The Syndicate

Remember this the next time people give me a hard time for putting weight on the "are you bad" question.

YES!!! TinyBubbles was bad! I love when I am right.

Roxy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Roxy wrote:Llama vote for DH - I cannot remember much from you inre:DH. is it bc of his asking to be lynched?or his overall play this game?
llama has been quite constant with his statements of DH suspicion.
Ponder all you want there kojak but I have been sick and really I do not remember his sspicion of dh. Do you have a prob with me asking?

Just addressed this in the above post, but didn't want you to feel I was ignoring you, Roxy. I have suspected DH for a while, mainly because I think he's trying to coast to endgame by giving us nothing to use against him. It's an effective strategy, and one I'd hate to see work in his case.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:You could always vote DH with me.
I take it you're not impressed with his move against S~V~S? If so, why?

It was a weak read, but I'm more motivated by his claim that he hates the game and refuses to play until after the lynch. I think he's trying to lay low and not give us anything to use against him. It stinks, I tells ya!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My biggest concern about a Bubbles lynch is that it feels manipulated. One of the baddie teams hand-walked this game into a lynch of Golden and I feel similarly about this. I acknowledge that Bubbles has been more suspicious than Golden was though. I'll continue mulling.

You could always vote DH with me.

I actually do think DH would have been a likely choice for an early recruit, before it became clear what style he was adopting this game, and his refusal to give us anything this game makes me think he is expecting to coast into endgame. Not on my watch, Jack.

DharmaHelper wrote:I hate mafia. I'm not gonna play a game I hate. See you guys after the lynch.

All right, I'm voting for you then.

*vote registered for DharmaHelper.*

DrWilgy wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
S~V~S wrote: Not all games are logic puzzles. Some games are finely crafted clusterfucks.
This is the greatest and most true thing anyone has ever said about mafia. Ever.
Yeah, I love this as well. I agree with SVS that we can't logic our way out of the lynch switch business.
I can't begin explain how wrong this is.

and Llama
thellama73 wrote:Wrong. All actions are by definition rational, in the sense that they are designed to move the actor from a place of lesser satisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, based on the subjective preferences of the actor. Whether or not they succeed is not relevant.
Here you were disputing something MP had said. If every action is rational, that means every decision has a logical decision making process behind it. Does this mean those logical processes aren't traceable by any means?

I agree that every decision has a logical process behind it. I don't agree that we can know what that process is in this situation.

I'm enjoying an actual case from DH. Thank you, sir. But I still think he is more suspish than SVS. SVS randomly changes her mind all the time. She has tiunnell vision that 180s all the time. I know, because I have been the victim of it, and I also have a tendency to get it myself. I don't see her changing stance on Golden as particularly pingy.

Canucklehead wrote:
S~V~S wrote: Not all games are logic puzzles. Some games are finely crafted clusterfucks.
This is the greatest and most true thing anyone has ever said about mafia. Ever.

Yeah, I love this as well. I agree with SVS that we can't logic our way out of the lynch switch business.

Disregard the previous: I hadn't read back yet, and I see it was discussed at length.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I meant that I think it's more likely that Bubbles was saved with a lynch switch, rather than Ubzargetoffmybed doing it just to mess with us.

And it's bullsuit btw :P

Why? Why wouldn't he use his power if he could? There's no reason not to unless he felt strongly that Bubbles should be lynched more than anyone else in the game, and I can't see why he would think that.

timmer wrote: I've attempted every single recruitment challenge and my air apparently stinks so here I am.

On the other hand, this rings sincere to me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Green = WIFOM. I'm not sure why anyone except a recruiter would care about whether recruiters get bonuses for drafting within their own clans. I'm also not sure why an actual recruiter would ask this question publicly instead of safely PMing the hosts.

This is the second best point in your ISO, and it's a pretty good one.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: He advocates lynching lurkers and acknowledges that they are unlikely recruitment choices. Thus, he is advocating the lynch of neutrals -- a pro-baddie approach.

