The Syndicate

Alpha wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:21 pm

India wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:26 pmDisguiser is a scary role. I want them to sweat.

India is a fucking badass.

If I die, lynch . . . Echo?

Charlie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:51 pm @India were you not around for any of the time Kilo was getting votes? I don't think you missed all of it because Bravo expressed suspicion of Kilo long before EOD, and I followed that. If you had some reason to object to those suspicions, or some specific reason to think Kilo was town, you could have said something. And what did you mean by this sentence: "In a game where everyone had legitimate suspicions, this lynch was too easy." ? Do you mean hypothetically if there were legitimate suspicions, or do you believe there were actually more legitimate suspicions that were better options for this day 1? Because I think, at least for Bravo and me (not sure about the other 2? who voted there), the Kilo suspicion was a legitimate enough one.

I may have missed any significant suspicion on Kilo. I was using my phone at the time, which leaves me prone to skim the posts. I do not recall any discussion about Kilo. Certainly do not remember any objections to the lynch, which is key.

Looking at Kilo's ISO, I get the feeling that they were an easy target who fell through the cracks.

I believe that J was a better option, for that is where my vote was. F seemed to think that I was a better option. But nobody heeded our arguments, and the majority voted with no fuss. It bothers me.

And now we cannot spell dick.

Bravo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:26 am

India wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:35 pm It appears that I missed an entire page before posting that.

Rest in peace, K. Those who lynched you are probably scum. I see nothing in your posts worth the animosity.

Number of times you mentioned "K" or "Kilo" prior to the deadline: zero

If you felt this way, why did you wait until after the lynch had been finalized to voice it?

Exactly this. The outcome surprised me, as I was not here for it. Kilo had made zero impression on me. I looked at Kilo posts, and I found nothing bad of note. In a game where everyone had legitimate suspicions, this lynch was too easy. I very much doubt it was scum.

[mention]Foxtrot[/mention] Would my alignment depend on the alignment of Golf?

It appears that I missed an entire page before posting that.

Rest in peace, K. Those who lynched you are probably scum. I see nothing in your posts worth the animosity.

Foxtrot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:32 pm

India wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:29 pm

Foxtrot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:12 pm India why didn't you respond? To my accusation before stating "She's scared of my hunting?"

India's comment towards G was very scummy. Instructing one to catch up is just needless coaching. It was an empty sentence that was disgenuine.

In my comment to G, I was referencing their seeming ignorance to the origin of the gimmicks, which is me.

These happened in the pages G missed, while their internet was gone.

I dislike explaining everything I do. Your line of suspicion is baseless.

"Was It genuine or not?" is the core of each mafia question. India you werent genuine there. You arent genuine in your response to me. Explaining what you do when asked is part of the game.

Calling my line of suspicion which is "you were not genuine" baseless is a dumb argument. How is it baseless?

You suspect me of coaching, as I understand it. I was not doing so, as is clear from the context. Your suspicion is founded on an incomplete perspective of my post.

When I see suspicion directed my way, I respond if I think it deserves response. But you took a target sentence 'You should catch up' which I firmly believe you would have called out in any context as a scumtell, and directed suspicion at that.

It is not a scumtell. It is a perfectly valid sentence that, in context, was telling Golf that his argument was flawed.

I consider arguments like this to be foolish, and easy to exploit to spur mislynches. I would have voted for you if it weren't for Hanlon's razor. And, well, the fear that you will take my vote as a 'no u' and enter recursive fallacious suspicion.

Foxtrot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:12 pm India why didn't you respond? To my accusation before stating "She's scared of my hunting?"

India's comment towards G was very scummy. Instructing one to catch up is just needless coaching. It was an empty sentence that was disgenuine.

In my comment to G, I was referencing their seeming ignorance to the origin of the gimmicks, which is me.

These happened in the pages G missed, while their internet was gone.

I dislike explaining everything I do. Your line of suspicion is baseless.

Foxtrot is scared of my ability to hunt.

Complaining about game mechanics is dumb. I have played no flip games before. It is doable, though usually utilizes more power roles. Complaints should have happened when the game was proposed.

My phone is destroying all effort to post.

Golf wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:18 pm I'm also concerned about the fact that Juliet is trying to imply they are Dr. Wilgy. Why? If it is Wilgyi would be inclined to think he is good, but if it is not actually Wilgy, I am inclined to think they are trying to appear as Wilgy to look more benign.

I do not know why you would assume that, or what relevance it would have on the alignment of Juliet.
Catch up on your reading. I was the one who suggested gimmicks, and Juliet is following that, I think.

I am employing a gimmick as well, though a subtle one.

Could we spell fig?

