The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:
Finally, the easter egg was that if someone ever cast the second, third and seventh votes (room 237) in consecutive polls, they would have received a rez they could use on anyone. No one even got close, though.

That is genius.

Llama, this was truly an excellent outing for your first game! I was glad to be a part of it.

thellama73 wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:Vomps and I had to get Stephen King to NK the Overlook to "burn it down," once he was dead we were able to search for Lloyd and join her team. We searched everyone but Mongoose and Snow, and then Mongoose went and led the charge against us. We just tried to lynch people we knew weren't Lloyd hence the hasty argument to lynch Kate. Also, the calling out of time at the last 10 minutes I totally didn't get until after the lynch, but figured out what Kate was saying.

You had two insanity points at the end and would have joined Lloyd's team the next day, causing Mongoose and MP (and yourself) to win. The fact that Mongoose got you lynched was most unfortunate for all involved.

This is a bummer! I was rooting for Mongoose from beyond the grave!

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote: but for now, please [...] be Gene Shalit.

That is no less annoying now that the game's over.

By the way, I will make winners' badges tomorrow. Today I am tired.

Okay I'll stop now.

Seriously, I think it's hilarious that MP led the charge to get me lynched (and much less so that I tried to get him lynched). You must have been laughing your tail off from behind the scenes, Logan!

Since I didn't get to participate much, what was the purpose of the insanity points? How did that work out?

This was a huge bummer. We just had to go after each other, didn't we?

When I saw which role you flipped, I was like SHIT.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I'm gonna go with crazy lady because apparently that's what's in there. Having not seen or read The Shining it could actually be a room full of cakes and ice cream for all I know

You found the easter egg!

I... did? Awesome!

No, just kidding.

Well, I won't have time at lunch after all, so I literally only have like a minute.

Snow Dog wrote:I think the risk of no one voting is not good. I strongly believe a random person will be lynched and that suits nobody. I seemed to have touched a nerve with you MP. I don't know the diffference between dead and a role being "gone". However you look at it, it comes to the same thing.

You strongly believe a random person will be lynched and yet you don't want to vote?

You have not "touched a nerve"; you seem to ignore the fact that I've been posting about all of this discussion for quite some time now, during which time you said nothing in response to me, and now all of a sudden you're attempting to subtly push things in my direction. It irritates me that I know now I'm likely to be lynched today because I'm actually attempting to come out and have a discussion with everyone, and I am very strongly beginning to suspect there is at least one individual (probably more) sitting back and dropping off the radar OR lying and going along with what you and S~V~S have been saying.

I don't know the difference either; I explained this EARLIER. It's something to the effect of immobolization, and since I'm unaware of any such state, I do believe there are evil roles this game that do NOT actively NK that need to be gone. If your win condition is different, good for you. I've already discussed this. That would make you an independent-esque role. Mine is not.

It seems this'll be my last post in this game, likely, because I can sense that I'm pre-emptively being railroaded. All I want for people to realize is that I seriously doubt every single role left alive has a condition where no one else needs to be dead. Someone is lying.

I'm voting for Snow Dog for his apparent contradictions. I think a lynch in his direction would be very illuminating. I'm hesitant to vote anyone, but it had to be someone, as my win conditions align with those of what you could call a typical civvie, and I don't put trust in testing out the no-vote scenario (and it would be incompatible with my condition).

I think Kate might be lying as well. Call it a gut feeling. Mongoose or Vompatti could likely be the bartender or someone else as well. Not sure about any of this, but thought I would throw out my thoughts just in case they are my last.

With that, I'm not voting... and waiting to see what happens. I'm not even sure I will vote, but it seems illogical for me to allow a no-vote lynch, considering I have to win my condition somehow. That being said, I might consider it.

Besides, you or anyone else very well could be lying, and if you are, then props to you, because it's appeared to give you the benefit of no one else's attention! Clearly a better "baddie" strategy than mine, especially given that mine isn't.

Now I still have no clue which role you are, but your sudden aggressiveness towards me when I've been saying this stuff for a while now bothers me, especially when this is literally the last chance I'll have to post anything unless I pop in here during lunch.

Snow Dog wrote:Well it seems to me that myself and S~V~S have win conditions that do not need another lynch. MP you seem to be claiming you DO need deaths to win. That makes you the enemy of those certain people and as far as I know me myself.
I'll go further and say that I think you are one of these "bad" characters that you say should be lynched. Either the bartender, the twins or that other guy...the waiter or whatever he is.

Right... because the very fact that I've come out and said everything I have makes total sense if I were the bartender (someone who clearly seems to be giving other people 'drinks') or if I was either of those other roles. Because being totally honest about my win condition and attempting to get others to discuss so that we can all collaborate and sift through those who are lying makes total sense if I am baddie -- instead of dropping off the radar and refusing to discuss.

I've said multiple times my condition doesn't even say the word "dead". However, based on what I've seen and what I am interpreting, I need certain bad roles to be "gone", and I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that I believe the only way to do that might be to lynch them.

So you think I'm bad and you call out no one else? How convenient. Any thoughts on anyone else, by the way?

