The Syndicate

Victory, sweet victory! Good game, everyone.

Well, screw it. I'm headed out to a Dan Deacon concert tonight, so I'm not going to be in any place to vote pretty soon. So I'll start the ball rolling. Votes *Luke* for being utterly sketchy and because I think there's more agreement on his Mafia status than on Tranq's.

Nothing beyond your gut? After all this time, and for Enrique, who has among the most posts of anyone in the game?

Tranq wrote:
Tranq wrote:I have a gut civ read on DrWilgy and Enrique. No idea on who's bad so far.

Tranq wrote:Choutas. Because he voted for someone i think is civ (DrWilgy) and because Enrique (who also sounds civ) voted him.

Oh, pardon me, I must have forgotten. That tends to happen when someone doesn't post meaningful content for stretches of two days at a time.

Tranq wrote:I don't think Bea is bad.

Which leaves Boom, Luke, Matt and Floyd as suspects.

What about Enrique? He is conspicuous by his absence on your list...

Let he who is without posts cast the first stone!

Seriously, Luke has 5 posts. *Seinfeld gesture* What's his deal?

Enrique wrote:Boom, my issue isn't with you being logical and fair. Those were positive points, I can make those too But the concerning thing is your ability to stay under the radar by appealing to your detractors. You don't have any firm stances except against Tranq, and your vote is extremely fickle, but ultimately all the back and forth is redundant because we all know where it ends up.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but it's the first thing I noticed ISOing you. Whenever you've been called out, you switch positions to get out of that situation.

It's really hard to have firm stances when you have this little to go on, as I'm sure you understand. Maybe I have been tunneling Tranq, but that's only because I can't seem to get him lynched :P

Honestly, Enrique did a pretty good job on Floyd. The early comment about "keeping posts to a minimum" is indeed a classically bad position to take, especially in a game this small.

He interacts most with Dr. Wilgy on Day 2, trying to tease apart a trio of players who all later turned up civ. I almost find it hard to believe he'd target three non-mafia players as mafia himself, precisely because them all flipping good makes him seem very sketchy. But that gets WIFOMY really fast, so make of it what you will. I also don't like him basing many of his Day 2 arguments on timing and online presence, because those indicators are slippery at best. Additionally, he shirks responsibility for the Luke vote by referencing other players' posts instead of explicitly going through his own reasoning.

The rainbow... is a nice touch, but poorly explained, especially (as Enrique has mentioned) the placement of Matt so far up. He has interacted with Matt at this point, but only by answering one of his questions. There's some noncommittal back and forth between the two after that over Luke, nothing intensely felt. Mafia distancing? And then the silence in Day 3.

On the whole, it doesn't look good. I'm comfortable with a Floyd lynch.

Enrique wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting no lynch for the moment, might change later
So after we've discussed no lynch being a not particularly civ-friendly option, as well as established that changeable votes make throwing one out early not a big deal, you still go for the no lynch? Why so?

In fact, I'll throw my hat—er, vote—in the ring to draw some discussion.
This is Boomslang's first on-topic post, and again, it's preying on Luke. We've gone over this a billion times, so maybe it's not necessary to point out again that the move wouldn't make sense whether Luke was good or bad. But I just did anyway 'cause fuck it.
Just wanted to point out something I saw as odd. Once I got through the logic, I dropped the point.

Boomslang wrote:
Matt F wrote:Boomslang, Luke is pretty new to Mafia just so you know. He's played a few games but I think he's still getting the grasp of it.
Fair enough, and I'll take that under consideration. Still, even if he's new, he's had the same chance to study the thread and its arguments as the rest of us. The vote did come after all of that naysaying, so to ignore it is still making a statement.
Nothing to see here, I guess. Logical reaction. Sort of? I wanted to quote it anyway because it rubs me the wrong way how he goes both directions here. It's like "you're right, I should cut him some slack, BUT MY VOTE IS VALIDATED ANYWAY."
"Some slack" doesn't mean "immediately let someone off the hook." Nice false dilemma there.

Boomslang wrote:As I said, my vote wasn't set in stone but merely there to spur some more discussion. Which I think it did quite nicely. Zebra summarizes the other side of the argument (that there's no good baddie reason to vote No Lynch after the thread discussion) very well, and I concur.

I'm growing a little more interested in DrWilgy. I feel like he's pumping up his post count with a lot of short comments and questions that could be condensed into single posts. This runs a little counter to what I saw in Recruitment; obviously this is a totally different game, but it's enough to increase my interest.

Tranq should really do a post soon, I think. With 13 people, flying under the radar should be a no-go. I'll change up the vote there to increase the urgency.

