The Syndicate

sig wrote:Wow the voters on me are so conspiratorial as is BK. I also think it is so funny Golden is completely ignoring LC vote and actions yet because I did the same thing he did PLUS being active I'm scum? I also like how LC is joining the wagon agaisnt people who voted to save Fuzz or for Ika just like he did. LC is mafia imo as is Golden.

Yes look what a big hypocrite I am. Hypocrisy is something only baddies do, right?

Silverwolf wrote:I also find it odd that LC is suspecting Quin but also voting with Quin on Nerolunar.

That's not quite accurate. I voted Nerolunar first, just because Quin also voted for him after that doesn't mean I'm "voting with Quin" with the implication that I agree with him and don't suspect him. Maybe you could go into more detail about why you "find it odd"?

Turnip Head wrote:My reasons for suspecting LC are not meta-based. What I see LC doing here is being fine with a sig or Quin lynch without pushing them. His own reasons for not finding Fuzz suspicious are similar to sig's and Quin's reasons, but he's not cutting them any slack. He's not pushing it because that would be hypocritical, but he's fine with those lynches happening. Put on your tinfoil hat for a minute, if sig or Quin is lynched and flips civ, that looks pretty good for LC, no?

I don't see how either of them flipping Civ would look good for me. I'm not saying "don't lynch sig or Quin", I'm not pushing a Nero bandwagon to try and save either one. As I've said more than once, I pretty much agree with the cases that have been made against them. I have seen the rebuttals, and I have seen some people that are convinced by their defenses, and I can understand why. I don't know if they're bad, but I do think that there are plenty of reasons to have them as top lynch candidates.

There are reasons for me to be one as well. My vote was the worst in the Fuzz lynch. I think I have gotten off pretty easy for it so far, thanks to the gut of some players I guess. I'm not going to go after myself, and I will defend myself, because I know that I'm a bona fide criminal. I'm so not-Cop that I haven't even seen a Police Academy movie.

Turnip Head wrote:But LC you were on the ika train Does that not color your perception of the others on that wagon?

No, it does not. Their reasons and gameplay are not mine.

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:

Diiny wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:I'm voting Diiny, but not because I specifically side with Wilgy or Enrique. To be honest I have no idea what the flying fart is going on in that circle.

Glad your vote is well informed.

I think Luffy made a good point against your favor. As much as I don't want to say that for how fervently he is attacking me at the moment.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Oh sorry, you are not opposed to the idea of hunting mafia. You just don't want to lynch them. Accusing each other is okay as long as no blood is drawn.

People like yourself are a pretty common trope in movie bad guys. They have some ideal that may even be morally sympathetic to the viewer, but you still use the end to justify your means of sacrificing a few innocent lives along the way. I think that is the wrong attitude.

Do you seriously think we can win without any mislynches? They do serve their purpose, as we can look at vote tallies and such. To me it is alright to mislynch a few if it means winning in the end anyway.

I was not pinged before but now I am.

I don't think gleam's opinion was worth a ping here. This puts me slightly more in favour of them not both being bad... but Nero looks like the bad one because gleam was basically only saying that he didn't want to be a sacrificial lamb to the Gods of Information. Nero slaps a ping on gleam by calling him out for thinking "we can win without any mislynches". WTFdude, that is certainly not what gleam was saying! This looks like a serious case of word-twisting by Nero, followed by a nice little hit on a guy that was clearly already taking a few in the thread.

That's funny. That's the exact same vibe I got from your whole entire post here

I don't think your case comes from a civvie mindset LC, it looks like you went through Nero's posts and picked out every little thing that you could interpret your way. It's not like we need some grand unifying evidence on a player to lynch them, Fuzz was lynched on a single mistake, and it's not like every post a baddie makes will look bad. I think you had your heart set on a Nero vote and then built the case. I also notice you have done this at the cost of discussing everything else going on. Where are your thoughts on sig and Quinn who each have quite a few votes? They're being suspected for behavior at EoD2 which was similar to yours, you should at least have an opinion on them.

I think you're a cop Long Con

Well, you think wrong, TH. My post does indeed come from a Civvie mindset. I already said I agree with Golden and others who believe that the Fuzz CFD is likely all Civ (at least the five or so earliest voters), and that we're more likely to find baddies on the ika train. I would be fine with a sig or Quin lynch, I just happen to find Nero suspicious and no one else had really looked at him at all.

