The Syndicate

RadicalFuzz wrote:I've seen this role do fantastic things before, and Rico appears to be good at this game if you guys are any factor, so that's why I'm so happy.

Can't you tell?

RadicalFuzz wrote:Thanks for reminding me Matt. To whomever is cursing the fine folks of this town: pick me next. I wanna be special.

Thanks for clarifying Faraday. While you're here and I have the ability to talk to humans at this ungodly hour, what is your impression of Wilgy?

RadicalFuzz wrote:Sorry if it feels like I'm harassing you, but when you say I've come across as legitimate since then that means you feel my "playing differently" were not legitimate?

Golden wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

Golden wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

It is implicitly demanding when a player is viewed as bad if they don't explain their deviation from the wagons to the satisfaction of the interrogator. My broader issue is with a recent trend in games where players adopt certain tactics (eg. the above, GTH, rainbow lists), then suspect other players if they refuse to use those methods.

Do you find people who vote on-wagon equally suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so? I'm more inclined to feel the reverse, and think better of players who think for themselves rather than parroting the prevailing groupthink. I honestly can't comprehend how conformity with bandwagons is supposed to be a good thing now.

I'm not talking about gth, rainbow lists or any 'method', DF. I'm talking about EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE. It's a basic, normal and fundamental part of playing the game, not a newfangled device. If you aren't willing to do it (not you specifically, but anyone), you deserve all attention you get for it.

"Thinking for yourself" is great. "Parroting groupthink" is bad. So we completely agree on those points. Neither of those things is relevant to the point I made though, which is this...

If you do not vote on one of the prevailing wagons, you are voting somewhere it is easy to hide. If you haven't sufficiently explained why you are voting off-wagon, then I will find it suspicious.

That might be an explanation for why you are voting for the person you are voting for, or it might be an explanation for why you are not voting for someone who can actually get lynched.

But either way, voting for someone who will not get lynched is a vote that will have no impact, so the only way it can have any meaning is with words in the thread. Votes on the major bandwagons speak through the result of the lynch. Votes off them do not. That's why they become easy places for baddies to hide. As I noted, in Biblical, it became very apparent that one of the key tactics of the baddie team was basically for all of them to nearly always be off the major lynches. It's such an easy tactic for allowing the civilians to pick each other off.

I'm not a fan of demanding others play a certain way either. But I don't see a lot of demanding that people do rainbow lists or demanding that people to gth reads. I think some people do them by choice.

Putting this in a very easy to understand, logical train of thought

1) Focus is often put on people for their vote when they vote for or against major bandwagons.
2) Focus is rarely put on people for their vote who vote off bandwagon
3) Meaning can often be drawn from votes on the major bandwagons
4) Meaning can rarely be drawn from votes off-wagon
5) Therefore, as a baddie a very easy move is to engage minimally and vote off-bandwagon. It is also a very COMMON move.
6) Also, as a civilian who wants to contribute to a civilian win, it is more likely that they will have thought about and are able to put into words why they are not voting on wagon, since it is more likely to be an active decision that they don't find those people suspicious.

6) I believe, statistically speaking, baddies vote off wagon a lot more commonly than civilians, and for less clear reasons.
7) I believe, therefore, that if a person who votes off wagon isn't giving much of an explanation for why, that is suspicious.

8) Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to suspect people voting off wagon if they haven't provided a reasonable explanation for why they are voting the way they are.

RadicalFuzz wrote:Faraday when you say I read civvie so you're not pinged by my "strange alignment comments" what comments are you referring to?

Oh thank god he wasn't just being a giant idiot.

Llama, explain how we "lost a civilian?" His unkillable role from which he literally can't be targeted and will therefore be able to advise as a mod-confirmed civilian for the everlasting future of the game is an unfavorable outcome? I honestly think this went better than lynching scum Day 1, as Rico would surely be lynched later down the line for his actions up to this point.

Golden wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

RadicalFuzz wrote:Faraday define "acting weird here."

If you've never played with me then you have no expectation of my behavior, but it's still somehow "not normal" to you?

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.