you's a Guardian).

What do I call the neutrals? Potentially good or bad. But that's not important. There ARE baddies among us right now, and that is where our energy should focus.

Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Man, I'm always skeptical about the previous-game knowledge thing. If people have distinctive playstyles, that's great for them, but roles are always random. Maybe you tend to remember the conniving liar's FEB roles more vividly, but that's a confirmation bias; lying can be used just as effectively to promote the civ cause. So going after someone based on "reputation" alone just doesn't seem right.

Epignosis wrote:

aapje wrote:Holy fucking spam. I'm tempted to vote for the next person who uses the word adverb

Adjectival modifier.

Actually, the part of speech to which you are referring can modify not only adjectives, but also verbs, determiners, noun phrases, clauses, or entire sentences. (Finally got to use pedantic pink appropriately!)

Thanks for the backstory, peeps. But knowing the infamy of that mechanic, I doubt it'd be reused exactly, especially in a game as complex as this already is. The positions don't even seem to be themed, so I'm guessing they're primarily for mechanics purposes? In any event, I'm going to go ahead and *vote 1* in case I don't check in until later.

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

For those of us who haven't, care explaining why? What's wrong with picking the position you believe in?

G-Man wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.

This is true. My analysis is only worthwhile today. Your's will probably be a better guide after the recruiting starts. That being said, your analysis is limited as well. Some of the powers in your Negative Effects column could be powerful tools in the hands of civ-recruited players. Vote manipulation, phase ending, and blocks may seem negative but they are only truly negative if they were in the hands of a baddie. In the hands of a civvie, Position 3 or 4 could actually be the most potent for civs if they can get their hands on the negative powers. It's all relative to how the recruitment turns out.

This is a very good point. We have to be careful in this game to avoid thinking about traditionally "baddie" powers as bad, because the players who have them could go to any team. I think we should be most concerned about death effects. Increasing the pace of deaths reduces the amount of information that the players as a collective can create, which hurts the civ effort.

Jeebus, 270 posts? Serves me right for sleeping through the start of game, I suppose :P Catching up now, typing some thoughts as I go.

The whole adverb thing is ridiculous. I don't see why it would be relevant for the theme (in terms of being a requirement for a given role). I also think generalizing that baddies use adverbs as a form of distancing or overexplaining is spurious at best. Also, MP clearly has a few sentences that don't use adverbs, so he's not even completely consistent.

I am, however, a fan of pedantic pink. A good addition to the stable of colors :P

Doesn't seem like anyone has gone out on too much of a limb, which is to be expected I suppose. aapje's listing of powers by position is great, probably the most useful think that's been done in the thread so far.

I think the easiest way to start picking apart preferences is through the role of the Brutal Executioner. People aren't going to vote for the position in which the Executioner could target their clan. All things considered, I think Position 1 is the best choice. Fairly low danger overall, and Executioner targets a Sorcerer, which reduces chaos.