The Syndicate

And thanks much for hosting, MM!

I kind of had a feeling Rox was bad once I died but even if I had lived I'm not sure how I would have expounded on it.

Well, this was fun! Sorry splints, guess we were wrong!

thellama73 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Also I think i would prefer to have had the linkitis feature. It took me longer to scroll back up and figure out where I had left off then it would have to reviewed what was posted quick.

Agreed.

Made wrote:personally, I prefer scrolling up to being stuck in linki hell, but that's just me.

Duly noted.

zeek wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, ignore that. Apparently I'm dead.

Get the hell out of here, you lousy corpse!

Touche.

S~V~S wrote:MP, didn't you vote for her too?

No, here's the difference.

She voted for me because she disagrees with me and thinks I'm worthy of a vote because of that disagreement.

I voted for her because I can't fathom why a civvie would believe that disagreeing over something like that indicates alignment.

I did NOT vote for her because I disagree with her. I may think she's wrong but that fact alone does not mean she's bad.

Roxy wrote:MP - potay5oe pahtatoe you both did the same thing
How can she be guilty but not you? Makes no sense

Are you kidding me right now?

I was willing to let her believe what she wants. She was not. She voted me to be bad because of it.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: 1) I have had an experience with low posters and randomizing such that I firmly believe occurrences of players being heavily suspected or voted for over early game low poster voting occurs more often enough than players being heavily suspected or voted for over randomizing that I firmly believe declaring the intent of the former is less suspicious, in general, than the latter.

That sentence is one of the least comprehensible things I've ever tried to read. And I've read Hegel.

Yes, sorry, I know it's structured terribly. I was in a rush to get my thoughts out and I'm not composing an essay.

S~V~S wrote:Green ftw

Of course we'd disagree. Blue is my favorite color.

Roxy wrote:I am not down for lynching splints - sorry.

I am not necessarily for D2 either. I saw nothing else that warranted my attention more than her behavior on D1.

Still plenty of time for things to happen.

I find it notable (but not necessarily suspicious) that you're willing to defend her with that level of confidence at this time.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't know why people are saying I seem snarky. I'm not intending it, so sorry. I'm just trying to play the game. I can't fathom why splints thinks I'm worthy of a vote just because we disagree over something. Obviously we've had different experiences. And obviously I believe I'm right or else I wouldn't feel the way I do about low posters and randomizers, and obviously she feels the same.

I would have never voted for her for believing that, but I voted for her for thinking that somehow it makes me bad in this game right here.

You could have just said "no u" and saved yourself a lot of time. Right? Essentially you suspected me for suspecting you.

RIP Made.

No, I did not just suspect you for suspecting me.

I suspect you for having NO game-related reason to suspect me.

I'm more fine with people suspecting me, even if it is incorrect, so long as seems genuine and misguided and is actually based on my behavior. Not on whether someone disagrees with me on a fundamental issue about mafia in general.

I did have a game related reason to suspect you. Just because you are refusing to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isnt there

That's just not true.

1) I have had an experience with low posters and randomizing such that I firmly believe occurrences of players being heavily suspected or voted for over early game low poster voting occurs more often enough than players being heavily suspected or voted for over randomizing that I firmly believe declaring the intent of the former is less suspicious, in general, than the latter.

2) You disagree.

Please explain to me how this relates to THIS GAME specifically. Because it does not. It relates to different beliefs regarding what has occurred during past games that lend to different belief systems.

So essentially you voted for me because you've had a different experience than me which lends you to believe something.

It's not any different than you voting me because I'm Republican and you're Democrat (which isn't true, I hate both parties, and I don't intend to get political, it's just an example). Or because I think blue is better than green and you think green is better.

fingersplints wrote:I'm going back to my show. I'll still be around some but not like the first hour. I've had a really bad day and this is really a whole lot of drama I don't feel like dealing with. see you in a little while

How is this drama? I don't understand.

Anyway, sorry you had a bad day, and I already apologized since apparently at least one person thinks I seem snarky, but you're reading something into my tone that isn't there.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:One could argue that one of those votes was a save of splints.

Ok. so I am lynched day 2. I flip civvie. And then you will be lynched next and we may finally get a baddie. Well not me, I'd be dead.

So you still think I'm bad, do you?

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't know why people are saying I seem snarky. I'm not intending it, so sorry. I'm just trying to play the game. I can't fathom why splints thinks I'm worthy of a vote just because we disagree over something. Obviously we've had different experiences. And obviously I believe I'm right or else I wouldn't feel the way I do about low posters and randomizers, and obviously she feels the same.

I would have never voted for her for believing that, but I voted for her for thinking that somehow it makes me bad in this game right here.

You could have just said "no u" and saved yourself a lot of time. Right? Essentially you suspected me for suspecting you.

RIP Made.

No, I did not just suspect you for suspecting me.

I suspect you for having NO game-related reason to suspect me.

I'm more fine with people suspecting me, even if it is incorrect, so long as seems genuine and misguided and is actually based on my behavior. Not on whether someone disagrees with me on a fundamental issue about mafia in general.

