The Syndicate

dunya wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:53 am

timmer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:31 am Thanks for the game! And thanks to Eloh for diving in to bail me out!

Hope you're feeling better? A concussion is scary.

Thanks yeah the belief is that I sustained a minor one... I was wobbly for a few days and had head aches for over a week. I'm feeling pretty good now though.

Thanks for the game! And thanks to Eloh for diving in to bail me out!

forgive my absence guys I took a nasty head shot in a sparring match and I think I'm concussed. I cannot concentrate on anything at all so I've asked to be replaced. Sorry

Voted Kylr. I'm stuck at work with an unexpected surgery to process, inh's case is the best of the day

MacDougall wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:25 am At any rate if I am going to be a continual suspect for my poor play you might as well get me out of the way early.

You are right I'm totally misrepresenting the kinds of things you've been saying.

Okay, so I'm feeling civvie vibes from INH, but I'm not sure his case on Kyle is as slam dunk as he seems to think. I'm reading those posts of Kyle's and I feel like I've played with that exact "someone help me" tone many times as a civ... I feel like Long Con has gone stone cold in this game, and that doesn't feel civvie of him. Mac still baffles me. I'm not sure that this woe is me too many games maybe just kill me schtick fits him, but that doesn't necessarily indicate alignment. I really don't think that Wilgy's one contribution to the game was a flippant "oh Ambray wasn't bad". At one point do we demand content from him? I forget.

MacDougall wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:12 am Sorry I just didn't expect to have to contend with it and I was balls deep in Buffy at the time.

Mmm.

Just starting to catch up here, and



Can't say I blame you.

Epig's post on Mac was the kind of thing I would write, but I'm not its conclusive... I'm trying to gauge Mac's response to it as he seems genuinely shocked, but... why? We've all had wall cases built against us. Is this weird for Mac? Anyone who knows him, how does his surprise strike you?

Sperry for missing the vote I have to start leaving early votes in case, it seem

Just reread Ambray's ISO... the only thing that stands out to me is a sort of lack of leadership and sense that she talked up her thoughts on LC because she felt that she had to talk about something to sound contribute-y. Her posts go "not much to say, not much to say, thoughts on the LC situation, rehaash of that rehash of that" and now day 2 just "wow, not much going on". No sense of trying to get things moving, just a passive comment on how no one is doing much.

I can't remember of Ambray played a certain way when bad or good, so this could just be a disengaged player, or someone who at times has little time to get involved.

Must run for now.

As for Wilgy, I'm feeling like over time, it seems like people have just started giving him a pass for not contributing early on in games? I'm not a fan of that. Wilgy has been specifically asked for thoughts on Ambray, who has has said was bad, and he simply replied "soon". I'll say right now that if I can't find what feels like a really good spot for my vote, that Wilgy will be my fallback target today. In the absence of someone feeling bad, someone feeling deliberately unhelpful is the next best thing.

@Sloonei to respond to your post, when I said rabbit felt coasty, like I said, it wasn't an alignment read. I think some people may have a tendency to coast as a baddie early on, or as a civ, but I don't have a memory of rabbit coasting in any particular way, so it was something I noticed about him but didn't make me see him negatively.

Re: Kyle, I'm intrigued about how he reacted to seeing the lynch result when he came into the thread. I pressed him a bit on it to gauge his reactions, because it was a notable reaction:

hey okay. I put my vote on DFaraday as a placeholder and now he has 3 votes

It wasn't technically reading like he was a baddie who didn't like that people somehow took up his cause, I mean he had no cause to speak of. But it read like someone who was feeling an awareness of how his vote could come to be seen if his lynch vote became attached to the eventual lynchee. If this was a bigger game, with indies etc, I'd have a stronger feel that Kyle's reaction signalled a non-civ since I think non-civs tend to obsess over how their vote is viewed more than civs (others may disagree?). But with this smaller format, it doesn't feel as likely somehow. HOWEVER... if we down the road find out that DF flips bad, Kyle's comment would suddenly feel more like a baddie who placed an early vote on a teamie and now was reacting to what had happened. I'm not feeling that now, but if DF is bad, Kyle becomes a person of interest to me, instantly.

But... then the lynch happened.

Now, I'm not going to go into too much detail about this for, but we've got the results of the lynch to look at, we've got the role list and some ideas that I have about some things, and then we've got the immediate posts after the lynch result. I am trying to judge DF within the context of these things, and despite the word choices he made that I just covered above etc. I weigh all of this together and I'm not sure that a lynch of DF at this time is a good idea. I could be over analyzing things, and I won't discuss this stuff too much because I think it wouldn't help the cause,

But I'm left with the notion that DF NO U'd me as a response to my vote against him, but not that he's necessarily bad. He definitely could be, but in terms of his reaction to me, I note also that he hasn't really mentioned the other people who voted for him at all, only me, which again, feels like a NO U.