No in-game discussion since I last looked?

Come on, other people, especially those who haven't posted in a while, must have something to say!

S~V~S wrote:
Well, I intend to take a wait and see attitude. See who pushes to kill, and who does not. I would be willing to try a non lynch, but then there is the possibility of a random factor.

And yeah, I have to be alive at the end as well.

MP, I named no names since I want to see what develops. I think I have been fairly obvious, but maybe not. I will say that some folks have quieted down somewhat since we have had no NKs and have had talk of win conditions. I will say that for me, you are "Third", MP. Based on your posts, and the fact that you seem pretty sane to me, I want to trust you. But your violent win cons make me nervous, as the remnants of the baddie team that never formed may have violent win conditions, or if not, perhaps your conditions conflict with mine~ perhaps the person you need dead is the person I need alive. And, of course, others can be lying about their conditions. As could i, really.

BUT some people who seem fairly violent to me seem to be pushing a suspicion of you, and it is possible for one role i can think of to require people to be dead in a totally non-evil-qhost way. I think we got pretty lucky losing both Stephen King & Jack as early as we did.

So

I just want to live, and I want everyone else to live, too

I understand, I figured as much. I did note as well that a few people have gotten more quiet and refuse to discuss since the no NKs and the win conditions discussions started.

I know it's a game of mafia and trusting should be taken with a grain of salt, I want to trust you as well, and I THINK I can. I've been played by you pretty hard before, so I'm naturally hesitant, but I don't think you're playing an evil game here, and I don't think you're one of the roles that I need to be out of the picture.

My win con isn't exactly overtly violent or anything, but it does seem to strongly indicate that I do need some seemingly bad roles gone, and it does seem to contrast heavily with yours and a few others that have been stated as pacificist-esque at this point (assuming you and others are telling the truth). Good point, you or anyone else could be lying, but it's why I wanted to have all of this discussion in the thread. You cannot possibly even begin to figure out who to believe about anything or how to win this game until discussion starts rolling.

I definitely think there are some roles with truly violent win conditions alive, the ones that are the antithesis to mine (like I said, I like to think of mine as civvie-minded, in that I need the "baddie"-minded roles gone, whereas yours seems to be more independent-esque in nature by being pacificst, if that makes sense).

I do think we got lucky getting rid of those two roles, but I'm convinced that we need to have at least some sort of death to continue from here -- or at least I do. And I'm willing to extend a hand of quasi-trust to you for the time being because I don't think that's you.

I will try and re-read some things here before I go to bed and sleep on it. I suppose I can vote (if necessary) during lunch at work tomorrow.

S~V~S wrote:I guess I think there may be some somewhat malicious roles still out there, but i don;t think they can kill, I think Jack was scheduled to be the other killer. My guess is they may want the rest of us dead to meet THEIR win cons. If this was a more traditional game without finite time limits, I would think those of us with non violent win cons would NEED to make those who need us dead, dead themselves. But all I need to do is evade being lynched by them for three more time periods.

If a kill DOES happen, though, that will have to change. But if it does not, I think that if I, and those like me with non violent win conditions, only have to make our non aggression clear, and keep an eye on those who keep trying to promote suspicion based lynches, we may be OK. I intend on saving my vote and either not voting, or using it to save myself or someone I feel may have "SVS Friendly" win conditions.

There are two people I feel pretty good about, potentially a third, and although this person has been pushing the suspicion envelope, ANOTHER person whom I do not trust AT ALL has been pushing suspicion on my potential third, which makes me feel better about Third, if that makes sense

I feel not good about one (as said above) and am on the fence about the rest.

I don't think there's another kill either, but I guess we'll see if anything else develops from hereon forward. Definitely good to see no death.

While I completely understand and appreciate your thoughts here, I am personally in a somewhat different boat, so I'm still contemplating voting for someone. The problem is I really don't want to lynch the wrong person, so I am cautious.

I presume you avoided using player names on your trust and suspicion list for a reason?

Hold on, I lost something there... there absolutely have to be players currently alive for me that need to be DEAD for me to win. Okay, now out of here.

Well, I gotta go. Be back at some point tomorrow when I find some time. I do think I need to take a good hard look at the roles again because I do think there absolutely have to be players currently alive for me (and likely others as well) to win. I am very curious if anyone else has thoughts about what Snow Dog and S~V~S have seemed to indicate.

Kate wrote:In the movie drinking with the bartender made jack pretty insane.

What are you implying here, anything?

Jack is dead, so I don't think we have to worry about him going insane. You think anyone who drinks from the Bartender might become compromised or something?

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

I know that when I host -- if there are no votes for anyone, someone still has to die, and thus I randomize among everyone. Maybe it's different here though.

i guess thats an individual host thing; the players decide if someone has to die. Sometimes no one dies. That is up to the players, not up to me. And i certainly would never randomize a lynch if there are zero votes. No one *has* to die.

Has that ever happened in one of your games?

Also, did I get you right before, people need to die for you to meet your win conditions?

Yeah, true. Seems by Llama's response that I guess we won't find out unless we try it.