I understand your concerns, Foxtrot, but mafia is all about building suspicions, I think. Even without concrete reason. Just treat every day like a stupid day one, and have fun. But do hunt.

I am not going along with random or ordered selection. I refuse. We were given this unique setup to play, and if all it comes down to is vote ordering, then the actual game is already over.

The bad guys have the advantage. No information. No results. This leaves a void for us to work in, with nothing to build on. In a vacuum, bad guys can organize, good guys cannot. If you leave it at that, random chance does seem the better option.

I have faith in our collective ability to hunt. We scientists can use our gut and what little advantage comes from the power roles to overcome.
If you do not believe that, there is no reason to play at all. Such is the nature of the game.

I have no issue with Juliet's choice to rap. I believe I inspired it.

Lack of content is lack of content.

Alpha wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:24 pm tl;dr would force legible content and prevent rapping being used as a smokescreen.

Okay. This does make sense.

India wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:09 pm

Juliet wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:45 pm

Echo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:57 pm

Alpha wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:11 pm Without any reliable flips in this game it's more important than ever for everyone to be pretty dang clear about why they're voting for who they're voting for.

Without any flips - reliable or unreliable - it will be harder than most other games to determine which voting reasons are genuine.

Hello friends, Dr. J is back
I saw this post, and I gotta react
I like your pause, I think it's got good tact
But reasons are reasons, scum will still slack
It's a game about the mind and a game about deceit
Take a seat, watch 'em speak, or accept defeat
If we talk and talk, keep 'em out on the street
We'll nab those wolves dead on their feet.

I dislike this post. It says nothing.

Judging by my time spent isolating Juliet and reading, this post was not an outlier. Juliet's posts suffer from a lack of original content. Agreement and disagreement do not a dialogue make. The most helpful post of Juliet was a prod toward me. Even then, I was looking for opinion and conversation, and Juliet provided neither.

I will be happy with a Juliet vote for the time being. Please do tell me if you see the same.

linki: I do not think the rap is the problem. There is no content to tl;dr.

Juliet wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:45 pm

Echo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:57 pm

Alpha wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:11 pm Without any reliable flips in this game it's more important than ever for everyone to be pretty dang clear about why they're voting for who they're voting for.

Without any flips - reliable or unreliable - it will be harder than most other games to determine which voting reasons are genuine.

Hello friends, Dr. J is back
I saw this post, and I gotta react
I like your pause, I think it's got good tact
But reasons are reasons, scum will still slack
It's a game about the mind and a game about deceit
Take a seat, watch 'em speak, or accept defeat
If we talk and talk, keep 'em out on the street
We'll nab those wolves dead on their feet.

I dislike this post. It says nothing.

Echo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:08 pm I think it's less likely the Mafia will kill me because they don't want info out there. Also, it was a little spontaneous. Tell me about a better way for more strategic utility.

I already have given you a more strategic way to utilize this role, in my initial response. Do you lack the ability to do so? Or the desire?

I have now voted for Golf.

Charlie has made the one off-kilter post. I can understand voting Charlie for that. I do understand, yes. But in lynching Charlie on this day, in this situation, we are limiting discussion. Charlie is one who talks. Golf, perhaps due to unfortunate circumstance, is or was less able to speak.

That said, I reason that Charlie is an acceptable option for lynch. But I don't think it should be an easy one, with votes simply placed by those that held issue with the one post. If you are voting for Charlie, and you really think they should be lynched, now is the time to convince others. Put effort into that before it dies in the water, so to speak.

Concerning my own vote: I am at the present moment more interested in being obstinate and forcing you all to push arguments than I am in voting for Charlie. Convince me otherwise, or change course and present a case on another.

linki: Ah, it seems Golf has returned. Fear not. I shall not remain here all day lest you give me reason to do so.

Juliet wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:54 am

India wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:11 am We could have waited for day two to pull that. Then the oracle would have a choice regarding who to reveal. How unfortunate.

And furthermore, since the oracle is vanilla so long as it lives, I would imagine that the bad guys would avoid killing it. And the good guys would avoid lynching it as well.

So, I don't really want to believe you, Echo. I wonder what your motive is. Bad guy, trying to avoid being lynched? Good guy, trying not to get lynched or killed? Or are you a genuine Oracle, though very short-sighted?

It's not short-sighted, it's a pretty, solid plan,
What would you have done if you were dealt that hand?
Do you have some thoughts on why he took this stand?
I think it's legit, and he/she's a cool little can.

I have stated the possible motives. I dare not put words in the mouth of Echo. Such would be ironic.