Linki: Not all of us are lean, mean posting machines, good Doctor.
See? He's being so logical. It's like he got called out, and immediately backtracked and conceded. But it's also logical.
Since when is being logical a bad thing?

His next few posts make it clear he's definitely not affiliated with Tranq. He presses him when no one else does.

Boomslang wrote:RIP FZ. Hardmode is right when the cop goes down on the first night... sigh.

a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?
Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.
Now this is an interesting post. Especially when it regards vocabulary that became important to following the thread. That kind of cockiness might come from knowing that you've got two other people in your corner (the rest of the mafia) who won't board your wagon. If the case was so unconvincing, it should have been easy to refute, right?
He's reading too deep into it. It's very subdued, but every post brings the suggestion that he could come out and vote for you at any time. Holding his cards close to his chest? The fact that he has voted for Tranq in every single lynch so far adds to this idea. He's a wildcard, no commitments, no strings attached. Perfectly inoffensive when he's looking at anyone except the guy he can't get lynched.
Reading too deep into it? I think that someone failing to address a case is something that looks bad on surface reading. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "it."

Boomslang wrote:
Enrique wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Enrique. What made Boomslangs faulty logic more influential than other logics on last poll?
The fact that people followed him.
That is the definition of influential :P I'd argue that my vote wasn't so much influential in terms of argument as in giving an excuse for other uncommitted voters (bcornett, Floyd) to put their names on the poll. You'll notice they followed directly after me (9, 10, 11). I changed my selection once I felt satisfied with the level of discussion about the point; the other two did not.
Okay, how's that for getting to call other people uncommitted and still get away with it? The fact that those three followed directly after only helps cement my idea that he was being a negative influence on the poll. If he was trying to get a civvie Luke lynched, he nearly succeeded while absolving himself of responsibility. If he was trying to draw distance with his teammate, he backed away when he saw it could backfire. But, and this is important, if he was just a civvie, then he did the logical thing by moving his vote, but that doesn't justify his original action. Again, he's leaving every door open. A mafioso making himself impossible to read can be a tell on itself. I'm not liking the way Boomslang gives off the illusion of being helpful, only to back out and vote for Tranq again. He's definitely been flying under my radar this whole time, and the fact that he hasn't received a single vote so far tells me he's working the game to perfection.
Or the fact that I haven't received a single vote means that everyone agrees I'm not bad?

He spends the next few posts talking about how bad Choutas looks. That's until Choutas calls him out on his refusal to commit:

Boomslang wrote:
Choutas wrote:Will you conveniently stash your vote against me? There are two major wagons happening why don't you join in the fun?
Why yes, everyone jumping off the cliff IS having a great time! I think I'll go right away!

That's a lame defense and you know it.
Which he just dismisses. But it's not just a defense, it's a pattern. Boomslang manages to get away with every single lynch without a scratch on his voting record. Of course the moment Choutas calls him out, he immediately shifts his attention... guess where?
Wait, so somehow me not joining on one of two wagons is a refusal to commit?

Boomslang wrote:
Matt F wrote: Boomslang - Do you no longer find Tranq suspicious? It seems you were questioning him a bit and then dropped it completely and moved to Choutas.
I'm still suspicious of Tranq, but this day has given me very little else to go off of regarding him :/ An explanation of the Zebra vote would be nice, even if it was theoretically a temp vote?
It's right, it's logical. Tranq isn't giving anybody anything to work with.
Yes, and it's important not to let that slide. Or are you content to let people slip under the radar? (Obviously not, because you're doing these ISOs :-P)

Boomslang wrote:Zebra, you posted enough to counter my previous read; that's why I let that suspicion drop. I'm changing my vote to Tranq in hopes of countering the other wagon, which I don't like.
But he doesn't drop it. Guess who the other Tranq voter was at this point? Choutas. Boomslang is incapable of taking a side. At any sign of being questioned, he changes his vote and quells any worries.
Drop what? I did drop the zebra suspicion. What could you be referring to by "it" then?

Boomslang wrote:Man, it's an animal slaughterhouse out there... RIP MM and Zebra.

Regarding Wilgy and Tranq, I don't think they're both mafia, based on this post alone:

Tranq wrote:
Boomslang wrote:why the Choutas vote other than simple revenge?
I asked who to vote for and DrWilgy responded.

Two Pets in one Sound.
WIFOM nonwithstanding, I doubt that mafia teammates would acknowledge that direct influence so clearly. Especially with Tranq being such a low poster, where every post can be scrutinized. I don't like how Wilgy is deciding to step back after the bad lynch result, but I really don't like how Tranq just shrugged off his Zebra vote as temporary very early in the day, then never bothered to explain it or move it to someone else. It was a close lynch, and when he saw the momentum gathering against him, I think he figured it'd be better to lay low and maintain his advantage than try to defend himself.

