The Syndicate

Kate wrote:

Roxy wrote:

I agree the way you guys have chosen to play this game out is lame. Don't touch me, I'm a real live wire. Anyway, if it can't be me, I hope Roxy or llama win. They've both played a good game.

Was this in the thread you intended it to be in?

Kate wrote:If he come back not who I think he is then there's been more shenanigans than we think. But face value and occams both say he will.

"Face Value" is that you had me killed on purpose, and are going to get lynched next for it.
I gather you're building groundwork to try to get out of that.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Kate wrote:In waiting romm and o sedative hehe for an mri. My humble opinion is that at least one of you vote nev because he's gonna put a second on someone. He should have a 2 vote advantade, right bc of manip possibilities?

Oh damn. I didn't check to see if he had voted. Sorry I have been an idiot.

Now I am quite nervous that he will slip in at the last minute, vote for one of us, and then shift a vote onto the same person for the kill :O

I truly am sorry. I have dropped the ball on this one.

Don't feel bad. It looks like he is going to miss the vote anyway.

Almost did. Doesn't matter though - voted Kate, despite that it won't matter.
Remember, 'never listen to her again'.

S~V~S wrote: This ^^

Off to finish catch up

So far I have not seen anything overly suspish about Nevin, and still don't. Next time, though try o make up a case, K? You know all that illogical Mafia terminology you find irksome? Qite a bit of it is people with some sort of knowlege trying to get it into the thread and maintain sportsmanship & fair play with the context of the game.

Its a common noob error,

And I would not call Kate "aggressive", I would call her persistent and relentless.

Gotcha, I'll ask the host for some clarifications. Sorry.

Kate wrote:

Matahari wrote:wow, this game has a very cutthroat feel to it. Its gettin ruff up in hera-

first, I have a busy afternoon, is the vote today or tomorrow? i read that the poll was wrong or some such-

also shouldnt we stick to the vote plan Roxy was advocating? and for the record, I dont care if you guys leave me with/without votes, it doesnt matter, really, because I'm not bad. Yet

The vote is today, and yes we should stick to the plan. At least one more person should vote Nev and then we should spread the rest of the votes.

Or someone could vote for someone they think is guilty, and I'll jump on with them to keep from dying. To be clear, the plan was to 'vote like normal, then spread', not 'vote for who Kate says'.

It seems unlikely though, so hopefully she at least won't be able to bully you into ignoring her single-minded pursuit of a civ for no reason.

Kate wrote:Don't you find it at all interesting/suspicious/lucky that two people he claims he can clear were you and llama, the only two other people who were currently in the forum and actively talking?

That's not a coincidence, no. They've been talking a lot the whole game. And I always look at llama first :-P

It seems likely that revealing information that would logically imply that I have a specific role would violate the rules.
I don't want to ruin the game, so I can't give anything more descriptive than than that. (If I've already gone too far, I really apologize - I figured that if I stuck to vagueness and negatives it would be alright).

Is Kate normally this aggressive? She's leaning *really* hard, and targeting me pretty exclusively on the strength of a 'ping'.
If that's normal, then I guess that doesn't give any new information, but her commitment to a nearly arbitrary target doesn't scream 'civ' at me.

I'd also like to point out that I've been throwing around solid tactical plans and ideas (several of you agree) which would seem somewhat counterproductive if I were actually bad. Obviously I could be trying to hide my tracks by throwing out plans, so that can't exonerate me entirely, but it ought to be evidence in my favor.

I have a .. gut feeling?

Kate wrote: Wow info dumping cool... so lets see if you are lying or not.
did you find this out through your night actions?

I don't think I'm allowed to answer this question.

Well, before I get lynched for being too active, I'll say I have some confidence that llama and snow dog aren't Bob.

thellama73 wrote:

Nevinera wrote:Was there a visible waiting list? The speed with which BF got replaced might suggest that he had a pivotal role, and that he worked out a replacement with the host before leaving.

Russ and Roxy were signed up as replacements in the sign up thread.

Damn, never mind then :-)

Was there a visible waiting list? The speed with which BF got replaced might suggest that he had a pivotal role, and that he worked out a replacement with the host before leaving.

