The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Killing me didn't feel so awesome.

We killed you because you were too good, I think. Needed your voice gone. Best nightkill a Civvie can receive.

I keep hearing that excuse, whenever I'm lynched Night 1.

Should have taken you with me, at least.

The deadly nightlynch!

Ricochet wrote:Killing me didn't feel so awesome.

We killed you because you were too good, I think. Needed your voice gone. Best nightkill a Civvie can receive.

He and I are great baddies together. We just want to try outrageous things, and neither of us tries to caution the other. It's just like "How about THIS?" "AWESOME!"

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Congrats winners; I was so disjointed this game. My gut told me LC was bad, but my logic told me he couldn't be, so my cerebral cortex shut down. And LC/Sorsha bad again!?!?!

You forgot about meeeeee.

Yes, folks, the crazy MM-Sorsha-Long Con combo from Downton Abbey returned FULL FORCE in the very next game to get Smirking Revenge on Civvies everywhere! Classic feature of BOTH games: no nightkill on Night 2! Planned in the first game, accidental in the second... and yet it worked SO MUCH BETTER in the second! If only we could have nightkilled me as well. And since it was a sequel, we had to have another character, so zebra came in as the fourth Musketeer.

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:You forgot about meeeeee.

I did; mainly becasue no matter how capable of evil you can be, when I visualize your team and your chatroom, I visualize them concocting evil plots, and I visualize you doing acrobatics and magic tricks to amuse them, lol. Some people are easy to visualize as evil plotters (your teammates, me) and some are not. This is a good thing, not a bad one

Ho ho ho.... if only you knew.

DrWilgy wrote:Oh man... 4 civ votea on me that last cycle prevented me from lynching LC! Im so razzled!!!

Lynching me?

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Three bad lynches and missed kill even and game over.

a2thezebra was a good lynch!

Haaaa, yeah, I totally sucked, and it worked out after I hid under some coats.

DrWilgy, you were fantastic that game!

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:Often, I will call my Civ reads as bad in the thread in order to protect them from nightkills.

Also this goes in direct contention with your day 3 rainbow list; where you had BWT and DFaraday painted as baddies and voted for BWT day 3 and DFaraday day 4.

So in other words, you're a liar, or at least a terrible friend.

I said "often", not "always". Can I be a terrible fiend?

Often, I will call my Civ reads as bad in the thread in order to protect them from nightkills.

S~V~S wrote:

Long Con wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Sorry formissing thevote guys, I got sucked into the never ending bbq w/beer.

That's ok, things went really well without you.

Who would you have voted for?

You lunched a civvie, you think that is really good?

I likely would have wanted to vote BWT, but probably would have voted Wilgy cause I did not think Faraday was bad

But really,I have no idea, I have been saying that for days.

Oh, I meant they went really well from a baddie perspective.

S~V~S wrote:Sorry formissing thevote guys, I got sucked into the never ending bbq w/beer.

That's ok, things went really well without you.

Who would you have voted for?

DrWilgy wrote:LC, explain your vote.

@Sriracha, because LC has had a roller coaster opinion on me. I've gone from bad to good to bad to good to bad. What ever gave LC the opinion that DF was bad bad bad?

Everyone who voted me today, I have been fighting tooth and nail this game. I had no way of telling what the results of DF's flip would be, only a guess. I explained this, and set up the wagon that shouldn't have worked. Please look at LC and compare his actions to how I've read them. If anything, read him as saving me yesterday, putting him on my team, meaning his lynch should be just as justifiable as mine.

Roller coaster?? After Serge died, you are the Civviest Civ on my rainbow list, Wilgy. Of course I voted to save you - YOU chose DF as the vehicle for that, not me.

Pardon my quick off-the-cuff vote post, I was at a friend's house and just barely remembered to come and vote before the deadline... I wasn't interested in making a big thing out of it, I just needed to get in there.

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:Scotty, you may be right...

You are a pretzel. Without salt.

"Without salt"... that means "no hard feelings", right? I learned about salt over at Jesus Toast Mafia.

Scotty, you may be right...

Voting DFaraday because he's baddie bad bad!