So overall, I'm back to neutral on DF at this time, but I'm not a "fan" of how he handled my case against him.

Okay, so I've got a bit of time, so let's cover some questions...

First, DF... you are making my head do this:



So, here is your post:

Timmer is, intentionally or not, misrepresenting my admittedly terrible case.

My point was specifically that Rabbit seemed to have a high post count and low on-topic content. I went back and looked, at the time I voted Rabbit had made about 15 posts, Wilgy had made 12 (and literally half of those were posted altogether as a meme reference), and I had made one. And about half the players in this game (myself included) have quite a bit of experience playing with Rabbit in the past. I certainly remember him as always being jokey and strange, but also making insightful observations and taking strong stances. He does seem to have been engaging more later in the day, to be fair.

If anything, Timmer seems to be taking an easy option here and setting up a quiet player who makes weak votes as an easy target.

Can we break this down? The goal of a mafia player is to find the thing that feels the most "off" or is the most "pingy" and then go after it with a vote and a case. I found DF's Rabbit vote weak and pingy, so I explained it as such and voted DF. DF, in his rebuttal, actually BEGINS by agreeing with me that what he was, in his own words, terrible. I mean, it's right there. He then tries to suggest that there is a difference between a rabbit with "about 15" posts that were low on on-topic content, and a Wilgy with 12. I'll note here that there is an interesting difference in his descriptions of the two. Wilgy "had made 12" Rabbit had made "about 15". Why is one a definite number, but the one that is most pertinent is a rough estimate? Are we trying to help things a touch to make a point seem stronger? Or is this nothing? But the greater point here is, what the heck is the difference between 12 jokey posts, and "roughly 15"? How is 15 a reasonable pick for a vote, but 12 not?

Why do I harp on this? Because DF's point here is that my case against him (that he seemed to arbitrarily pick one jokey player to vote for, and why that one and not the others, etc.) is, in his words, me "taking an easy option and setting up a quiet player as an easy target". Those are big, negative terms. Setting up a player is not innuendo, that's a description of a baddie. So DF is trying to say that I'm bad for voting him. Not just that my vote was wrong. But that he was potentially malicious, and his reason? Wilgy had 12 posts. Rabbit "about 15" so clearly, not only was my case wrong, but it was setting DF up.
"
Y'all can shout out with your opinions on this, but I'm really not a fan of what seems to have boiled down to "NO U", imo. That DF tried to attach evil intent to my case feels very different from just suggesting that my case was wrong.

HOWEVER! Part 2 coming.

also other game is at a more critical junction

Sloon I'll get to all that tomorrow I'm drunk and sad.

DFaraday wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:34 pm Voting Timmer for now. He hasn't addressed my points against him from earlier.

What points were those? Where you didn't like that I voted for you?

I think I'd like to hear the answer to that, as well. Lynch votes that don't mesh with what people posted, especially when the lynch is close, are VERY interesting...

Kylemii wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:49 am

Kylemii wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:49 am

timmer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:46 am Rip nova.

So im feeling better about faraday atm, no immediate replacement ping. I'll be around here and there for the next 24 hours with more activity after the Patriots win the Super Bowl!

what is an "immediate replacement ping"

nevermind i figured it out

K good lol

Rip nova.

So im feeling better about faraday atm, no immediate replacement ping. I'll be around here and there for the next 24 hours with more activity after the Patriots win the Super Bowl!

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:40 pm @timmer what is your read on rabbit?

He coasted thru day 1. He was basically a less jokey Wilgy. No alignment feel on that, though.

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:39 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:17 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:05 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:03 pm The discussion astound rabbit is been mostly that he hasn't played in forever. Even long con who had played with rabbit more then almost anyone admitted that it had been awhile and he's not sure of rabbits norm.

Discussion of a potential meta is different than discussion of any established meta imo

this does nothing to explain why you think DF is suspicious

Of course it does? If he voted for any other lesser contributor the odds of his vote being weighed against known meta would be higher. On day 1, avoiding that kind of thing is a ping for me.

Oh... I guess I understand now. But looking at his post I don't agree. His reasoning for voting rabbit makes sense.

Don't agree, I can deal with

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:05 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:03 pm The discussion astound rabbit is been mostly that he hasn't played in forever. Even long con who had played with rabbit more then almost anyone admitted that it had been awhile and he's not sure of rabbits norm.