You say I'm twisting Nero's words, and that I'm attacking a guy who was already taking hits in the thread? That is false. Nero wasn't taking any real hits. He had no votes, and no one had made a case against him. Accuse me of confirmation bias if you want, but there are no shady intentions in what I'm doing here.

Oh, I meant to also say: that's as far as I can get tonight, because it's approaching 4am here. My vote is staying on Nero. Good night!

Hello, I'm back! I sat down to catch up and then get back to my Nerolunar ISO, and I saw that a couple of people have taken up the torch on the Nero front, so that's cool. I'm still going to go through things myself and get some gut reactions and etceteras, but it looked like some good thoughts on my first read-through.

Before I started my continuation, I went back to look at my own post to see where I left off. I saw this quote:

Long Con wrote:Nero then flings a little mud at sig before turning his attention elsewhere.

...and, in light of sig being a prominent lynch candidate, I decided to look a little deeper. I found this exchange (snipped of irrelevant content):

Nerolunar wrote:@ Sig I find it suspicious that you reacted so violently and defensive towards Sloonei pointing out you were lurking.

sig wrote:I didn't react violently, I did react defensively yes since usually accusing someone of being present and lurking is followed by someone saying it is pingy, then BAM Sig gets lynched and there is no more Sig.

Nerolunar wrote:@ Sig To me its not "highly pingy" to call out lurking.

So far into my ISO there is a light back-and-forth of suspicion between Nero and sig, but nothing too extreme.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nerolunar wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Is it bad that I'm not managing to follow the whole Wilgy/Enrique/Dinny argument anymore?

I had to check the poll to understand who is voting for who.

I don´t get it either. Can someone do a TL;DR?

Im not really reading Gleam as scummy. I might just go with a wagon today if someone can convince me of reasons to vote for someone.

Linki Yeah weird behavior from Mongoose.

Ok, I tend to look at things as "would a baddie say this? Does this achieve a baddie's goals?" I guess confirmation bias is a thing, so take it with a grain of salt, because I do think Nero is probably a baddie at this point. In this above post...

Line 1: Feign Civvielike confusion. Do not express suspicion of the non-baddies involved, but don't try to slow it down too much. If Nero is bad, then I believe DDL is Civ, because you don't need to interact with your teammates like that, you need to interact with Civs, because it's about building rapport.
Line 2: Don't know if Nero would be the type to defend a teammate, but a Nero flip would give us some information with which to judge this lack of Gleam suspicion. The wagon part is just baddie-sounding in a weirdly blatant way... like, way to shirk all responsibility for your vote.
Line 3: Light mudslinging, not adding anything, just reinforcing what gleam said much more completely.

Nerolunar wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:

Diiny wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:I'm voting Diiny, but not because I specifically side with Wilgy or Enrique. To be honest I have no idea what the flying fart is going on in that circle.

Glad your vote is well informed.

I think Luffy made a good point against your favor. As much as I don't want to say that for how fervently he is attacking me at the moment.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Oh sorry, you are not opposed to the idea of hunting mafia. You just don't want to lynch them. Accusing each other is okay as long as no blood is drawn.

People like yourself are a pretty common trope in movie bad guys. They have some ideal that may even be morally sympathetic to the viewer, but you still use the end to justify your means of sacrificing a few innocent lives along the way. I think that is the wrong attitude.

Do you seriously think we can win without any mislynches? They do serve their purpose, as we can look at vote tallies and such. To me it is alright to mislynch a few if it means winning in the end anyway.

I was not pinged before but now I am.

I don't think gleam's opinion was worth a ping here. This puts me slightly more in favour of them not both being bad... but Nero looks like the bad one because gleam was basically only saying that he didn't want to be a sacrificial lamb to the Gods of Information. Nero slaps a ping on gleam by calling him out for thinking "we can win without any mislynches". WTFdude, that is certainly not what gleam was saying! This looks like a serious case of word-twisting by Nero, followed by a nice little hit on a guy that was clearly already taking a few in the thread.