It has, technically, only once. In Avant 2, The Truth ended the day early without putting a vote on anyone first, and I randomized among all the living players. Out of irony, his name come up, so I killed him off.

Yes, in a roundabout way. I THINK there are certain roles in the bottom half of the role listing that need to be dead for me to actually win here. I know that sounds weird that I don't know, but I at least need them to be immobilized, or something to that effect, and I'm not aware of anyone else's power that does something like that. My condition does not specifically say anything about needing anyone "dead", however, so maybe there's something I don't know about.

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

I know that when I host -- if there are no votes for anyone, someone still has to die, and thus I randomize among everyone. Maybe it's different here though.

Snow Dog wrote:^My guess is a random lynch. Just like you said.

Yeah, seems most logical, but I figured I'd ask. He may not answer, but maybe he will.

S~V~S wrote:I mean based on what is happening in the thread, i have reconsidered baddie hunting as being my primary objective in this game, my role is not one anyone else has named as one people might consider to be baddies. My win conditions have not changed~ just my interpretation of the thread and the game. Normally, I play for the sake of the game, and winning is a secondary thing for me. In this game, i think they are the same; with differeing win conditions, the game each of us plays may be different, and judging it based on standard games would be pointless.

So you need people to be dead in order to win?

Interesting, OK. I appreciate your contribution.

Yes, I do, but it closely mirrors what you could probably consider to be a 'typical' civvie win condition, if that makes sense.

S~V~S wrote:Well, MP, having reassessed this game, i think perhaps they could be bad news for someone else, but not for me, or that they could have been (Grady still worries me, tbh). With Stephen King dead, and with Jack also dead (who i really think was set to become a potential second killer) I don't know that there is anyone left killing at night. If there isn't any night killer, then I am willing to not show aggression towards others, having said that I don't need any of them dead. I am willing to give up my night power as well, in order to do so.

If people try to lynch me, then i will have to reassess this stand. But as of right now, I see no reason to get up in anyones face. My conditions require certain others being ALIVE, and does not require anyone being dead. Since I don't know who has the roles I need alive, I would be just as happy killing no one.

Does your role require people to be dead?

Linki @ Snow Dog~ maybe it also means I was role blocked, role checked or something like that. The role says "secret". So we don;t know, which is why I asked if it had happened to anyone else.

Having reassessed? Are you implying your win conditions have changed or do I misunderstand you there?

Mine does, yes.

I have a question. Llama, if no one voted during the day, would there still be a lynch or would no one die?

S~V~S wrote:Did you read my post?

I had no choice. the host TOLD ME I drank it.

Oh, I missed that, sorry. I must have misread it.

Interesting that you weren't made aware of anything. I'm not sure what drinking something alcoholic would even do... except maybe make someone "drunk".

What say you regarding my other question though? I thought you said those particular roles earlier were bad news... yet your role's win condition seems to contradict that.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

Ok...I have the same conditions. I'm glad you understand what I was doing now. My NM is not something I care much about either. So I may vote...I May not. I won't vote for you if you prefer not.

How do I know neither of you are lying?

Does anyone else have a win condition similar to this?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

I can understand that.

However, didn't you previously agree with the assessment that the Gradys and maybe the Bartender were bad news?

Are they though? What evidence do you have? I am not so sure. I concede you may be right though. They may have a bad influence, whilst not being actually bad.

I don't have any evidence; it's all supposition. I honestly don't know, but I have my doubts they are good. I do know that my win conditions are relatively similar to a typical civvie's, if that makes sense, so I personally think they are bad news.

Ok. I don't mind them dead. And maybe their win conditions are both to survive?

I would imagine so. I don't know the movie or book well at all though... anyone have any ideas what the Grady twins, Delbert, and/or the Bartender's conditions might be?

S~V~S mentioned a drink... that has to have something to do with the Bartender's condition. I find it odd she would choose to drink it given it is generally agreed the Bartender is probably bad news. What could his condition be?

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

Ok...I have the same conditions. I'm glad you understand what I was doing now. My NM is not something I care much about either. So I may vote...I May not. I won't vote for you if you prefer not.

How do I know neither of you are lying?

Does anyone else have a win condition similar to this?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

I can understand that.

However, didn't you previously agree with the assessment that the Gradys and maybe the Bartender were bad news?

Are they though? What evidence do you have? I am not so sure. I concede you may be right though. They may have a bad influence, whilst not being actually bad.

I don't have any evidence; it's all supposition. I honestly don't know, but I have my doubts they are good. I do know that my win conditions are relatively similar to a typical civvie's, if that makes sense, so I personally think they are bad news.

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

I can understand that.

However, didn't you previously agree with the assessment that the Gradys and maybe the Bartender were bad news?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:I definitely do not have btsc Alex. Hence my recent post that Bullz understood the meaning of.

I'm not sure about you; I could foresee a scenario where you do or where you do not have BTSC. I honestly have no clue. Lol.

What are your current thoughts?

My best bet is to see what happens. My win conditions are specific. They do not include the harm or death of anyone. I literally do not want to lynch anyone. But will do so because if I don't it seems odd to you and other people. This is an odd game though. A Llama game. Why expect normality?