This is the best point in your ISO, and it's a really good one. Advocating the lynch of likely neutrals, while claiming that we should play like neutrals is inconsistent at best. At best!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I apologize if you've answered this, but I forget. What do you make of DH this game? I am very wary of him. But he has fooled me so many times I can't tell anymore.
My assumption is that he has played a very deliberately neutral game. It strikes me as a survivalist approach -- always stay involved, but never get involved. I believe one of the win conditions is to survive the game unrecruited, yes? I think that might be DH's most likely objective.

However, I grant that this assumes he would have applied for zero recruitments and wasn't selected for one when the game started. I'm not very comfortable making that assumption, and I also grant that his approach is not quite balanced. His performance so far is very unhelpful for any civilian cause, but not necessarily unhelpful for any baddie cause.

He has pledged to put some kind of content into this thread soon. We'll see whether he's just slow rolling us all towards another day phase of nothing or if that's a serious pledge. My read will probably become negative if it isn't.

Thanks. I'm still watching him. He worries me.

JJJ, I apologize if you've answered this, but I forget. What do you make of DH this game? I am very wary of him. But he has fooled me so many times I can't tell anymore.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:llama, I've been putting off my intent to dig into your ISO. Should I start now? Am I going to find anything troubling? You might as well just tell me now.

Knock yourself out, guy. I stand by my play.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:So take me with a grain of salt. But expect me to push back. I like to challenge authority
I encourage that.

I don't feel terribly authoritative though. Not many people seem to agree with anything I've said in the game, for better or for worse. :P

I don't agree with that.

Addendum: the reason I do that is to avoid the players being able to guess roles based on their knowledge of my personality.

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:But I still don't know that ANY host would give one of 4 power roles to somwonw unknown to them.
Maybe it's just me, but if I'm hosting this game and the random generator assigns the recruiter roles to 4 first-time players who've never dabbled in Mafia -- I leave it that way.
But you are not hosting this game. So i will discuss it if I please

I have no problem with you discussing it, but you said ANY host, and I want to point out that I am a host, and I ALWAYS completely randomize roles without tinkering.

Dom wrote:Hi everyone.

RIPIYWG MP... I'm glad you're going to have some time off, though.

I'm really at a loss... MP was my top suspect.

I'll help you. Evaluate... DharmaHelper!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Hosts: the poll has Russtifinko listed rather than his replacement, Synonym.

So in reality, Synonym is currently self-voting.

Synonym has not said much, has he? I guess we will give him a little more time, given the immense amount of catch up he had to do.

aapje wrote:
TinyBubbles wrote:RIP unfurl ? and i am confused, why did unfurl get lynched and not me,according to the poll i got the most votes...?? if by some miracle im still alive i will be happy to address any questions! somewhat caught up and have time today
This read really insincere to me. Especially when a quick glance at the role would give you the most obvious scenario almost right at the top.

Almost everything TinyBubbles has said this game has read insincere to me.

I just reread DisgruntledPorcupine's posts and they are extremely apathetic even for him. I'm also going to put a placeholder vote on him to see if I can get him to come out an dplay.

Well, there he goes. RIP MP.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I hope it's clear that when I say I've played with MP more than anyone on TS, I don't mean I have played with him more than other TSers have played with him. That's definitely not true.

I actually totally misunderstood that, and was confused.

Devin the Omniscient wrote: Also, MP'S good case on me was just quoting and commenting on all of my posts to get a response out of me. Not totally a case

That's pretty much what I said about it.

I have been playing mafia with MP since before you guys were born.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.
Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.

I don't know the causes of MP's hypocrisy, because I don't know his alignment.

JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

Boomslang wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Jay, what do you make of Boomslang's attempts to hunt today more heavily compared with previously?
I wanted to be inspired, but he seemed to focus primarily on people who either aren't posting much right now or never were posting much. It's still very easy content to throw into the thread when the feeling of need for content is there.
And tell me, why is bringing attention to people who are slipping past attention a bad thing? You want to play logic? The "very easy content" descriptor is classic "No true Scottsman." I contribute, making points that need to be made, and you're saying effectively that it's "not true content." You're tunneling something fierce, and it grinds my gears.