Nerolunar wrote:

sig wrote:I don't like Nero's vote what so ever. It seems like he picked a player who already had two votes. I think one of the other people with two votes is a cop, and Nero switched his vote to save them.

That´s a little far-fetched. We are supposed to catch baddies here, and in that moment Chaindeath seemed to me like the most scummy player. I was not happy with any of the major wagons, so I went with him. Do you believe both me and Ika(and the other players with two votes) are cops then? If so, why didn´t you vote for any of us?

I do agree with some of the above posters that Slooneis vote did seem like an act to save a teammate.

Note that there is none of the suspicion toward sig from their last interaction. I haven't looked to deeply into it, but it also seems funny that Nero responds to sig's accusation with contempt, and then in the same post accuses Sloonei of the exact same thing.

Nerolunar wrote:I see RadicalFuzz is online. What are your suspects and general thoughts on what happened at EoD and from there on?

Is this the kind of post a baddie teammate would make? I don't know. I figured it is at least relevant enough to post.

Ok, I was doing some rereading, and it seems like no one had really focused on Nerolunar too much.

Nerolunar wrote:

ika wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:
What are you going to do if Silverwolf appears to you as town? Who are you going to vote for today if you don´t have any reads?

@ Matt I agree that is strange. But is it alignment indicative? I don´t think so.

wh i always do: work with her and sort out reads that we cant agree on and try to make a cohesive town bloc of players. i would prob go isoing then and read people to see what i cna find if i sort her

So you are developing reads? Just before you said you weren´t going to make reads on people day 1 But thanks for clarifying.

I like that you and Silverwolf can cooperate like this, provided that both of you are good. I will keep an eye on you Could very well be that both of you are baddies.

Nero sits on the fence about ika and Silverwolf's alignment. Some nice words, but mostly a negative tone toward them.

Nerolunar wrote:SVS@ It does make sense.

Silverwolf would it be possible that you could do the same to Ika? It would be really great if we could get more information about you guys.

Focuses for a couple more posts on digging deeper into ika/Silverwolf's relationship in the game, but then drops it altogether when Silver starts to engage him on it.

Nerolunar wrote:

chaindeath wrote:He is so good at typing.... He didn't do it properly and he offers his sincerest apologies. Long Con

This looks somewhat sheepish to me.

Why does typing mistakes and then apologising for it indicate baddie alignment? Chain I would like you to explain too. I see nothing scummy in LC´s behavior so far.

This was the first ping I got from Nero on the first time around, I suspected buddying intentions with this post. Like Silverwolf, I have been the victim of buddying baddies a few times before, and I'm sensitive to it now.

Nero then flings a little mud at sig before turning his attention elsewhere.

Nerolunar wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:Who is Gleam? I dont see anyone with that name.

agleaminranks

Thanks. I read it completely different.

@ Sig To me its not "highly pingy" to call out lurking.

I am going to change my vote. Losing Ika now will eradicate all meta reads that he can give us on Silverwolf. I don´t like that uncertainty.

I'm going to check up un Gleam and see if thats where my vote will be.

Note that he doesn't want to lynch ika, valuing his meta reads on Silverwolf. He then reads gleam as Civ, but takes it back a half hour later, declaring some suspicion on gleam.

Ends up voting for chaindeath because chaindeath voted for me. Voting off the main wagons on Day 1 (Diiny, Wilgy, Golden) shows an unwillingness to be involved in lynching a Civ from a baddie perspective. A baddie will often avoid the main wagons when Civs are up for lynch, and the existence of only one complete baddie team in this game gives them 100% surety of who's good and who's bad.

I'm putting a vote down on Nerolunar for now because I have to go to work. Still plenty of time left in the Day, and I will get back to this Nero ISO tonight or tomorrow morning EST.

No, I just make graphics, I can't put them into the forum... I have no behind-the-curtain access.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm starting off with a vote for Long Con.

Where you at mate? What are your thoughts right now?

I am here. I'm caught up now, and I'm putting together a post over the course of the next couple of hours... I have work to do, unfortunately, so I'm going to work, take Mafia break, work, repeat.

I'm pretty much on track with what Golden and Epi are saying, and I think that the ika voters are much more likely to be bad than at least the early votes that started the Fuzz lynch. No doubt some Cops avoided the trains altogether, but I haven't looked into who they might be yet.