I'm willing to consider that perhaps I was too hard on you, but at the same time, it very much appears that if many of us refused to vote, then anyone who has a win condition by which other individuals need to be dead can just as easily vote. Also, in most mafia games I've played, even if all players have 0 votes, someone still has to die and it is thus randomly determined.

Snow Dog wrote:I definitely do not have btsc Alex. Hence my recent post that Bullz understood the meaning of.

I'm not sure about you; I could foresee a scenario where you do or where you do not have BTSC. I honestly have no clue. Lol.

What are your current thoughts?

I have no idea about any of these drinks... but I do live in Kentucky, so I suppose I am going with bourbon.

RIP (it seems) Nev. I don't get why you wanted the votes, but I suppose we'll find out after the game is over. I do agree with what he said regarding NOT spreading the vote completely, since that would allow for easy manipulation for someone to off someone else. However, the question with this is how do people uncover what other players' roles are? I mean, there are educated guesses, but I feel that's especially difficult to try and suppose this game. It's almost just a giant guessing game. But I suppose all mafia games are inevitably like that.

Vompatti wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:I noticed that in the last lynch MP was pushing for Snowy (who refused to vote) and now he votes early for Nevi (who voted for himself). Why is this, I wonder?

If you had read my posts, you'd know.

I hate self-voting.

Do you really have to vote for me consistently in every game we play together? It eventually gets old.

This time it's personal. [stern smile]

Also, if you hate self-voting, why did you reward Nevi for it with the vote he literally asked for?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:My theory is that:

1) both Snowy and Nevi had a (similar) reason for their strange votes/non-votes and
2) MP has guessed their roles based on those votes and knows he would benefit from having them lynched.

No. I hate self-voting.

Lol, I have no idea who anyone's roles are in this game, I am not that astute. There's way too much WIFOM in this game, in combination with win condition weirdness, so no, that's not the case.

You did have some interesting ideas a while ago:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm contemplating that Snow and Nev could possibly have BTSC and be the Grady twins. Would make sense, wouldn't it?

Do you still think it would make sense or have you changed your mind?

Good questions, Vomps. Let me answer these for you.

1. I do hate self-voting, but I do realize it's possible he could have benefited (and maybe still even did?) by dying or by those votes. However, I didn't want to get caught up in the WIFOM factor of guessing whether he was telling the truth or lying, but rather just decided to stick with my thoughts on self-voting and vote for him anyway. I realize it was a risk, but it bothered me that players could in theory self-vote this game and avoid other players looking at them out of fear. I personally leaned more towards him lying.

I still don't get why he wanted the votes now, even though we know his role, but whatever.

2. I did think it was still a possibility, but now that we know Nev wasn't a Grady twin, I guess not. I'll have to reassess this because it's evident that both Grady twins must still be alive, so there have to be two players with BTSC. Do you think anyone has seemed to fit this description? If I had to guess (guess being the key word) right about now, given that my Nev and Snow theory was incorrect (though I guess Snow could still be one of them, but IDK), I'd put money on Kate being one of them. She seems very different than BTSCless civvie Kate that I'm used to. However, that's a pure guess, and I really don't have anything else to back that up.

Not only that, but I've been very busy with Bioshock, and despite my often posting, haven't made a spreadsheet or any such thing this game.

Alright, I'll stop being an addict now, hopefully the day result is illuminating, at least.

S~V~S wrote:

Nevinera wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Linki SVS: Seems you and I are in the same boat. I have no interest in lynching anyone who doesn't want me out of the way to win.

I've changed my mind, we should lynch bullzeye and SVS. I have secret information that almost guarantees that their win condition involves eliminating several of us.

LOL, thats ridiculous. You have no such info becasue it isn't true, at least not about me. And Bullz isn't acting all that bloodthirsty as far as I can see. Like I said, my win conditions don't involve anyone being dead. Quite the opposite, actually. So either, A, you got false info, or B, you are making it up, and I am going to guess B.

Also, I would like to discuss drinks. I was served a drink last night, but was not told what, if anything, it did. Just that i was thirsty and drank it. Has that happened to anyone else?

Interesting. I have not been given any such drinks... I am not sure if it would be wise to do so.

Vompatti wrote:I noticed that in the last lynch MP was pushing for Snowy (who refused to vote) and now he votes early for Nevi (who voted for himself). Why is this, I wonder?

If you had read my posts, you'd know.

I hate self-voting.

Do you really have to vote for me consistently in every game we play together? It eventually gets old.

Vompatti wrote:My theory is that:

1) both Snowy and Nevi had a (similar) reason for their strange votes/non-votes and
2) MP has guessed their roles based on those votes and knows he would benefit from having them lynched.

No. I hate self-voting.

Lol, I have no idea who anyone's roles are in this game, I am not that astute. There's way too much WIFOM in this game, in combination with win condition weirdness, so no, that's not the case.

I am starting to wonder why you feel so hellbent on getting me lynched. Care to explain why either you view everything I do through blood-colored glasses or why you seem intent on manipulating everything I say into something sinister?