That won't work this time around. *votes Tranq* Calling you out.
That's a firm, strong stance. Valid. But again, he keeps talking about Tranq.
Um, when you think someone is bad, you try to get them lynched. That's how you play the game.

Boomslang wrote:
DrWilgy wrote: Boomslang what don't you like about me stepping back?
I suppose if you need to clear your head, you need to clear your head. I guess I was just skeptical of the timing: immediately after a lynch you directed, you decided to go much less visible rather than discussing your thought process and hunting among those who followed your lead. Seems like reduced visibility is working for people in this game, so I can't blame you. You're exactly right when you say it's impossible get a read on the very low/insubstantial posters this game... I think you're right that not all of them can be mafia, because they couldn't have coordinated the silent strategy from Day 1 onward.
Such a talent for avoiding confrontation. He's spent all game flying right under our noses.
I'd like to thank the academy.

Boomslang wrote:
Matt F wrote:bea - Please share your thoughts.
I'm inclined to give bea the benefit of the doubt here. She seems to have been legitimately sick over much of this game, and I don't see baddie bea expressing that weakness quite so intensely. She also has 25 posts (although none today), most with actual opinions or questions, which is more than many of the other players at this point (including me).
This is very fair, but at the same time, it's another soft opinion made to appeal to a specific player. No finger pointing, no nothing. Boomslang wants you to trust him.
Again, what's wrong with being fair? I take strong stances when I feel strongly, and I give people doubt when I'm unsure.

Boomslang wrote:15 minutes from the vote, and the state of the game has progressed practically not at all. Based on the Zebra vote and lack of contribution today, I might look at Floyd in greater detail tomorrow. Regarding today's posting:

He might. He better. Lynch or lose. Give me a legitimate reason to trust you, Boom.
Well, a Floyd look is incoming, so hold on to your butt.

This is my longest ISO so far, and possibly the most damning, but also keep in mind... Boomslang is the only one so far that has given me this amount to work with. The way people respond to these is very important, and I'm definitely not going to base my vote on these alone. I'm gonna keep going and hopefully find at least one person that I can read positively

15 minutes from the vote, and the state of the game has progressed practically not at all. Based on the Zebra vote and lack of contribution today, I might look at Floyd in greater detail tomorrow. Regarding today's posting:

Matt F wrote:bea - Please share your thoughts.

I'm inclined to give bea the benefit of the doubt here. She seems to have been legitimately sick over much of this game, and I don't see baddie bea expressing that weakness quite so intensely. She also has 25 posts (although none today), most with actual opinions or questions, which is more than many of the other players at this point (including me).

DrWilgy wrote: Boomslang what don't you like about me stepping back?

I suppose if you need to clear your head, you need to clear your head. I guess I was just skeptical of the timing: immediately after a lynch you directed, you decided to go much less visible rather than discussing your thought process and hunting among those who followed your lead. Seems like reduced visibility is working for people in this game, so I can't blame you. You're exactly right when you say it's impossible get a read on the very low/insubstantial posters this game... I think you're right that not all of them can be mafia, because they couldn't have coordinated the silent strategy from Day 1 onward.

Man, it's an animal slaughterhouse out there... RIP MM and Zebra.

Regarding Wilgy and Tranq, I don't think they're both mafia, based on this post alone:

Tranq wrote:
Boomslang wrote:why the Choutas vote other than simple revenge?
I asked who to vote for and DrWilgy responded.

Two Pets in one Sound.

WIFOM nonwithstanding, I doubt that mafia teammates would acknowledge that direct influence so clearly. Especially with Tranq being such a low poster, where every post can be scrutinized. I don't like how Wilgy is deciding to step back after the bad lynch result, but I really don't like how Tranq just shrugged off his Zebra vote as temporary very early in the day, then never bothered to explain it or move it to someone else. It was a close lynch, and when he saw the momentum gathering against him, I think he figured it'd be better to lay low and maintain his advantage than try to defend himself.

That won't work this time around. *votes Tranq* Calling you out.

Zebra, you posted enough to counter my previous read; that's why I let that suspicion drop. I'm changing my vote to Tranq in hopes of countering the other wagon, which I don't like.

Matt F wrote: Boomslang - Do you no longer find Tranq suspicious? It seems you were questioning him a bit and then dropped it completely and moved to Choutas.

I'm still suspicious of Tranq, but this day has given me very little else to go off of regarding him :/ An explanation of the Zebra vote would be nice, even if it was theoretically a temp vote?

