The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:Was it really not that obvious that he was quoting lyrics?

There were no quotes, so no, it was not obvious that he was quoting lyrics. Perhaps to you, and perhaps to the remaining 14 players, it was obvious.

All I saw was someone acknowledge that ties are bad, proceed to vote for an option with zero votes (when no other option had zero votes), then say "I'll leave the problem to you." <---- (see the quotes? Yeah I didn't see them when he said it)

Ricochet, I figured it was already (at some point I even asked if it was a song lyric), but after your disclaimer, I googled "Talking Heads" and "I'll leave the problem to you." and sure enough, song lyric.

I think you should have as much fun as anyone else during this game, however, I do not think the town should be required to google all of your posts to see if you are being straight or just quoting song lyrics to fit with your post. When you say things like "I'll leave the problem to you", to those of us who are not knowledgeable in Talking Heads song lyrics, it comes across suspicious, FYI.

Glad we cleared that up, though.

Long Con wrote:What the "your problem" thing means to me is that there were still other people left to vote, and that the early voters have a lot less responsibility than later voters to ensure that the host's wishes are followed. But I'm not here to explain Rico's behaviour for him. Just my two cents on the matter, better than talking about nothing.

Agreed on "better then talking about nothing", even though some believe my suspicions are unfounded.

Here's the thing...I agree with you completely. That's exactly the way I took his "your problem" statement. I suppose we have different interpretations of the same thing, though. I feel that by him passing the buck like that, while acknowledging we need to avoid ties, while also voting for option 6 which was already, IMO, perfect at 0 votes...it just rang suspish. In addition, him telling me "if you don't get it, can't help you" when he could've simply taken two seconds to explain what you just did...none of it rings townie in my book. At one point, he asked me not to twist his words, and I responded "I don't think I have, but if I have, please let me know" to which he didn't respond to that particular point. Why ask me not to twist his words when I have not done so?

Anyway, despite all that, I acknowledge it's very early in the game and we haven't met the RYMers yet. Ricochet answered my questions, and some of them were acceptable enough for me to move on (for the moment).

Long Con wrote:Any thoughts on the roles? I have some questions about them that I was considering earlier, but I might wait till everyone from RYM joins us. Or maybe I should ask now, and just give them an info-blast with the answers when we merge!

I skimmed the roles when I signed up, but that's about it. Usually I wait until Night 1 to really study the roles, because there really isn't any point to do so until then anyway.

Linki Rey lol

Long Con wrote:Matt, I think you're taking the Ricochet thing too seriously if you're accusing him of being a baddie for his Day 0 poll actions. I did skim a little due to feeling rushed because I was a late voter, but it just doesn't seem like a real path to baddie-finding. Maybe causing a tie would hurt the one who caused it, and he's only hurting himself... or maybe it just hurts Syndicate players regardless of their alignment... or maybe it just makes things inconvenient for the hosts because they need this for a future mechanic in the game, which would make it no benefit to Civvies or baddies, just a complication to the hosts. Personally, I think it's the last option. Maybe it's because I just hosted.

A baddie is more likely to lay low and toe the line than to do the opposite, in my experience. How many Mafia games have you played, F?

Linki: I will untie them, then.

Some of his later responses alleviated my concerns, as I noted, but I wanted to press him because I did not understand his comment "I'll leave the problem to you." Later he tells me if I don't understand the comment, then he can't help me, which lead me to believe it is some kind of inside joke or something, yet he still hasn't explained, so who knows.

Yes, a baddie is more likely to lay low, however when players acknowledge the host in the story post says "no ties", then proceed to make ties and say "You're problem", it's suspicious, IMO.

I've probably played two to three dozen games over the course of two or three years. Not sure exactly, maybe less then two dozen.

DrWilgy wrote:Sorry everyone! *Wilgy scratches his head smiling* I've been busy today, I voted. I wanted to vote for 7, but didn't want to cause a tie...

I should be more active tomorrow!

Options 1 and 2 are tied now.

MP - Will this thread be available to the RYM Squad after Day 0 ends?

Side notes

DrWilgy was in the thread in the last hour or two, but no comments, no votes.

I could be wrong, but I believe Elohcin and Sorsha are the only two players to vote for the same three options. Not that this means anything either way, but just noting.

I think you mean 2-0. But I realize math isn't a strong suit for you Tennesseans.

reywaS wrote:

Matt F wrote:

reywaS wrote:is Matt F = Mr F?