Well, I actually have internet! And a few minutes to spare.

Nevinera wrote:
Oh noes! You saw right through my clever stratagem. Me and snow are in cahoots; you should definitely kill him first though.
Cause lynching me is too dangerous. You've gotta believe me, we will all die :'(

Lol what

Hedgeowl wrote:
So I really have no idea how to read Nev right now, cause this seems blatantly like the exact opposite of what we should do. I am surprised your reasoning led you here MP, but I understand the total lack of good candidates. If Nev is being honest and his win condition is aided by us lynching him, why would we do that? As llama has pointed out there are no traditional baddie civvie roles. Yes King was the most traditional baddie in the open, but we have no idea how the game will change us all. Since I don't know Nev's win goal I am a little nervous to vote him. You make an interesting point about the twins MP, but if Nev is one I don't think Snow is the other. Will spend some time rereading, which thankfully in this game is still possible.

If he is being honest, then yes, it's a huge unfortunate risk. However, I'm calling out his bluff. First Snow tries to convince us that he wants to be lynched and now Nev? I don't think I buy it. Regardless, the behavior is hardly helpful in the least.

Crap. This is tough. Yet again I feel I'm in a similar situation.

Now I realize the win conditions and roles are weird here, but I just can't get past the self-voting. Any baddie can do this in any game, especially in a game where the setup is strange and take advantage of people being rationally cautious, and continually avoid getting lynched due to a balls-to-the-wall approach. I realize there's a theory about insanity, but Nev has been saying for multiple day periods now what he has been regarding his win condition. The truth is that he voted Snow on D1, offering that Snow vote him in return, and then now he's gone off and voted for himself.

I'm contemplating that Snow and Nev could possibly have BTSC and be the Grady twins. Would make sense, wouldn't it? Not sure of that at all though. Given it's difficult to sense anyone else's intentions, and even though there is a possibility Nev might actually benefit from votes, there is always technically a possibility for something like that in a game with secrets. I wasn't sure I bought it with Snow Dog and I'm not sure I buy it now. I know for sure my win condition is NOTHING like that, and I don't see any role other than maybe the hotel that would benefit from something like that. Why would Nev do this perhaps? Well, another possibility is that he sees Snow Dog has survived twice now and seems a bit smug, so maybe he sees that it's an effective strategy. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, it doesn't change the fact that self-voting literally gets the civvie cause no better (even what weirdly constitutes a "civvie" cause in this game is STILL a civvie cause, of sorts), and especially now that it's Day 3, I find it a ridiculous civvie or baddie move regardless.

Add that I don't really have any reads on players due to the unconventional nature so far of this game and I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for Vomps, Bullz, or even Snow right now (though I might consider him second), or anyone else for that matter.

So... I guess I am voting Nevinera. With some hesitation... but I believe it's my best option given what's happened so far this day period and the previous two.

I will be back at some point tomorrow evening, whenever I can grab some internet.

Looks like I'll have to be the first person to vote... I am leaving here by 10:00PM EST so it'll have to be before then. Lol. Not really feeling that great.

Honestly, call it insanity, but I'm contemplating throwing a vote at Nevinera, given his attitude regarding it. I just get the feeling we're being psyched out.

I could perhaps be convinced to throw a vote on Vomps or Bullz as well. Maybe. Not really sure at all.

I wonder... maybe I'll randomize.

I haven't seen anything that Snow said that tipped me off.

Then again, I am absolutely oblivious when it comes to role hints, time and time again (see: rey's game for the most recent example).

That being said, not sure I'll be voting for you, Snowie. Unfortunately, I'll have to vote tonight again; I'm leaving tonight for Lima and not even sure when I will have internet tomorrow. (I obviously will need to at some point for Bioshock, but unsure when I'll get it)

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:Take this!

thellama73 wrote:. You are free to abstain from the poll if you believe that will best satisfy your goals, but remember that those who do not vote will not be able to use their night powers. .[/size][/color]

Of course, MP is also free to vote for you to be lynched if he doesn't like that you refuse to vote...

Precisely this!

Yay for no death! Lol at Nev and his apparent insanity.

Nevinera wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Linki with Nev: True, I kind of forgot about that time limit. But wouldn't you think if all living players had compatible win conditions, they would all win automatically? Why just sit around and have everyone kill each other off?

If there are six people in, and they all (for example) needed a different three to survive to the end, then their conditions are compatible, but cannot all be satisfied. You'd need to run the game to the end to see who made it.

Not to mention that I suspect there are some very different wincons around - the hotel for example probably does not have a fun and happy victory.

Makes sense.

Snow Dog wrote:Ha! Take that MP!

Take what? Lol.

Bullzeye wrote:Just a thought - maybe we don't need to kill the hotel. Maybe there's a way we can render it unable to win the game and make it essentially useless.

Interesting. Certainly possible. No idea what the hell its win conditions would be though.

Linki with Nev: True, I kind of forgot about that time limit. But wouldn't you think if all living players had compatible win conditions, they would all win automatically? Why just sit around and have everyone kill each other off?