Golden wrote:I remember playing a game back at spoiler TV, where the entire baddie team outed themselves on day one and manuelsub (later known as manu) nailed every one of them.

Can you tell more about this story? That sounds very interesting.

Sloonei wrote:Also also "Chinese Fire Drill" is one of my favorite mafia terms there is. It makes no sense but somehow it is exactly what it sounds like.

First, love the double 'also'.

Second... is CFD, like... racist?

I don't think it looks like a dumb-scum move, Enrique. I would say it looks like a distancing vote when there was no risk, but then you didn't want it to end up hurting him and moved it off when other votes started floating in... before it came to a point where Fuzz was a real contender. Of course, I'm just going off what I read in the last page about how you voted, I don't know the real timing because I was still quite a few pages behind when the lynch was up.

My vote was really crappy, and I'm glad that a non-Cop got the Loan Shark and made things right. I do appreciate that some are giving me the benefit of the doubt about it. I have no real defense, I cast the vote that put ika ahead of Fuzz, and I don't doubt that I will get some suspicion about it.

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:Gotta be honest. Sig and Enrique's scrambling after that lunch is more enjoyable than the eggs I had this morning. and those eggs were damn tasty.

I feel like there was a missed opportunity for a scrambled eggs joke here

I don't think it was missed. I think you just think it was missed.

agleaminranks wrote:Socky said there would be a price to pay, I don't know what that price might be but it's worth looking to see if anyone in the coming day is acting or talking noticeably stranger. This might be another indication of alignment.

Will we recognize it if it's DrWilgy?

I don't think the idea that Fuzz said he didn't want to vote ika, and then did, is suspicious. I think it's unusual, but he wasn't trying to save himself at that point, so then what's the point? Save gleam? Why would he say he's not voting ika if he knew he might have to save gleam?

I tied it up with ika. Sorry for the quick post, wanted it to be known.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Matt wrote: Here's a new challenge. We're all up to date. Does anyone else in the game currently have six players they won't vote for? You don't even have to say who, just yes or no.

Llama
Scotty
Chaindeath
Mongoose
Marmot
Epi

⅄ǝs I po˙

What is this I don't even

Haven't you ever stood on your head before? This is what happens when you type things while standing on your head and looking in a mirror.

It's easier to read if you stand on your head and read it in a mirror.

I get it now, my Chrome obviously needs to update some Character files or something, because I see "□ǝs I po˙"... the "Y" is important for getting it, it looks like gobbledygook to me.

ika wrote:

Long Con wrote:

ika wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Silverwolf wrote:Also, if ika doesn't do anything D2, he should be lynched.

Do you think his inactivity makes him likely to be a cop?

Usually.

How does this self-meta-awareness work? If you know that you are likely to be more inactive as a baddie, then what's stopping you from flipping the script and looking Civ by avoiding that style? If I had that kind of self awareness, that's what I would try to do.

....

Continuing on, I am beginning to sympathize a little with gleam. There's been quite a bit of suspicion toward him that I think he's responded to very well. I think he comes out looking much more Civ of the two, in his exchange with Silverwolf.

----

A lot of things actually. my activit is something that i find hard to fake overall. but it has becmoe more often that i will be inactive regadless of alignent over the last year

as for the later, tell me more how hes civ, all i have seen is defenseive remarks about anything and his single post about silver shows very little

Gut feel I guess. I'm not really suspicious of/accusing Silverwolf, more defending gleam.

sig wrote:Also I find it odd how quite Zebra/LC seem to be this game.

Not that odd. I'm co-hosting Arkham (sometimes) and playing in Rocky and Bullwinkle... and RL reasons that I've been busy. Hence the big catch-up and multi-quote posts.

Golden wrote:Tranq may have been inactive, but he is also a very very good mafia player, who often manages to avoid attention from lynch and nk for long enough to do real damage. It says two possible things to me

1) at least one or two of the cops know tranq well, and wanted him out of the way early, or
2) Daisy wanted to take away one of sockface's players and picked someone she thought would be dangerous long term.

I think those are more likely than the cops simply taking him out for being inactive.