Unfortunately, I'm all out of cookies.

MP - Up to you but am happy to move on tie-free.

Nice to see you again my Little Pony brother.

You, as well, my friend. Loved MLP haha. Haven't seen Dex around, does he still play?

reywaS wrote:is Matt F = Mr F?

Unfortunately, I'm all out of cookies.

MP - Up to you but am happy to move on tie-free.

Unvote 3, Vote 4 to separate vote tallies.

Matt F wrote:To address you and Roxy both...

The reason I have not publicly suspected anyone else with their votes (but you can bet your bottom dollar I have in my head) is because no one, and I mean no one...

That's meant to read "no one else" on both.

Ricochet wrote:Yes, but just like me she voted for a leading option, a mid-tally option and an option with no votes. If you have a problem with my non-leading choices, why did you not express concern with hers?

To address you and Roxy both...

The reason I have not publicly suspected anyone else with their votes (but you can bet your bottom dollar I have in my head) is because no one, and I mean no one, has said "I'll leave the problem to you" after admitting to intentionally pushing a tie. Pushing a tie is one thing, it's almost unavoidable. However, voting for an option with zero votes does not make civvie sense to me. If it does to anyone else, please tell me why.

Ricochet wrote:Cool beans. The poll didn't benefit from lack of ties when I voted. I literally acknowledged this.

Yes, and I continue to ask what your motivation for doing so was.

Ricochet wrote:I believe I can count who was checked in and voted and who hasn't, if the standards for Day 0 ending refer to that, yes. I am Count Spreadsheet-ula, after all. Same as I ever was!

True that. I am not aware of how much time you spend on mafia (myself, an unhealthy amount when in a game), so I didn't know if you'd be leaving after a few posts, not to return until tomorrow. Now I know better.

Ricochet wrote:This doesn't change what I said. At the time of my voting, I had only one single option to vote and not create ties. That still left two more options that would have created ties, no matter what. Anyone, not just me, wanting to satisfy both a) and b) would have faced this dillema. How would the poll have progressed, in that case? You are setting the bar to high for everyone to not make tie mistakes, considering people did create ties in the past and will create ties, until we can get close to a final shape and look to improve it. It feels like you're locking on to me for your moral lesson, that cannot truly work for the entire group (except if you're eager to create double standards).

All I've done is ask your motivation for picking an option with zero votes, while at the same time saying "I'll leave the problem to you." As for the latter, apparently it is some kind of inside joke that has gone over my head, which you have yet to explain.

Ricochet wrote:I was referring to my problem sentence. You didn't ask my motivation for every choice and statement, you asked my motivation for option 6 and I have given you an answer to that, straight away.

Speaking of which, you said preferential choice. But why? Why would you trust any player in this game to be able to use their night power twice in one night so soon?

Ricochet wrote:Nice to meet you, too.

Linki

Ricochet wrote:I can answer your questions, if you won't twist what I say.

Have I twisted something you've said already? I don't think I have, if so, please let me know.

Ricochet wrote:Have you given others the same treatment?

How 'bout bea voting for option 8, in the first place? Wouldn't that option follow the same sinuous trajectory, constantly being bumped from one tie to another, with other options?

I'm not sure what the poll looked like when Bea voted, but when I saw the poll with Bea's vote for option 8, it was the only option with 1 vote, so it did not concern me.

Ricochet wrote:You chose options 1, 2 and 3, whilst options 5 and 7 were in the lead. What was that about "choosing options already in the lead, maybe top three or four". You evaded the top two of that top three or four altogether.

You are very correct, I did not vote for the top three or four. That's because the poll benefited from lack of ties by the way I voted. In my vote post, I said this.

Ricochet wrote:How do you know I can't control what "later" means in what I said about making improvements "later"? Maybe I'm well in control with the knowledge of who has yet to check in or not.

If you believe you can psychically predict when the thread is going to end, and you know %100 that you have time to change your votes, then my apologies, I must've been mistaken.

Ricochet wrote:Your "act as if the last player to vote" mentality is very weird, because you were obviously not the last player of the Syndicateers to vote statistics-wise and neither was I. You can't fully control how the poll will shape up past your own vote; if you'd take such responsability and everyone else also would, nobody would make the move and we'd get stuck in a dillema forever.