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:
I am sorry you feel that way. And in a normal mafia game with a normal mafia team to combat I doubt I would behave so extremely. But the nature of this game, I though at least, allowed for it.

Or maybe I'm just playing with you still and I'm unlynchable.

No worries, I'm not upset or harbor any ill will or anything like that. Just let it be known that any player who self-votes from Day 3 onward or refuses to play the game WILL likely be getting my vote.

I get that. Yes, the role setup and win conditions here are different. But I'm just going based off of what makes the most sense for the "civvies" in this game to win because I believe myself to fall under that category.

Given Stephen King is gone and Jack is gone (and he presented some complications) and the game hasn't ended, it seems logical to me that the Gradies, Bartender, and maybe even the unlynchable role need to go. I think that seems sensible, don't you?

I think you're right about who needs to go, but how do you suppose we kill an unlynchable role when (presumably) the only NK power in the game is gone? Serious question btw.

Very good question that unfortunately I am unsure of. That scares me, honestly.

It does make me wonder if that role is a true independent/neutral though because that seems to make more sense, given that the only way to kill it would be for King to kill it.

Snow Dog wrote:
I am sorry you feel that way. And in a normal mafia game with a normal mafia team to combat I doubt I would behave so extremely. But the nature of this game, I though at least, allowed for it.

Or maybe I'm just playing with you still and I'm unlynchable.

No worries, I'm not upset or harbor any ill will or anything like that. Just let it be known that any player who self-votes from Day 3 onward or refuses to play the game WILL likely be getting my vote.

I get that. Yes, the role setup and win conditions here are different. But I'm just going based off of what makes the most sense for the "civvies" in this game to win because I believe myself to fall under that category.

Given Stephen King is gone and Jack is gone (and he presented some complications) and the game hasn't ended, it seems logical to me that the Gradies, Bartender, and maybe even the unlynchable role need to go. I think that seems sensible, don't you?

Kate wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
One thing I do find notable is that S~V~S and Kate haven't said a word to each other about each other so far this game. What that means I have no idea, but it is kind of interesting. They both can read each other insanely well. I'm sure I could think of other such similar things, but I wouldn't say anything immediately comes to mind as SUSPICIOUS or notable in that sort of way. Just observations that don't really tell much currently. But we still have some more time.

I think she said she liked my avatar

Seriously though, how do you read someone in this game? Isn't it all kind of dumb luck? I don't really have an opinion on her because I can't tell her affiliation because from the way the game is explained she doesn't really have one, nor does anyone else. Here's my official read: I think she's a player with a role. I haven't seen any indication that she has a partner, and if she does, its not me. I am not a Grady twin. I don't want to be lynched.

Lol, you're right, she did say that!

And yeah, you're spot on here. I'm having a really hard time forming opinions on players this game, and at first I thought it was because I'm having a sucky game, but it seems to partially be a side-effect of the role setup.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

I'll answer both you and MP here. I wasn't trying to drum up suspicion, honest. I was trying to avoid lynching someone I didn't want to without enough evidence. My suicide comment was I thought my best option at the time but on rethinking it I realised it was selfish. That it wasn't all about me. So call that an aberration out of frustration.

This is an odd game. No clear goodies or baddies. Almost everyone is in it for themselves and not a civ win. So every lynch is valid. Even though I am a good character I am a viable vote for some other character.

I just need to find who not to vote for. And I have a person already I will not vote for.

Thanks for explaining your train of thought. I'm not sure I necessarily agree, but your actions make more sense now.

I also wanted to play a bit differently. Stop people having an easy read on me game to game.

See, I get this. I haven't won nearly as many mafia games as people would think, considering how many I've played. In fact, my win to lose ratio is pretty bad.

However, it really annoys me when people do really counterproductive things like self-voting and refusing to participate at all in order for it to be hard for people to read them. Like, when you're going out of your way and start ruining the basic etiquette of the game so that no one can read you in the future instead of helping out your fellow civvies (assuming the person is civ; if they're bad, then they're just being a ridiculous baddie), then that's where the line is crossed, but that's just my opinion. Not even saying you did that, but your self-vote on D1 and your comments saying you were refusing to vote seemed to dance around that line for a bit there.

I still don't know what your intentions are this game, but I appreciate that you're willing to engage us in it, instead of coping out.

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

I'll answer both you and MP here. I wasn't trying to drum up suspicion, honest. I was trying to avoid lynching someone I didn't want to without enough evidence. My suicide comment was I thought my best option at the time but on rethinking it I realised it was selfish. That it wasn't all about me. So call that an aberration out of frustration.

This is an odd game. No clear goodies or baddies. Almost everyone is in it for themselves and not a civ win. So every lynch is valid. Even though I am a good character I am a viable vote for some other character.

I just need to find who not to vote for. And I have a person already I will not vote for.

Thanks for explaining your train of thought. I'm not sure I necessarily agree, but your actions make more sense now.

Okay, I perhaps lied with you on arguing about it... because that's such a ridiculous assertion. Anyway, NOW I've said what I wanted to on the topic. I would appreciate it if you considered the point of view and also give your current thoughts otherwise.