Anyway, voting position 4. I'd prefer to run the cycle and deal with the negative powers we know than deal with unknown consequences.

For pointing out a logical fallacy, Boomslang scores +5 points in my Book of Points.

Bullzeye wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Here is a list of the games TinyBubbles has payed on the Syndicate:
Recruitment 4
Angry Birds
Frisky Dingo
Bullets Over Broadway
Watchmen
Death and Taxes
Omtera

Can we stop saying she's "new to mafia"?
I take it by "we" you mean "Roxy"?

Sure, and whoever else.

Here is a list of the games TinyBubbles has payed on the Syndicate:
Recruitment 4
Angry Birds
Frisky Dingo
Bullets Over Broadway
Watchmen
Death and Taxes
Omtera

Can we stop saying she's "new to mafia"?

We need to keep this in mind for future Position 2 lynches. The person we vote for will almost certainly not be the person who dies. That is scary.

Ricochet wrote: Further uestion to everyone: If Ubzarg did this, do you think or find it more likely that a) Bubbles is part of the team and he openly saved her or b) the situation didn't put himself or his teammates in any danger and he just performed the switch for sport and chaos, just like he locked the thread at a two-way tie point?

If b), do you think him and his teammates still tried to blend in during the Day and hunt or even vote for the main wagons or did they wander off, bringing out other ideas or suspects, sidelining etc.? If Uzbark's action is clear nonchalance, how can we profile him within the thread - or his teammates for that matter, how would they have behaved, knowing they'll totally manipulate the lynch?

Can we get an angle out of this? Not sure, but it makes me wonder.

Azura's power would mean that the only way unfurl would get Azura's votes and get lynched would be if Azura had gotten the most votes (hence being in lynch position). That would mean Azura is TinyBubbles.

I think Ubzarg would use his power regardless of anything else, since he gets to use it every Position 2, why not? Unfortunately, that gives us zero information. Of course the other possibilities are still out there, but for those to matter, we would have to answer: why would Ubzarg NOT use his power?

Dang, I was sure unfurl was bad. RIP.

I don't think I want position 4, even with consequences, so I will vote for position 1 again.

reywaS wrote:did the lynch end today? I thought it ended tomorrow night. :O

Sure you did, buddy.

Dom wrote:MP literally just baselessly accused both Llama and myself of "Wanting him out of the game" which would imply nefarious intent.

His only basis for this implication is that I am putting pressure on him.

Second time in two hours.

Well, Dom, I would defend against that accusation, but I don't see how I can since it's based on emotion and nothing tangible.

Good night, MP. I guess I genuinely don't understand your point, but that's okay.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'M NOT. Baddies can.

Do you think MM was trying to legitimize his suspicion against you? It seemed to me he was doing the opposite.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:This is exactly the conundrum of high versus low contributors though: I've hardly had anything to call MM out on for most of the game, because he's refused to actually commit to any suspicions or opinions for most of the game. Meanwhile, those who actually go out of their way to form opinions are easier to legitimize suspicions of, because they're putting themselves out there by analyzing and forming opinions of content.
Why are you trying to "legitimize suspicions"? This is what I felt you were doing on Devin. Not spotting suspicious behavior and pointing it out, but rather justifying an existing desire to see him lynched, the motivations of which remain unknown.
What? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's easier to legitimize a suspicion of someone who goes out of their way to commit to reads and opinions, i.e., high contributors.

Am I literally in a crazy opposite universe where no one understands what I'm actually saying?

Well, you're wrong.

Why are you trying to legitimize suspicions?

MovingPictures07 wrote:This is exactly the conundrum of high versus low contributors though: I've hardly had anything to call MM out on for most of the game, because he's refused to actually commit to any suspicions or opinions for most of the game. Meanwhile, those who actually go out of their way to form opinions are easier to legitimize suspicions of, because they're putting themselves out there by analyzing and forming opinions of content.

Why are you trying to "legitimize suspicions"? This is what I felt you were doing on Devin. Not spotting suspicious behavior and pointing it out, but rather justifying an existing desire to see him lynched, the motivations of which remain unknown.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Dom wrote: Why did MM's play style matter little until the attention came to you?
It hasn't mattered little. I haven't said much, if really anything about it, sure. I haven't had a strong reason to pursue him.