I don't get this. There's no reason every player in this game cannot both a) vote for some of their favorite options while b) also ensuring there are no ties. If that means one of the options you like, you decide you can't vote for because of a tie, then so be it, but it's possible. No, I cannot fully control how the poll will shape up, that's why I've been encouraging discussion on making sure the poll stays tie-free.

Ricochet wrote:In fact, your mentality sounds exactly like the "I voted, I didn't create any ties, I was my hands and let's watch other poor folks try not to complicate things". You managed not to create ties, I congratulate you, I was honest about not getting a perfect result out of it.

You didn't ask for any explanation, you called it straight up not-very-civvie. And you may find yourself, you don't know me very well.

This is so false. The first thing I said to you, was "What is your motivation for doing this?", therefore, I did ask for an explanation.

You are right, though, I don't know you at all. Pleased to meet you, I'm Matt F, formerly known as the artist known as MR F.

Linki

Linki again

Roxy wrote:I disagree that Ricochets posts are highly questionable.

I have a theory about the poll too.

Obv the other people have a thread and are likely voting options like us though they possibly are not the same options.

I think we are picking options for the other thread while they pick for us.

Thoughts?

Possibly, but why would ties matter if we are picking for them?

Also, to be clear, I don't think all of Ricochets posts are highly questionable, but I do think some of the comments he made in his latest post were.

Do you believe it's civ-like to intentionally vote for the only option with zero votes, then tell the thread "I'll leave the problem for you", and then when questioned on it, says "If you don't get it, I can't help you...chillax" ?

Linki

Ricochet wrote:Absolute trust keeps me going in the right direction.

My vote for option 6 is preferential. I also voted it having in mind that it could (or should) develop with a few more votes, not just that it'd get stuck in a 1-vote tie with option 8. Who said anything about "chances of winning", we have to pick our 3 choices and work around avoiding ties, as much as possible. Besides, I did in fact vote for a potentially winning option, and pushed it out of a tie zone (option 5), didn't I? I can't do that for every option I choose.

I'm open to make improvements later, as to avoid the ties.

If you can't tell what I meant by that statement, I can't help you. Take it easy.

Several of your statements are highly questionable.

Obviously just because you voted for 6, that doesn't mean it's going to end in a one on one tie with 8. However, if 6 gets another vote, then it will be tied with option 4, assuming no more votes are attributed to that. If option 6 gets three more votes, then it will be tied with option 1, assuming option 1 gets no more votes. At this stage, with over half of us already voting, it would make more sense to choose options that are already in the lead, maybe the top three or four.

As for "making improvements later", that would be great, except MP already stated the Day Period will end once everyone checks in and votes, so who knows if or when you'll be able to make improvements later? The best strategy is to vote as if you'll be the last player to cast your votes, IMO. See the below quote from MP, re: when day ends.

MovingPictures07 wrote:The period will end once everyone has checked in and voted.

Also, no, I cannot tell what you meant by that statement. From the statement itself, and nothing else, it seems anti-civ to me. Is it a song lyric? An inside joke from another game? You could've easily explained to me what the reference was, however you continue to act baddie-like by saying "then I can't help you". Surely it takes a few seconds to explain the comment?

Ricochet wrote:It's not perfect, but I'm going to vote option 5 and push it out of the tie, and also options 3 and 6, even if they're pushed into a tie. I'm gonna give the problem to you.

What's your motive behind intentionally voting for option 6 when it has no chance of winning unless several players switch their votes around, as well as the fact that it puts that option into a tie with option 8?

Then saying "I'm gonna give the problem to you." doesn't inspire confidence that you're a civ.

Hopefully you change your mind about option 6, or bea changes hers about option 8, and instead we try to avoid as many ties as possible.

Not sure when the poll is going to end, and don't want to miss the deadline...

Picking 1, 2, and 3 to separate the vote tallies.

Checking out some profiles from the RYM side, and bcornett has four total posts on the entire board, with only two of those posts being visible to me. Therefore, I'm assuming the RYM side also has their own private thread (which I suspected anyway).

Again, the least amount of ties as possible. I'm guessing the group that has the least amount of ties actually gets to follow through with the top three options they pick, assuming MP is playing the same game on their side.

kneel4justice wrote:I wonder why not all players are on the employee list.

Under the sign up thread, every player listed as a Syndicate member is on the employee list, and every player from the other forum is not (except for Golden and FZ, who are apparently honorary members of RYM during this game)

Interesting options. No matter which options are picked, I tend to believe MP when he says he doesn't want ties. So whatever is picked, let's make sure ties are avoided.