Snow Dog wrote: Everyone had a vote.

Well, everyone was voted for, but Ben would have moved a vote off of himself onto someone else to ensure he wasn't randomly lynched.

I think you both understand that, and are arguing because of different phrasing though.

Kate wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: I think everyone had a vote so no one was uncovered.

Ben was. Nothing we can do about that. That is how boogs died.

Oh, I forgot - we had that conversation because we weren't sure somebody would show up, but then they did >.<

That does still imply that Ben wasn't recruited though; he could have killed two people if he was (moving the vote on himself to someone to get them lynched, then NKing someone else).

Kate wrote:I will take no vote no problem. I cannot kill. And I don't need an alibi. I think its unciv like to insist on an alibi at the risk of a civ life.

That's silly. Selfish maybe, but 'unciv-like'? Who here doesn't want a good defense against being lynched?

Roxy wrote:What do you mean Nev? What am I missing? We want to cover people whoo we think are bad with votes while testing some with no vote. Right?

If you are the one (or one of a few) that is not covered, and Ben is bad, then he can uncover himself and kill someone, and it will look like you did it. That's why I keep referring to the vote as an 'alibi'. It's also why I'm confident that Ben was not recruited already - we left just one player uncovered yesterday, and nobody died; if Ben had been bad, he would have *jumped* at the opportunity to kill one civ and let us hang another for it.

Roxy wrote: Snow Dog actually wanting a vote makes me not want to give him one tbh. If you are in fact a civ you should have no problem being off of the poll.

True for today, but not in general - if Bob every recruits Ben, then being an un-alibi'd civ is dangerous. We do have some decent evidence that Ben has not yet been recruited, but that could change tonight.

Snow Dog wrote:According to me the poll would have ended abot 40 mins ago anyway. Can someone tell me the time now?

It's 5:17 eastern right now.

Russtifinko wrote: Right, thanks Kate! Duh.

So S~V~S, what happened there with your vote? I'm assuming you misread the poll time, but even still: the first vote of the day is a drive-by with no stated case against someone you hadn't mentioned before? I'm fairly strongly pinged by this. Do you have any reasons for your vote?

I admit to some curiosity as well.

Possibly only non-recruits get rezzes?

Snow Dog wrote:^they could rez still under Bob's dominion.

That would make this game insanely unbalanced, unless there's some cleverness yet unrevealed. His army grows every other round, and there're only 11 players. If they came back still with bob, then he would almost certainly win within 10 days.

insertnamehere wrote:Wow, Bob, Wow. On even days, can possess someone. That person will join his team. Bob himself cannot kill, but his minions can, unless they are under suspicion. Bob's minions can NK someone every night, unless they have at least one vote. If they get even a single vote, their NK doesn't go through. To win, Bob and his minions need to outnumber everyone else. Minions can still use their NP, and even have BTSC. If Bob is killed, only his minions remain.

Something I noticed which may or may not be simply an imprecision - this role description does *not* say that Bob has BTSC with his minions, only that they are a team, and that the minions keep their own night powers and even any btsc they may have received elsewhere.

On the other hand, having a group Night Kill kind of necessitates btsc. If that's present, is Bob included in it? He doesn't get to night-kill on his own..
If he's not included, do the minions know who bob is? Our theories about auto-rez and the like all require that they *not* know who bob is, because otherwise they'll come back as civvies who know who Bob is.

Do you have any comment on these role rules, Lord Host?

Russtifinko wrote: For what it's worth I tend to believe Nevinera's defense for the moment. He(?) was wrongfully lynched twice in MOTU just now, so maybe his style draws suspicion. We are following his suggestion for the lynch plan as well, it seems.

The second time it was just Zodac killing me, but a lot of people do seem to interpret my play style as shifty :-\

Kate wrote:But if he had done that and he was bad there would have been no reason for him not to kill since there would be no way for us to deduce who he was.

Wholeheartedly agree. Though I suppose we can't assume it will stay that way.
We do have a decent way to figure out logically who Horne is, but since he's so far almost certainly good, we should probably leave that alone until we have evidence he's switched.

Snow Dog wrote:Also i don't understand when the poll ends.