I called him out for his reasoning on me because he was accusing me.

I'm really lost; what are you trying to discern exactly?

The point Dom is making is that you claim to be upset at people not playing the game, but that only manifested itself when YOU were accused, not at any other point during the game. His point is that you don't really have a problem with people not playing, you just have a problem with people coming after you. I don't want to put words in Dom's mouth, but I'm going to put two in anyway, and those two are "hypocrisy" and "opportunism".

Black Rock wrote:hi guys, still at work. Will be done at 11 and get that post straight to you. Thanks for your continued patience.

No, thank YOU.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Good question regarding the neutral, but the problem is that it leaves a convenient option for a mafia member to appear like a neutral, refuse to commit to anything for the first few cycles, then eventually stepping up. Meanwhile, plenty of other players have been lynched/NKed. So I think it's good to keep a healthy skepticism toward the players who are refusing to commit to any hunting, especially now that it's Day 4.

Oh, I completely agree with this, and it's part of why TinyBubbles and DharmaHelper are high on my suspect list. I just think it's important to remember that there are other motivations besides "kill the baddies/kill the civvies" floating around out there right now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: Why don't you think a baddie Devin would say that?

I get emotional when I get accused game after game with incredibly vague and bullsuit accusations that I cannot possibly defend against. I don't care if people disagree with me; I've shown that time and time again.
Because baddies try to blend in and at least come up with semi-plausible reasons for their votes. An off the wall reason like "He made me read" is eye-catching, sloppy, and a rookie move. I don't see Devin doing that.
I suppose that's a fair interpretation, but it's inevitably covered with WIFOM.

True, but is there any baddie hunting that isn't? Your whole case is built around certain behaviors you associate with baddiness, but a baddie tries to avoid those behaviors, so it's WIFOM.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Look guys, I'm sorry, but I think it's completely unfair to throw out a baseless accusation at this stage of the game. Why even bother playing the game? If some players are just going to sit back and not even play it, then it ruins the game for the players who actually do play. Mafia is a game where you either are a civilian and try to baddie hunt, or you're mafia and try to act like a civilian. If I invest hours upon hours of my free time, of which I barely have any (it practically almost all goes to this game), and then some of the players don't even play the game by not posting or by posting a bunch of fluff and not issuing any opinions, then I won't play. It's clear I need a break from mafia, because I'm stressed out enough RL with the PhD as it is, and I've become testier in games over the past year as a result. I apologize for that. But you can understand why I'd get upset investing time into ISOing Devin's posts only to have it immediately denounced by two players as if I have underhanded intentions, with accusations that are impossible for me to defend against at that.

At least you've given me a reason now, MM, and I will next post a response to that post and the other two Roxy posts I wanted to respond to.

I understand where you're coming from and I have shared your frustration from time to time, but two things:
1) Gut reads are a legitimate strategy, even if you prefer well constructed cases. It doesn't mean those players are playing wrong.
2) This game is unique in that there are not just two options - mafia and civilian - but there are also neutral players. That changes things, and makes everything more complex. Is a neutral supposed to baddie hunt, or try to get recruited by the team they think is winning, or just try to survive, or what? I think there's an ambiguity there.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Why don't you think a baddie Devin would say that?

I get emotional when I get accused game after game with incredibly vague and bullsuit accusations that I cannot possibly defend against. I don't care if people disagree with me; I've shown that time and time again.

Because baddies try to blend in and at least come up with semi-plausible reasons for their votes. An off the wall reason like "He made me read" is eye-catching, sloppy, and a rookie move. I don't see Devin doing that.

I feel like our young Marmot friend is trying to fill the Vompatti void - and I like it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I will not stand and just sit here while people try to pull bullsuit accusations and votes on me again. I will address points if points are made. I cannot address "I don't trust you".

If you're not going to stand or sit, what are you going to do? Lie down? Hang from your ankles?

Search found 252 matches