Discussion of a potential meta is different than discussion of any established meta imo

this does nothing to explain why you think DF is suspicious

Of course it does? If he voted for any other lesser contributor the odds of his vote being weighed against known meta would be higher. On day 1, avoiding that kind of thing is a ping for me.

The discussion astound rabbit is been mostly that he hasn't played in forever. Even long con who had played with rabbit more then almost anyone admitted that it had been awhile and he's not sure of rabbits norm.

Discussion of a potential meta is different than discussion of any established meta imo

I voted for faraway because there are ample players being quiet and or hiding behind jokey meta and he arbitrarily voted for the one quiet player whose meta is unknown and can't be discussed. It felt too easy and calculated. It's not much but it's what pinged me.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:50 pm though with that said, I am absolutely not breaking a 6 way tie.

You've seemed really concerned with how your vote will be viewed... that said, its day 1 and I kind of understand.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:27 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:21 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:17 pm hey okay. I put my vote on DFaraday as a placeholder and now he has 3 votes

Why does that bother you?

because I specifically put my vote on a player who was off the beaten path to take my vote off sofi and now suddenly he's is in contention for being lynched, despite having never been a subject of discussion.

These things can happen. Who will you move your vote to?

Kyle, what do YOU think of me and Faraday?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:17 pm hey okay. I put my vote on DFaraday as a placeholder and now he has 3 votes

Why does that bother you?

I'm going to put my vote on DFaraday.

I agree with his briefest of points about rabbit, that he hasn't contributed much, but then again, neither has Wilgy (all jokes), neither has DF himself ( posts), or novaselinenever (barely here), neither have I, really. In a game full of quiet players, singling one out who doesn't have an established meta while others with established metas run rampant with jokes etc and you give them a pass just feels cheap and like something a mafia would do. Why tangle with a meta people know when you can vote the new guy?

Did you know that if you click on Kyle's ISO link on the front page, it takes you to Wilgy's posts, instead? It's like the game is trying to tell me something....

Is Maphiers the new scum?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:21 am

timmer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:55 pm Okay, so how have Day 1's been going around here these days? I see a lot of people either seeming to establish a meta (I'm going to do THIS this game") or reinforcing what seems to be their perceived norm (Sloonei "hi, I post a lot and ask a lot of questions") etc.

How does this meta-market typically end up? I guess I'm just struggling to find an entry point into the conversations.

My self-analysis was just an attempt to break the ice with rabbit, who wasn't giving me anything to work with. In fact, he still hasn't. He came in, made a bunch of nothing posts, then bailed. I want to see reads or some attempt to play the game out of him soon.

But uh, the meta stuff happens when new folks are around. I know I like to not be left in the dark when it comes to new players, hence my asking the two new faces (to me, at least) about their mafia experience early in the game.
You can enter the conversation right here! Do any players stand out to you one way or the other so far?

Yeah, I wonder if he's feeling a bit like I am? (Am i right that this is rabbit's first foray back in a long time?) I remember rabbit being someone who could post a lot or a little but no specific feature that would help you with his current output.

As for the rest, not really. I'm mostly just observing for now. I've always been pretty useless on Day 1, but once I get my hands on lynch polls I can correlate data wit the best of them.

I'd say the votes on LC seemed a bit easy, but then so did LC's own vote, it's typical Day 1 stuff. I'll mostly be watching for people making too much of a mountain out of a day 1 molehill, that's generally what constitutes my early pings.

And for those whoo may not know me, or don't remember, I have a truly poor memory, so I can't really help/retain info about anyone's norm, so you'll have to forgive if I ask a lot of questions about things that maybe many of you know intuitively!

Okay, so how have Day 1's been going around here these days? I see a lot of people either seeming to establish a meta (I'm going to do THIS this game") or reinforcing what seems to be their perceived norm (Sloonei "hi, I post a lot and ask a lot of questions") etc.

How does this meta-market typically end up? I guess I'm just struggling to find an entry point into the conversations.

Did a read through. Not much stands out mostly becauseIve lost touch with peoples usual m.o. Not a fan of Long Cons posts but the attention he's getting feels a bit easy. Holding my vote for now.

Yay!

Sloonei wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:54 am

timmer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:53 am

Sloonei wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:51 am

timmer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:49 am

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:48 am (This is a thing that I'm doing.)

what're you ing about?

Trying out the "thing"

Do you have an opinion of Jack thinging?

I don't know Jack. *distant rimshot*

Sloonei wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:51 am

timmer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:49 am

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:48 am (This is a thing that I'm doing.)

what're you ing about?

Trying out the "thing"

Jack, have we been in a game before? I'm rusty as hell, I feel like... no?

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:48 am (This is a thing that I'm doing.)

Oh hai.