DrWilgy wrote:Also, @LC what would you classify as original proponents?

Um.. Scotty and I are the original proponents. This isn't a classification issue, this is who we were discussing. Not up for debate or opinion.

DrWilgy wrote:Over analysis of night kills have caused very tragic results. My clearest memory of this happens to be your death in a realm reborn. Golden was super murdered because of it and all the players over analyzing it.

Epi, it seems as though this is the place to which you have pushed Wilgy, can you respond to this? I don't remember the circumstances of your death and Golden's "super-murder" offhand, so I don't get the context Wilgy is framing this POV within. "Over analysis of night kills have caused very tragic results." is a really vague, sweeping comment.

I believe there is a scale difference in the missing of a kill and who the target is.

I don't quite get what you're saying here.

This would be different if there were kill blocking roles, but I don't believe that there is any way possible for that to be the case.

That is the same conclusion we all already made, no one is contesting that. Why even say it??

Missing a kill as BWT put it is probably the worst thing a baddie can do.

What BWT said was "I think the missed NKs were a deliberate attempt to try and draw attention onto low posters and non-active players. Looked good at the time, but as you've probably learned from last night, it's much better to try and kill someone. It's the best way to try and cause chaos and confusion."

Hindsight is, as it always is, 20/20... why are you bringing BWT's comment into this? I don't understand some of what you're saying, Wilgy, and when I understand what, I don't get why.

DrWilgy wrote:It's not a matter of opposite view points existing. It's a matter of "do I believe that opposite viewpoints can healthily survive in a mafia game" and the answer is no. There is a right and a wrong and disagreements need to be absolved by majority. When two even and opposite patterns stagnate there is a reason for that, and that reason is either 1) a player doesn't care enough about said pattern or 2) a player is lying.

A good example of this would be Zeebs and Sig. A opposite and even pattern arose when they both agreed on Gambler's Fallacy, but there was opposition through Zebra. Zebra ended up being caught a liar.

Tl;dr players that have opposite views don't just shake hands and walk away in this game.

"Stagnate"? Neither of the "two even and opposite patterns" you speak of are even held by their original proponents anymore. I'm sorry, Wilgy, but I'm calling fake on this one, this doesn't make sense at all.

I think your "50% correct" thing is weird. We had different suspicions, mathematics isn't really a very accurate way of assessing it. It doesn't take into account the subtler side of things.

Look at it this way - when I said "right now I think both of you are bad", that wasn't simply the same as Robot-LC outputting "barry.lyndon.reads:DrWilgy==bad;a2thezebra==bad". There is some percentage of that sentence that is simply designed to see how each of you respond to the idea. There is the idea that the timing of saying something and the context of the posts around it are a large part of the meaning. I'm not a robot, and I wasn't "50% correct" about anything.

Is there anything other than this not-really-that-bizarre "50% correct" anomaly that is making you narrow it down to just Scotty or I? Maybe just state the suspicion non-mathematically... I just don't really have much else to say about the math version.

Linki: LOL Scotty, nice alternate rebuttal!

Sorsha wrote:Serge thought Scotty was bad, if serge was Barry I think he'd have tried to kill him last night. Unless serge had someone he thought was more likely a soldier. So if Scotty is still alive I'd lean towards civ on him as well.

That's a great point, I hadn't thought about that angle. Apparently at least a few other people were already thinking that as well, and it makes a lot of sense.

Wilgy, what's either Scotty or LC at this point? One of us is bad?

RIP Serge, sorry if my rainbow list got you killed... but I think that your likely role was what got you targeted last night.

Guys, why do you believe in Scotty?

birdwithteeth11
DFaraday
Scotty
Metalmarsh89
Sorsha
Epignosis
S~V~S
DrWilgy
Serge
Long Con

This was really tough to do, and it's a bit of a hasty slap-chop. I still feel most comfortable with going by the missed kill evidence and lynching BWT. DF, Scotty, and Metalmarsh are vaguely interchangable, I think I trust them less than Sorsha-S~V~S-Epi. Wilgy, I haven't really entertained the notion that you and zeebs are teammates since your original reaction, I like you as a Civ right now. Serge too.