Tuesday at 2:30 Central, which is 3:30 Eastern.


I haven't found any logical arguments in favor of specific people being BOBites yet - does anyone have anything to offer beyond a gut feeling?

insertnamehere wrote:

Kate wrote:Inh, was the lynch yesterday a tie?

No.

I'm guessing that Horne decided not to risk that the tied lynching would randomly kill him. He must not have been bad yet, since there was no nk?

S~V~S wrote:Yay for no death. Now we are faced with another lynch, going into a work/school day, and no real consensus on how we are going to deal with it.

I am pretty sure I don;t want to do the "one man, one vote" thing again, but not sure what else to do. Should we systematically remove people from the poll (figuratively) and just not vote for them, different ones each night, and vote normally otherwise? We have an odd number of voters, so any plan involving a tie would only work if we did the same thing as before, OR if someone agreed in advance to abstain from voting.

If we do the spread thing some people have mentioned (or the normal lynch with some people left out) how would we even figure out who to leave out?

Any ideas?

My thought is that we should play it like a normal lynch, except the last few people to vote should intentionally not pick anyone already picked (preferably, they'd lock down people they suspect of being bad). Then we end up with normal lynching on suspicion, half the pool being prevented from performing NKs, and we get to count the NKs and tighten the suspect pool every round.

Kate wrote: Easy. I see what kind of player you are already, one that can't take a joke.

If your posts were intended to be humorous, I apologize for my irritated tone. They didn't read as such to me, but it is often difficult to notice sarcasm and irony in forum posts.

Kate wrote: I basically let my pings about you slide until now. But pinged I am. And I've played the entire last two days on an iPad so ifeel your pain but reject your excuse. Sorry I see your baby with a set of twins and a 7 year old. All boys. Fold?

You've "let me slide, until now"? On Day 1? Er, thanks..?

I wasn't bringing up my baby to say "Pity me, I have sooo much work to do" - I was busy taking care of a baby, and I didn't have a hand free. I'm glad you're so hardcore that you wouldn't dream of not replying to such a pointless argument, but (on the weekends at least) I have better things to do some of the time.

Kate wrote: I still say it would have been easy to simply say it won't matter if she doesn't vote me but you didn't even do that. I might might not have believed it but the LACK of saying anything at all has made me much more suspicious of you overall.

Of course it would have been easy to say that, but I don't like to just claim things without a point. I play mafia largely as a logic game, and saying things just to be seen saying them doesn't sit well with me. I don't really mind your being suspicious of me, as long as you get more suspicious of other people when they give you an actual reason to be.

I do generally consider pointing the finger based on exactly no evidence or logic to be an indicator for badness though.

For your future reference: I am not a killer, I am not Bob, and you shouldn't lynch me for not asserting it at every opportunity. If that changes I'll let you know.

Kate wrote:

Nevinera wrote:

Kate wrote:He flat out ignored everything that was said between me and svs about leaving him without a vote for one.

I almost chimed in on the topic - I would prefer to have him vote for me instead of leaving me uncovered. I wanted someone to vote for me because if I wasn't voted for, and Ben happened to have been recruited, it would look like *I* killed someone. It wasn't a huge probability though, so I decided to not try to persuade SVS to provide me with an alibi (since that would deprive him of an alibi instead, and it sounded like he was leaning toward voting for me anyway). I certainly don't see how my lack of interaction on the topic could imply anything about my orientation.. -.O Would you mind clarifying your logic there for me?

I also haven't been hugely available this past day - typing out complicated logic posts while holding a baby is hard work >.<

He who?

I don't understand. Svs wasn't planning to vote for you despite the fact that you could be a killer. All you had to say was it won't matter I can't kill anyway. I think you got nervous and said nothing. You were around and a response would not have required that much logic.

First off, I don't really get 'nervous'. I also don't see the point in saying things that would have no impact on anyone's opinions. Of *course* I'm not a killer - you could ask anyone and they'd tell you the same thing about themselves.

If I had written a response (and I started to), it would have been a full description of my concerns, the point of being voted for, and pros and cons for SVS (sorry about the gender, lots of new people to track).