You ask what I, as Oracle, would have done? I could consider this to be role phishing. But I will answer regardless or your motive.
Oracle, should they desire to do well and be killed rather than lynched, should be as town-centric in action as possible. I believe the term is 'supah-town,' if you will forgive my use of non-words. The gambit that Echo has enacted is not ideal for a real Oracle.

We could have waited for day two to pull that. Then the oracle would have a choice regarding who to reveal. How unfortunate.

And furthermore, since the oracle is vanilla so long as it lives, I would imagine that the bad guys would avoid killing it. And the good guys would avoid lynching it as well.

So, I don't really want to believe you, [mention]Echo[/mention]. I wonder what your motive is. Bad guy, trying to avoid being lynched? Good guy, trying not to get lynched or killed? Or are you a genuine Oracle, though very short-sighted?

The argument I usually see against lynching an inactive player on day one is that we get no information from that. In this game, we get no information anyway. I am not opposed to lynching a mostly inactive player. Though it is frustrating that we have so many.

We need to look for changes in post frequency, sentence structure, typo frequency, verbage, term usage, gimmick usage, formality, and so on.

Disguiser is a scary role. I want them to sweat.

Bravo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:18 pm I should say: I know what a gimmick is, but what is the benefit you believe it offers with regard to hindering the disguiser role?

If the gimmick is annoying, subtle, or restrictive to use, the disguiser may not want to kill the person who has it.
On the contrary, if the gimmick is easy to mimic, then the disguiser could use it as cover when he takes that slot. Nobody would notice the difference.

It's something to think about, but I guess it depends on the personality and playstyle of the disguiser.

linki: Having a personality to your posts that is harder to define would be good, I think. If I am taken, I want people to see the change in tone.
If the gimmick is similarly hard to mimic, and does not hinder town, then yes. Being hard to impersonate would be good, I think. YMMV.

A potential 'thing' to look at is the way people post. The playstyle. There is one role, the disguiser, that can mimic people when it kills them. This means:
1. We should look out for people who post different after a night cycle.
2. Gimmicks would make getting killed by the disguiser more of a hindrance to the disguiser.
3. On the contrary, if the disguiser uses a gimmick, they can assure that their next host is not too similar to their previous dead host.
4. No-posters are a wild card. What if they suddenly start posting D2 because they died N1? I don't like that, and encourage the mod to ping these people. I don't want to be paranoid about this one.
5. No townread is guaranteed to be a townread tomorrow.
Keep these in mind I think.

Bravo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:40 pm

India wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:35 pm I don't understand what you think I did wrong. It was an honest question that nobody has directly answered.

Nothing is necessarily wrong. What's important to me is the first question I asked -- do you find both Alpha and Charlie suspicious for their part in the conversation?

Hum.

Charlie more than Alpha, I think. Charlie is hiding behind a veneer of posh righteous language or something. The vibe is bad to me.
Alpha has non-pro town priorities, but this is early day one. He may just be goofing.

Bravo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:26 pm Is this to suggest that you find both suspicious? What makes Charlie's post egregious?

Alpha wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:19 pm Charlie, is your over-the-top Knights Templar thing real or is it just an act to seem more civ?

*Voting Charlie*

Bravo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:32 pm India, opening voting doors with that either/or question on opposite sides of a discussion (whether it's prudent to spend time trying to spell dick).

I don't understand what you think I did wrong. It was an honest question that nobody has directly answered.

Juliet wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:44 pm

India wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:37 pm

Charlie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:28 pm As a component of this hypothetical dick, I must admit that I fail to appreciate its relevance to our objective. I shall not promise that I will not participate should a timely opportunity present itself, but I shall heretofore assume that any participant who focuses disproportionately on that goal to have insufficient priorities and that they are taking advantage of the sophomoric spelling mission to distract from the true and correct mission: the search for those among us who seek to destroy.

Should I vote Alpha for their obsession with avatar spelling?
Or Charlie for this egregious post?

Here, have my vote. Will that help you decide?

That makes it more difficult. I don't think well under pressure.

Charlie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:28 pm As a component of this hypothetical dick, I must admit that I fail to appreciate its relevance to our objective. I shall not promise that I will not participate should a timely opportunity present itself, but I shall heretofore assume that any participant who focuses disproportionately on that goal to have insufficient priorities and that they are taking advantage of the sophomoric spelling mission to distract from the true and correct mission: the search for those among us who seek to destroy.

Should I vote Alpha for their obsession with avatar spelling?
Or Charlie for this egregious post?

That is about right.

I agree with Alpha. Spelling dick is of importance. But what if Delta is scum and Charlie is also scum? Then Delta could be absent and we wouldn't be able to lynch Charlie either.

Unless Delta appears day 1, we must abandon this need to profane Sprityo's game. For the good of town.

There's not much for me to do until we get the D.

Hello