One could argue that one of those votes was a save of splints.

Well, that sucks. RIP Made.

Well, I'm not sure how I feel about Made flipping. Hope you guys are right.

I don't know why people are saying I seem snarky. I'm not intending it, so sorry. I'm just trying to play the game. I can't fathom why splints thinks I'm worthy of a vote just because we disagree over something. Obviously we've had different experiences. And obviously I believe I'm right or else I wouldn't feel the way I do about low posters and randomizers, and obviously she feels the same.

I would have never voted for her for believing that, but I voted for her for thinking that somehow it makes me bad in this game right here.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Whatever. I'm voting MP.

He continues to push that his belief is better then mine because its off this site alone that hasn't been around that long. I'm basing my beliefs off of what I know, not what he thinks is true.

I'm voting splints.

Of course my belief is better than yours, IMO, that's why I believe it. You trying to push me as bad because I disagree with you on randomizing is absolutely ridiculous.

"I'm basing my beliefs off of what I know, not what he thinks is true"?

Am I not doing the same thing?

Hypocritical. I think she had to find someone to vote for and knows how easy I am to get lynched.

You're belief is better than mine? seriously?

LOL, isn't that the very definition of why someone believes one set of explanations for a phenomenon over another? Because they believe it to be a more accurate description of reality, and therefore better?

For example, one chooses a certain religion over all of the others because one believes it is the best explanation that one is seeking.

thellama73 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Nine minutes to vote. Observations.
Alex is being Alex.
Rob is being quiet.
Juliets is being blendy (which is typical of her.)
Fingerslints is being confrontational (could be civ on civ, but makes me wonder.)
SVS is being slightly subdued.

I'm being confrontational because I'm just being told point blank that I am wrong and its rubbing me seriously the wrong way

Part of it is because that is the way Alex is. Part of it is because you are wrong.

I'm being aggressive because I believe it finds baddies.

I'm not trying to rub anyone the wrong way personally. It's just a game.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I've seen game after game when no player ever gets called out for a random vote on D1. I however have seen multiple games on this site ALONE where someone who dares speak of low poster voting on D1 gets bandwagoned. I therefore hold a belief that intent to vote a randomizer is more suspicious than intent to vote a low poster.

Splints disagrees with me.

She thinks I'm bad.

Makes sense, right?

Quite often that bandwagon follows on Day Two when a quiet civ was lynched on Day One, though, is that not true? I think voting low posters is lazy, and doing the baddies job for them. So I always think it is bad. Although i try to grit my teeth when Llama does it becasue he always does it.

We disagree, I don't think that's true.

Does that make me bad though? In this game?

fingersplints wrote:Whatever. I'm voting MP.

He continues to push that his belief is better then mine because its off this site alone that hasn't been around that long. I'm basing my beliefs off of what I know, not what he thinks is true.

I'm voting splints.

Of course my belief is better than yours, IMO, that's why I believe it. You trying to push me as bad because I disagree with you on randomizing is absolutely ridiculous.

"I'm basing my beliefs off of what I know, not what he thinks is true"?

Am I not doing the same thing?

Hypocritical. I think she had to find someone to vote for and knows how easy I am to get lynched.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Explain to me how that's not just "disagreeing" with me then.

Because I disagree, but there is still the initial issue at hand. You thinking that someone is more suspicious for posting in advance that they want to randomize over multiple people who posted they would lynch a low poster. Then you said "well lama has gotten lynched for that" but ignored that it was MULTIPLE people not just llama who suggested the low poster thing, so your empirical data doesn't even apply since its about one person not the many in question.

How does it not apply? That's your opinion. Of course it applies. It's MY belief system.

Disagree all you want.

LMAO, Llama, that was great.

You of all people should know though that I don't agree with Friedman's positivism. :P

I've seen game after game when no player ever gets called out for a random vote on D1. I however have seen multiple games on this site ALONE where someone who dares speak of low poster voting on D1 gets bandwagoned. I therefore hold a belief that intent to vote a randomizer is more suspicious than intent to vote a low poster.

Splints disagrees with me.

She thinks I'm bad.

Makes sense, right?

You are wrong, but you're entitled to be wrong all you want.

Explain to me how that's not just "disagreeing" with me then.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Let the record show that splints is intending to vote me because she disagrees with me, not because anything I'm doing is actually suspicious.

Carry on.

Maybe should stop posting things like they are fact when they aren't true?

You have expressed that you have a different empirical data set than I do.

Nonetheless, I still believe my assessment to be true.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Fingersplints, are you just pushing Alex for consistency, or are you thinking about voting me based on what I said?

No. I'm not thinking about voting you at this point. I am thinking abut voting MP for pretending like my idea is false even though I have reason to believe it isn't too. I myself have gotten lynched early for randomizing. I have never gotten lynched for voting a low poster.

How does my belief system make me bad?

Your refusing to see other sides of it makes you suspicious to me.

Oh, the irony.