I'll stop posting for now. Lol.

Linki with SVS, thanks for your thoughts!

Linki with Mongoose, lol. Okay, sure. Well, once you have one person lynched, it can be easy to go back and look at votes or posts and make possible assertions regarding who might have had BTSC with that player. Sometimes they can be easier to catch onto than others, again, depending on the circumstances of the game itself (how the roles are set up, complex or straightforward), the progress of the game (what day are we on? the earlier on, the harder it might be to make solid conclusions), the nature of the lynch itself (the closer it was, the more likely the teammate might have avoided throwing the person under the bus), and on the players involved (some are more risky than others). All of that being said, it is easier sometimes in practice and definitively in theory when you have something concrete to work off of to find connections rather than just shooting in the dark. Since we currently don't know who either of the twins is and given the game is on Night 2, the lynches weren't exactly telling as to who the Grady twins might be so far (at least I don't think so, considering we weren't focused on them... unless Snow or someone else similar taking heat is one of them, but I mean more so just thread focus-wise -- we were focused on Stephen King), etc. I personally feel like if I had to throw out a name for either of the twins right now I would be shooting in the dark. I need to think on this some more and maybe do some reading.

One thing I do find notable is that S~V~S and Kate haven't said a word to each other about each other so far this game. What that means I have no idea, but it is kind of interesting. They both can read each other insanely well. I'm sure I could think of other such similar things, but I wouldn't say anything immediately comes to mind as SUSPICIOUS or notable in that sort of way. Just observations that don't really tell much currently. But we still have some more time.

Okay, now I'm out of here. Need to eat and do other things. Be around later.

Holy crap, linki with Nev and Bullz. LOL. Thanks for the explanation, Nev, I realize now you said that earlier as well. I am intrigued. Bullz, your two cents are appreciated as well.

EBWOP: Your behavior so far this game, Snow, was very much trying to bring on votes. When people say things like what I quoted above and "I refuse to vote" TWO days in a row (you did in fact say it again early on Day 2, despite your insistence otherwise and your subsequent vote), it is just asking for attention, at the least.

Snow Dog wrote:I don't see how I was trying to get votes. Day 1 I refused to vote. Eventually voted myself to tie it with Epi.
Day 2 I refused to vote. Eventually voted Zany to save my ass. (Although of all the people he was my top choice for a vote anyway so, happy days)

I never once asked to be lynched or wanted to be.

LOL what?

Snow Dog wrote:Perhaps I will vote. For myself and commit suicide.

Not to mention nearly half of your posts throughout the game thus far are pretty much "I refuse to vote" or something pertaining to not wanting anyone to get lynched.

Not saying it necessarily makes you bad, but can't you at least see that?

Even if not, I won't argue with you on it. What are your current thoughts and/or suspicions?

Mongoose wrote:Let's ponder on this RE: the twins.

They have BTSC together -- who hasn't been talking directly to each other in the thread?

Very good question. Here's the thing... personally, anyway, I sometimes find it really hard to point out two people that have BTSC, especially this early on in the game, because they can adopt one among several strategies:

1. Avoid talking about each other as a suspicion in thread or responding to each other. Considering we're now on Night 2, this is possible.
2. Avoid talking about each other as a suspicion in thread, but have talked back and forth.
3. Have mentioned each other in passing and talked back in forth.

Sometimes teammates subtly defend one another when being discussed as suspicious, but then do not end up pursuing the votes (putting them off to another lynch), and instead vote for a different of several "suspects" to avoid killing off their own teamie. However, this depends totally on the circumstances AND on the players.

Not only that, but considering both of our lynches thus far and how the roles are set up, I'm not sure it'll be easy to surmise if two players in particular have BTSC. I personally haven't noticed anything. I could do a re-read of Day 2, but it is questionable how helpful it would be.

What might be a better point for suspicions is to figure out who has been exhibiting suspicious behavior and then perhaps make a connection thereafter. It's always easier to catch the other BTSCmate after one has been revealed... or so you would think (sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way).

I do think this is a good point of discussion, though, that being said. But unfortunately I'm not even sure about my reads on most players currently alive at this point. I am intrigued to get some more thoughts going around and discussion bouncing back and forth, however. S~V~S noted that she wasn't getting good feels from Bullz. Any way you can elaborate on this any more, S~V~S, and how strongly (or not) do you feel about this?

I'll have to mull this over and let my thoughts sit. What are you thinking?

Nevinera wrote:
Incidentally, if we have to lynch somebody, I'd prefer that it was me.

Why?

Also, I'm wandering randomly because that's what I would totally do in real life.

Wow! What an amazing result!

Was fun playing with you again, Dex.

I should have stuck with my original ping on him! Dammit. Sorry Snow. I really was feeling lost and wasn't expecting others to necessarily follow me. However, may that be a lesson -- mafia is all about trying to play out the game and win, and you can't do that if you have other people throwing a wrench in things and playing wacky games, trying to get lynched and refusing to vote. I seriously thought you were trying to pick up a style and play us all for fools where we didn't lynch you out of fear day after day, but I really had no idea if it was because of that or you knew you were going to survive, so I thought I might as well go for it.