Number 1 is acceptable logic, but I don't understand #2. Daisy is the Host of half the Civvie faction, how would she be influencing the Cops' kill?

RadicalFuzz wrote:I'm going to make the following assumptions.

Being arrested does not equate to being dead, they're different states.

Agreed, to an extent. I think we will likely find them to be functionally identical, but perhaps we'll have a late-game poll for releasing a single arrested player.

Linki: Ah yes, the Prisoner sockpuppet accounts. Yes, they are probably anonymously in a chat together. Although the anonymity of socks would be irrelevant given that they arrive one at a time, right when players are arrested. The anonymity will be for us. They'll show up at some point.

ika wrote:NAI stands for non alignment indicative

LOL, I was reading it as Not An Issue.

ika wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Silverwolf wrote:Also, if ika doesn't do anything D2, he should be lynched.

Do you think his inactivity makes him likely to be a cop?

Usually.

How does this self-meta-awareness work? If you know that you are likely to be more inactive as a baddie, then what's stopping you from flipping the script and looking Civ by avoiding that style? If I had that kind of self awareness, that's what I would try to do.

....

Continuing on, I am beginning to sympathize a little with gleam. There's been quite a bit of suspicion toward him that I think he's responded to very well. I think he comes out looking much more Civ of the two, in his exchange with Silverwolf.

----

Scotty wrote:And lol. If I were a cop, why on earth would I arrest Tranq? I was probably his main detractor! This kill seems totally random, or switched via Daisy power.

Agreed. The Tranq kill actually elevates Scotty's Civvishness to me.

thellama73 wrote:

Silverwolf wrote:Also, if ika doesn't do anything D2, he should be lynched.

Do you think his inactivity makes him likely to be a cop?

Are all inactives bad?

* Linki: What Llama said.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Matt wrote: Here's a new challenge. We're all up to date. Does anyone else in the game currently have six players they won't vote for? You don't even have to say who, just yes or no.

Llama
Scotty
Chaindeath
Mongoose
Marmot
Epi

⅄ǝs I po˙

What is this I don't even

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Matt wrote:Anyway all, gots to get ready for work.

I'll leave with a question for DDL, though...

Why do you think my and Golden's argument is a waste of time?

I think your reason to lynch Golden is not enough. You are going back and forth on one variable that could be perfectly explained by reasons other than him being a cop, and the likehood of measuring his alignment correctly with that variable isn't much better than doing it at random. It's like you are trying to plot a very complex curve using a single point.

Your time would be better used by looking at the other things Golden said during the game, in order to obtain more variables. Or by talking about other people. Likewise, Golden's time is also being wasted by talking about that variable over and over.

Well put.

Matt wrote:

Golden wrote:So, Matt, thats it? You are just going to keep saying 'I think it was dishonest' and 'it was odd' and ignore any attempt from others to get you to think? [snip]

Nah, thinkin' hurts my brain. U bad.

Again, I was never curious as to why you wouldn't vote for them, it had to do with the speed in which you suddenly had six players you wouldn't vote for after just claiming your first read of the game. But I see you just couldn't wait to explain the why, as if that has any relevance to my ping of you.

I think Golden's explanation is reasonable. He doesn't have to say everything that's in his mind at all times. It's believable that he had Civ reads on several people bouncing about in his head that he didn't immediately post on the schedule you seem to prefer. If he had green-read me and given his other reads all in the same post (zero minutes apart), would you be less suspicious?

Hey, just caught up, and I'll post my big post in sections.

thellama73 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Matt wrote: Here's a new challenge. We're all up to date. Does anyone else in the game currently have six players they won't vote for? You don't even have to say who, just yes or no.

Llama
Scotty
Chaindeath
Mongoose
Marmot
Epi

How does one decide not to vote for Marmot early in the game?

I could take 15 day phases reading marmot's posts and still have no read whether to read him as good or bad.

Well, I already voted for him, so I got it out of my system.

Why did you vote for him, if he's a read you wouldn't vote for? Were you just aiming for a nice, safe place to put your vote on Day 1, to avoid scrutiny?

thellama73 wrote:

Scotty wrote:What makes you trust me? And chaindeath? Why him?