I even said you're entitled to your belief, did I not?

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:what is your ping llama?

Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.

So in 10 minutes everyone will rush to vote in a bandwagon? You are trying to provoke a bandwagon?

No, I don't want a bandwagon. I want people to come to their own conclusions, which is why I'm not revealing my ping yet.

Well, with no one really having much to go on, coming out with a ping might provoke a bandwagon. I think you should just say it, but by the time I am finished typing, you will have said it i am sure

Okay, since my ping has cased to be a ping in the intervening hustle, I will say it.

It was Alex.

I no longer think he is bad though. His whole "we should look at people acting normal" thing and aggressive jump on Roxy pinged me, but then I realized that he is being exactly like himself, which, according to his own theory, means I should vote for him!

I'm not going to though.

You misrepresent me.

I did not say someone acting like him or herself is bad.

I said someone trying too hard to act like him or herself, while not appearing to genuinely contribute, lends one's self to being bad.

Let the record show that splints is intending to vote me because she disagrees with me, not because anything I'm doing is actually suspicious.

Carry on.

fingersplints wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Fingersplints, are you just pushing Alex for consistency, or are you thinking about voting me based on what I said?

No. I'm not thinking about voting you at this point. I am thinking abut voting MP for pretending like my idea is false even though I have reason to believe it isn't too. I myself have gotten lynched early for randomizing. I have never gotten lynched for voting a low poster.

How does my belief system make me bad?

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:what is your ping llama?

Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.

So in 10 minutes everyone will rush to vote in a bandwagon? You are trying to provoke a bandwagon?

No, I don't want a bandwagon. I want people to come to their own conclusions, which is why I'm not revealing my ping yet.

Well, with no one really having much to go on, coming out with a ping might provoke a bandwagon. I think you should just say it, but by the time I am finished typing, you will have said it i am sure

I have a few I'm eyeballing, trying to make up my mind.

Made wrote:Strategic thoughts for civvies. While this is definitely still forum mafia, It's going to be difficult to keep up with thread as well as rereading post to develop theories, So keep that in mind. In that sense anyways, this game will probably be more like party mafia than traditional forum.

What's the point of this post?

juliets, what are you thinking?

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.

Why are you pretending like this game is a normal mafia game anyways? It clearly isn't. So because people didn't use it as an excuse to vote someone after 4 RL days they might in a game where they only have an hour to find suspicions

I'm not pretending this game is like a normal game, anywhere.

We were arguing about whether intent to randomize or intent to vote low poster was more suspicious. I provided you empirical evidence stating why I believe what I do.

I don't like how subdued Epig is being.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Splints, re: Boogs, an intent to vote someone is not an actual vote.

Llama has voted low posters on D1 and gotten eyed heavily for it. So have I, even, though I don't do that nearly as often because I almost always find a better reason on D1.

Rox didn't randomize either though she said she might.
So, the intent there is suspicious but not the intent to vote a low poster. Right

Rox is known for randomizing.

She stated a probable intent 45 minutes before the deadline, not knowing what would happen in those 45 minutes.

Therefore, it could be argued that she is trying too hard to fit into a preconceived notion about her behavior. The same could be said about Llama.

Where have I stated that I am going to vote Rox?

I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.

Roxy wrote:

fingersplints wrote:I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

having hosted a lot I know this to be true as well - MP search your heart you know this to be true

When the game is over halfway complete? Yes.

On D1? Never.

Splints, re: Boogs, an intent to vote someone is not an actual vote.

Llama has voted low posters on D1 and gotten eyed heavily for it. So have I, even, though I don't do that nearly as often because I almost always find a better reason on D1.

fingersplints wrote:I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

I already told you: this has happened several times on this site, with Llama typically being the victim.

Tell me this, splints:

When has a randomizer ever been held truly responsible for their vote?

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So let's think about this.

Given people's responses, apparently it is more suspicious for one to change up one's own playstyle from game to game than it is to not, regardless of whether the circumstances were different (in this case, this type of game is very different from a full mafia game).

Therefore, it would be more logical for a baddie to try to confine oneself to one's usual playing style.

Consequently, I will look for players trying to seem too hard to appear like their normal playstyle without genuinely contributing.

You mean like, getting lynched on Day 1 for you?

That's not playstyle.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"

Not true, you're wrong.

That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.

A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".

I don't think it's not true and I do not think I am wrong.

I can assure you that Llama getting lynched for gunning after low posters on multiple occasions proves you wrong, but you're entitled to your beliefs.

Made wrote:But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?

It encourages discussion. Discussion, aka more posting, gives more time for baddies to "slip up", as Logan pointed out.

So no.

Conversely, if no one says anything, there's no way to uncover any evidence.

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"

Not true, you're wrong.

That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.

A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".

For the record, I did not say I am voting Rox. There is still a half hour.

But I stand by my assessment.

fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

zeek wrote:Just going to bed and what do I see? My bloody name.

Announcement: Britain is declaring war on newts.

Get the hell out of here you lousy Brit.