So... now I suppose there are some others that apparently still need to go. I agree with whoever said that the bartender seems like a next most logical person to get lynched. The Grady twins and Delbert could be other possibilities.

Part of me thinks it's more complicated than that, but given that Jack was seemingly a main source of that complication, I think we'd be safe with that assessment.

Vompatti wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, here we are. Dex's explanation makes sense, Nev's explanation makes sense, I suppose, and Kate still hasn't come back to explain her vote. Vomps's vote is ADDITIONALLY unexplained and bothersome.

It may be bothersome to you but it certainly isn't unexplained. It was either you or epig and I voted for you.

Why was it either me or Epig? Last I checked, every single player was on that poll.

Vompatti wrote:Also, I'm not buying this:

MovingPictures07 wrote:However, I'm really at a loss. I don't want to vote any of this players because no one is really exhibiting behavior that indicates something strong about their alignment in a seemingly negative way, even though there are some weird decisions and lacks of explanation. But Snow Dog is apparently hellbent on not playing this game, and I can't be bothered to psyche myself out playing WIFOM with myself all day -- it's possible he's playing this whole thing just to screw with all of us just as much as it is that he benefits from being lynched.

votes Snow Dog

I don't know why Snowy would want everyone to know that he cannot be lynched, but assuming that he really cannot be lynched (which seems more likely to me than the opposite) it would be pointless to vote for him unless for some reason you don't want anyone lynched.

Even if there's a slight chance he's pulling a trick on us wouldn't you rather go for someone else at this point if you honestly wanted to lynch a baddie?

I wanted to lynch a baddie, I second guessed my read on Dex (fail), and I had nothing else -- so I had to make a decision and was willing to go with it.

Thankfully, all of this is pretty much moot now given how Dex flipped, but I wanted to express it nonetheless.

Kate wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Kate, did you ever explain your vote at all? I don't remember seeing a response to my question.

There isn't really much to explain. I had 15 kids at my house when I remembered I had to vote, so I grabbed my phone and looked at the poll. I remembered having some suspicion of Epi from earlier in the day over the grammar, discussion squashing talk and didn't remember having any of snow dog so I voted Epi.

I hadn't read the thread at that time and knew nothing about Snow's self vote. Not sure that would have made a difference, but I'm not positive, if I had time to read it through or not, which I didn't.

I think of that as a successful lynch. I also think that SK or the bartender would also be successful lynches so I'm not unhappy I voted where I did.

Thanks for your elaboration. I just was curious.

Kate wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Also, I'm not buying this:

MovingPictures07 wrote:However, I'm really at a loss. I don't want to vote any of this players because no one is really exhibiting behavior that indicates something strong about their alignment in a seemingly negative way, even though there are some weird decisions and lacks of explanation. But Snow Dog is apparently hellbent on not playing this game, and I can't be bothered to psyche myself out playing WIFOM with myself all day -- it's possible he's playing this whole thing just to screw with all of us just as much as it is that he benefits from being lynched.

votes Snow Dog

I don't know why Snowy would want everyone to know that he cannot be lynched, but assuming that he really cannot be lynched (which seems more likely to me than the opposite) it would be pointless to vote for him unless for some reason you don't want anyone lynched.

Even if there's a slight chance he's pulling a trick on us wouldn't you rather go for someone else at this point if you honestly wanted to lynch a baddie?

Maybe he's just trying to WIFOM us. If he is the role that can't be lynched it would be ridiculous for him to try to get lynched because he's setting himself up for a nk. If he wants votes for some other purpose that we are not privy to, and he is this blatent about it, he is also setting himself up for a nk if he gets them. My theory is that he is trying to appear to want votes so that we will all say "I"m not giving votes to anyone who's asking for them..." and then, he evades lynch. Thoughts on that?

This was exactly what was going through my mind.

Well, here we are. Dex's explanation makes sense, Nev's explanation makes sense, I suppose, and Kate still hasn't come back to explain her vote. Vomps's vote is ADDITIONALLY unexplained and bothersome.

However, I'm really at a loss. I don't want to vote any of this players because no one is really exhibiting behavior that indicates something strong about their alignment in a seemingly negative way, even though there are some weird decisions and lacks of explanation. But Snow Dog is apparently hellbent on not playing this game, and I can't be bothered to psyche myself out playing WIFOM with myself all day -- it's possible he's playing this whole thing just to screw with all of us just as much as it is that he benefits from being lynched.

votes Snow Dog

Nevinera wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: I do think Snow's self-vote was weird, but I can't make heads or tails of that right now at all. Why the hell would anyone want to even do that is beyond me.

I don't know that it applies here, but one reason someone might want to self-vote is if lynching does not kill them, and they want people to know that. In Thomas, I was constantly surprised that snow wasn't working to get lynched - it's about the only way one can convey information about ones own role without breaking any rules.

That's what I was thinking, but why would you want people to know you are the unlynchable role in this case?