Choutas wrote:Will you conveniently stash your vote against me? There are two major wagons happening why don't you join in the fun?

Why yes, everyone jumping off the cliff IS having a great time! I think I'll go right away!

That's a lame defense and you know it.

I'm throwing a vote at Choutas because I'm not convinced at his Wilgy suspicion. Especially after including this in an earlier post:

[quote'"Choutas"]I'm still mad at your for getting me lynched last game[/quote]

Again, Zebra continues to read as frustrated instead of actually scum. These shorter, more resigned posts look like classic

behavior after feeling a train forming.

DrWilgy wrote:Boomslang, what are your thoughts on Choutas and Zebra?

Not sure on either, but I feel better about Zebra than about Choutas. Zebra strikes me as legitimately defending, maybe a little exasperated but certainly trying. Choutas doesn't have many posts, and the ones there are largely filler (even laughs it off as "shitposts" early in the thread. Seems very low flying, and in a game this small that is even more pingy.

Enrique wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Enrique. What made Boomslangs faulty logic more influential than other logics on last poll?
The fact that people followed him.

That is the definition of influential :P I'd argue that my vote wasn't so much influential in terms of argument as in giving an excuse for other uncommitted voters (bcornett, Floyd) to put their names on the poll. You'll notice they followed directly after me (9, 10, 11). I changed my selection once I felt satisfied with the level of discussion about the point; the other two did not.

RIP FZ. Hardmode is right when the cop goes down on the first night... sigh.

a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?
Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.

Now this is an interesting post. Especially when it regards vocabulary that became important to following the thread. That kind of cockiness might come from knowing that you've got two other people in your corner (the rest of the mafia) who won't board your wagon. If the case was so unconvincing, it should have been easy to refute, right?

DrWilgy wrote:Since when am I defending Tranq?

DrWilgy wrote:Placing a vote on a non-playing player seems pretty easy to me.

Tranq wrote:Rude. I'm in the top 10 posters this game!

Ha.

Wilgy, your defense of Tranq is getting fishy. Obviously the man is playing; he's reading posts and making responses. He's not a "non-playing player," he's a player who hasn't answered a direct questions: why the Choutas vote other than simple revenge?

This swell of support for a bcornett vote feels too convenient. I'm going to keep my vote on Tranq until I hear something more satisfactory.

Tranq wrote:Sure why not.

Revenge-vote for Choutas.

Is this purely a revenge vote? Or do you have another reason? If just the former, that's not a strong support for your civility.

DrWilgy wrote:What? what am I plating off? I was being predatory, that's not a question, my goal, avoid no lynch, ezpz bb.

I'm really confused by this post in particular. Seems like you're throwing off a lot of short phrases, a breathless defense of yourself. Possibly a little more worried than you should be.

As I said, my vote wasn't set in stone but merely there to spur some more discussion. Which I think it did quite nicely. Zebra summarizes the other side of the argument (that there's no good baddie reason to vote No Lynch after the thread discussion) very well, and I concur.

I'm growing a little more interested in DrWilgy. I feel like he's pumping up his post count with a lot of short comments and questions that could be condensed into single posts. This runs a little counter to what I saw in Recruitment; obviously this is a totally different game, but it's enough to increase my interest.

Tranq should really do a post soon, I think. With 13 people, flying under the radar should be a no-go. I'll change up the vote there to increase the urgency.

Linki: Not all of us are lean, mean posting machines, good Doctor.

Matt F wrote:Boomslang, Luke is pretty new to Mafia just so you know. He's played a few games but I think he's still getting the grasp of it.

Fair enough, and I'll take that under consideration. Still, even if he's new, he's had the same chance to study the thread and its arguments as the rest of us. The vote did come after all of that naysaying, so to ignore it is still making a statement.

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting no lynch for the moment, might change later

So after we've discussed no lynch being a not particularly civ-friendly option, as well as established that changeable votes make throwing one out early not a big deal, you still go for the no lynch? Why so?

In fact, I'll throw my hat—er, vote—in the ring to draw some discussion.

Choutas wrote:Voting boomslang. I want an explanation of his cryptic username.

Come now, I might ask the same of you! Boomslang refers to an Australian snake I thought was super cool when I was like 12. It's also (as I discovered later) the name of a music festival in Kentucky.

Fell in love years ago
With an innocent sock

I lost it. Well played, MP. Not going to be able to get that out my head anytime soon, lol.

The Syndicate

Search found 30 matches

Re: [END] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 4] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 4] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 3] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 4] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 4] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 4] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 4] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 3] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 3] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 3] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 3] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 2] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 2] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 2] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 2] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 2] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 2] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 2] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia

Re: [DAY 1] Pet Sounds Mafia