It was actually your very first post. I can't see a cop posting this:

Scotty wrote:I find it kind of silly that even our own Don doesn't know who the police are. I mean, they got badges and blue costumes and such. Why is this so hard?

I see that post as a joke with no relevance to Scotty's alignment. Can you explain why a cop would not be likely to post this?

Cool result for the Sockfaces, and though it wasn't a Cop, at least that puts all the Traitor discussion firmly behind us.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Scotty always votes automatically for the most inactive player on day 1.

Anyone with a comfortable tradition for their Day 1 vote automatically pings me. The reason for this is because they may do it when Civ, but it gives them a free pass for Day 1 as Mafia. The rest of us have to explain our votes and reasons, and he gets to coast because of tradition? That's lame. I may change to Scotty, I have twenty minutes.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Some one liners that pinged me:

sprityo wrote:Day zero is for policemen!

linki-that is in fact, and idea, that is good, yes

Tranq wrote:

Scotty wrote:I will bet my [hopefully] unborn child that the 30 person coordinated vote will not work out. There will be too many no-shows. There always is in these games.

No-shows could get replaced. I see no harm in trying Wilgy's plan. For science!

Both those guys only posted that. Nothing wrong with speculating on Wilgy's plan, but they haven't posted anything else yet. Could be a very easy way to blend in.

I agree with this point.

I wasn't aware that would tie him up with two other candidates at three votes apiece. Interesting.... more interesting at least than Golden with 1 vote that doesn't matter.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@LC

So your idea is to basically dump the whole traitor thing under a pile of WIFOM so big nobody can draw any conclusion from it?

I like it.

I like it too

LC is the first person to get a colour on my rainbow. It's very lightly green.

I'm a few pages behind but I'm feeling the crunch of the lynch end. This post by Golden roughly tells me where I am in the read, and I'm going to put a vote down on him for buddying me, and putting a green coloured target on my back. Golden

And if it's genuine and not buddying... well then thanks man! I also liked it. And I laughed with the pink 'S' thing.

Epignosis wrote:I'm taking my vote off Long Con. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I suspect him.

agleaminranks, come say something.

Your vote was on me?

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Civilians

I'm sorry, but I can't handle this. I'll save you the trouble, but please fix it! I know I'm a pain in the ass.

Civilians

You're civ.

Yes, that's right.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Civilians

I'm sorry, but I can't handle this. I'll save you the trouble, but please fix it! I know I'm a pain in the ass.

Tranq wrote:

Scotty wrote:I will bet my [hopefully] unborn child that the 30 person coordinated vote will not work out. There will be too many no-shows. There always is in these games.

No-shows could get replaced. I see no harm in trying Wilgy's plan. For science!

How would Wilgy's plan benefit the Civvies, in your own words?

Long Con wrote:So, employing a strategy to minimize the negative impact (on the Don's voting pattern) or the Traitor could work against the Don.

By that I mean, the idea here is to be aware of the Cops watching votes and seeing who is reluctant to vote all over the place, and identifying the Don, right? So let's flip that script, ignore the Traitor thing, and give them the idea that the big-multi-voter-type IS the Don!

This sentence makes proper sense like this: "So, employing a strategy to minimize the negative impact (on the Don's voting pattern) of the Traitor could work against the Don.

By that I mean, the idea here is to be aware of the Cops watching votes and seeing who is reluctant to vote all over the place, and identifying the Don, right? So let's flip that script, ignore the Traitor thing, and give them the idea that the big-multi-voter-type IS the Don!"

Epignosis wrote:I have been known to have a snifter of brandy around the holidays.

International Women's Day is on March 8th... and I hope to see you on Friday March 10th for World Kidney Day!

a2thezebra wrote:Enrique, why did you hop on my joke vote?

Looks like we have some gen-u-wine suspicion goin' on here! Zebra, baddie or Civvie, what's your history of savage attacks on Day 1 actions?

As for Wilgy's plan to activate both Traitors immediately... I can see the benefits of such a plan in certain circumstances, but to me, Traitors changing sides is not THAT big of a factor here. Yes, we all want to win over the opposite Civvie team, but I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that eliminating the Cops should be the obvious priority. Hmm. That's so obvious that it didn't need to be said, I think my point is that the Traitors shouldn't be a part of our vote decisions. Until late game, the likelihood of the Traitors switching sides is very low, and the impact on the Civvies' game is not that dramatic.