See, there was no danger to me from being left open, and in fact it *might* have been a plus - if I was left uncovered, and nobody died (which would have happened unless Horne did something foolish, or was recruited), then I'd have good evidence that I was civ at that point. The risk was the 1/10 chance that BOB recruited Horne, which would almost guarantee my death, as Horne would grab the chance to kill someone while pretending it was me (two birds, one stone).

Now, that might not seem like a lot of typing, but I was playing on an ipad, with one hand - it didn't seem worth the work at the time. Of course, I didn't expect quite such aggressive McCarthyism.. What's your beef here?

Kate wrote:He flat out ignored everything that was said between me and svs about leaving him without a vote for one.

I almost chimed in on the topic - I would prefer to have him vote for me instead of leaving me uncovered. I wanted someone to vote for me because if I wasn't voted for, and Ben happened to have been recruited, it would look like *I* killed someone. It wasn't a huge probability though, so I decided to not try to persuade SVS to provide me with an alibi (since that would deprive him of an alibi instead, and it sounded like he was leaning toward voting for me anyway). I certainly don't see how my lack of interaction on the topic could imply anything about my orientation.. -.O Would you mind clarifying your logic there for me?

I also haven't been hugely available this past day - typing out complicated logic posts while holding a baby is hard work >.<

Kate wrote:The log lady is a good choice. I think I remember that the log knew who killed Laura or something like that. The log lady definitely played a pivotal role in getting cooper to realize what his dreams meant which helped him to solve the mystery.

Yep. Voting LogLady.

Kate wrote: He would have killed off players chess game after chess game.

At one move per night? Nobody would hae gotten past the opening.

Snow Dog wrote:Sorry for a third post. I think a spread vote is good but if there is someone we agree, or some of us agree, needs to be lynched, we must be sure of that lynch first. And then the rest can spread votes as much as possible. I don't know if this much cooperation is feasible in the long term though.

Definitely not, since the number of baddies will be expanding, and I don't think we'll know when we lynch one.
This game seems practically unwinnable to me; maybe something very civ-favoring is going to happen with those extras?

Voted MovingPictures, in accordance with the plan..

Kate wrote:Because I'd rather have u not have a vote on You than nevernira. And look who pops up trying to change the plan...

Hey now, I wasn't trying to change the plan. A tactic like that wouldn't be useful until later, when it can have a chance of catching anyone.

Later on, you can get a vote on all but one person, and then if anyone dies you'll know they're evil. That'll let you lynch one person while checking on another.

Hey, another thought ocurred to me. If we only give votes to, say 2/3 of the people, then if we get an nk, we have a good iea who it must be from.

I'm not sure if that's a good trade, just thought I'd mention it as a possible tactic.

Snow Dog wrote:I will go along with voting the person above. If everyone agrees.

I will do so also, but I'm going to wait for the end of the day.

thellama73 wrote: It wouldn't be a bunch of players, though, since there is only bob and his one recruit so far. I think the vote spreading out idea is a good one, provided we have a few people hang back to override Bob and his friend.

We'd have to hang back four though, to be sure to be able to cancel out the bob-block. Three might be enough, chosen randomly, since the chances of picking two specific people in a random group of three out of 11 is about 11 in 11C3, or 7% (then we'd have to trust someone to pick random numbers, and it might have been bob).

Snow Dog wrote:Ok. So that confirms Bob is in the game. And it seems a spread of votes would be useful to us.

It is, but there's an inherent danger as well - if we put out a spread of votes, whoever votes later has a lot of control over who is lynched. Worse even - if we put out a spread early, then a baddie block vote at the end can decide exactly who dies.

I think it makes more sense for early voters to *not* spread, and then later voters to spend their votes protecting everyone, if they otherwise would agree on the target. In fact, I think we should consider it a strong sign of BOB-ness if a bunch of people vote the same way after half the players have already voted.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:As for the 12 players, 24 roles thing, I think it is very likely that each of us could wind up with 2 roles later on.

Keep in mind how brutal the bob role looks to civs - I doubt he'd really make a game *that* unbalanced, so the extra roles could easily be autorezzes or something like that.

Voting for Donna, she sounds like a good person to hear from early.

But... pie.

Diner sounds good, I could go for some pie.