Instead of trying to just get everyone to cycle through votes and guarantee Traitor activation, I'd rather play the game as though the Traitors aren't there, and allow their roles to come to fruition in a natural way. I don't believe that it's likely that I'm going to be hopping my vote around like I'm playing Musical Chairs, whether I'm the Don or not. Maybe some strategies involve voting for a bunch of folks and getting reactions and whatever, and players employing those strategies will expose themselves to the baddies as "not likely the Don".

Actually, the Don could try to trick the baddies into wasting a kill attempt by acting contrary to that expectation and voting all around the yard. To me, an ideal result in a night would be the Cops trying to kill a Don. So, employing a strategy to minimize the negative impact (on the Don's voting pattern) or the Traitor could work against the Don.

By that I mean, the idea here is to be aware of the Cops watching votes and seeing who is reluctant to vote all over the place, and identifying the Don, right? So let's flip that script, ignore the Traitor thing, and give them the idea that the big-multi-voter-type IS the Don!

Or maybe the Don is the player who is conservatively avoiding the Traitor. Who knows, Cops? See how the Don can trick you into a mistake? Mwa ha haaa.... anyways, I'm drunk, and usually when that happens, my posts tend to evolve their ideas as I type them, so I hope that all made coherent sense. Better than eliminating the Traitor "threat", is tricking the Cops into targeting the Don and wasting a nightkill, right?

Epignosis wrote:I voted Long Con for making me look bad in Arkham.

That's legit. He was accused of the imbibing of alcohol because of my error. :lol: As if Epi would ever!

Golden wrote:The only problem is getting both dons to do it. I mean, it's like the prisoners dilemma. The ideal outcome for a don is that the other don does it, but they themselves don't.

Loved the Prisoner's Dilemma reference, it's bang-on. A gentleman and a scholar, I salute you!

MovingPictures07 wrote:4. No role outing of yourself or anyone else. This includes all statements of fact that any player may see and thereafter deduct your or someone else's role, such as "I am The Don", etc. This game is open setup role madness and incompatible with role outing, thus making it not fun when players engage in it. Absolutely don't do it.

I don't usually indulge in haphazard correction, but this one tickled me. That's not quite how deduction works.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:What i mean is: the hosts are hiding something from us. I want to speculate on what. "Who cares" is not an answer, we should care about it.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. The Dons are very hard to kill, but could easily be lynched if they get the Public Eye too much and end up on a bandwagon. Maybe there is a way to somewhat control bandwagoning so as to prevent the Don from being lynched, or at the very least, the Consigliere from getting frantic and quasi-outing himself to protect the Don.

Quin wrote:Capo/Crew: I don't know what sorts of things these guys might be instructed to do. Nor do I know if they could have temporary powers given to them for a certain task. It could be something like 'express town-read for x' or anything else. On top of that, what 'rewards' or 'punishments' can be given to them by the don?

Seems to me that The Don wants the Crew to get a reward, so it's likely that they will give a really easy mission. I don't know what kind of balancing there might be from the Hosts, but my ideal mission would be like, "Each member of the Crew must post AT LEAST three times today. Reward for this is awesome."

Silverwolf wrote:Hi all!!

Brand new here, first game so don't be too rough on me yet.

ika-Hi, How's it going? How do you think voting for me will help sort me?

That said, I've gotta read the game and the set-up again so...........I'll be back when I've done that.

Rumour has it that you came from Mafiascum. I imagine you'll find being here very different, because this community has developed over almost a decade mostly without the influence of the Mafia world at large. We're way more into creative Mafia gaming, and I think our games have a lot of interesting things going on most of the time. I hope you like the way we do things here. It's very cool to have you here, and I hope that your gameplay is interspersed with tales of how things are different from Mafiascum, and your take on the positives and negatives therein. I don't know if the community over there is a tight one, but here we (mostly) are like a large, extended family. At least in my opinion. I love every active member here, this community is truly wonderful.

Why is DrWilgy oinking? Wilgy, are you acting like a pig, and a pig is a Cop, and so we should lynch you?? That doesn't seem like a good plan, so... what's up?