The reason it was tough is that I've got BsG game on the brain, and sometimes reads on players bleed over between games. I just wanted to give some sort of list before night was over.

I think maybe MM meant "Which two of these are your teammates"? Maybe that's the error.

Hey! Wilgy listed three people, and MM said "Which of these two are your teammates."

Shouldn't he have said "Which of these three are your teammates?"

Am I having a reading fail, or are you?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:I tried Gleam.

Remaining baddies are Scotty, Epi and BWT.

Which of these two are your teammates?

Don't you mean three?

Gotta go to work, so I'm voting now.

Voting BWT11 because I think he's very likely to have missed the nightkill.

Ok, I would put S~V~S as Null-Civ, somewhere in the Medium Rare zone. I do think that her suspicion of me, and her relenting a bit, seemed both genuine and open-minded, which looks really good to me. It has the added bonus of not looking like buddying, because of the way she was talking before I responded... talking that "I think LC is bad" talk that I only like in small, easily digestible doses. Note to self: when attempting to buddy someone, first apply suspicion pressure to them, then turn it around.

DrWilgy wrote:"I don't recall seeing you play this way before, Wilgy. You are so carefree and zany so much of the time, and since zebra's lynch, you have changed into a laser-focused player that I don't recognize. I don't know how to analyze that, can you point to a time when you have done it before? You seem like a completely different player."

That's on purpose. I like your response and believe you.

Wow, I am impressed. Better not let it get out, or people will start becoming more demanding to see Laser Wilgy in action.

I would like more BWT-ing if possible. The more time that passes without a post from him, the more inclined I am to vote for him. I don't think the possibility of the captains not submitting a nk for the mind games should be ignored, but if BWT doesn't toss me anything to catch here, we will have problems.

I have found that this is the issue sometimes with BWT. He's a busy guy, and isn't always able to make a solid commitment to Mafia games at times. However, my experience with this in the past says that it makes him more likely to be a prime candidate for "missing the kill PM" -- his low posting isn't lurking, it's him not being present. I won't look at his last login time on the site is (because, as Epi recently discovered to his chagrin, that's not fair), but his posts clearly indicate that he was not around for Night 2.

Ok Wilgy, here's some responses:

DrWilgy wrote:Also, what would've prompted said "bold moves" that statement doesn't make any sense. Since there's no cause. Cause and effect statements only work if there's a cause which you haven't presented.

If "with the numbers" or the set player number is the cause... Why then? Why would on day 2, I would go after my teammate instead of day 1? Why not wait till 3 if numbers is the reason? after being hardly vocal, and numbers have anything to do with that? Perhaps my thoughts were this "hey I know we just gained some advantage in our baddie to civ ratio, now is clearly the time to make a bold move and go after my teammate."

What you are saying and/or proposing makes no sense.

Tldr - What about the exchange was ludicrous, what prompted my bold moves if I'm bad, and what do the numbers have to do with my actions? Because right now it seems like you are saying things to say them.

You're taking a gut theory and trying to analyze it out of existence, if you understand what I mean. I don't have a Big Reason why it would happen on Day 2, and not Day 1 or Day 3. I've been a baddie with Zebra before, and she absolutely loves the idea of teammate bussing. In Coquelicot Mafia, on a baddie team with me, she actually was making moves that made it take slightly longer, and made it slightly harder, for us to win, because she wanted to stick with a bussing plan so badly. We still quite dominated that game, but won a day later than we could have because she didn't want to give it up. And it wasn't even for a big reason, it was just because she had started it and wanted to stay the course and have fun with it. We were cool with it (albeit with rolled eyes and some sidelong concerned glances) because our victorious outcome seemed pretty inevitable either way at that point.

I don't recall seeing you play this way before, Wilgy. You are so carefree and zany so much of the time, and since zebra's lynch, you have changed into a laser-focused player that I don't recognize. I don't know how to analyze that, can you point to a time when you have done it before? You seem like a completely different player.

You say that what I proposed made no sense with *reasons* why... hell, you have typed fifty times the words against it that I ever used to put it out there. It was how I felt at the time, at one point in your back-and-forth with her, it stopped feeling like a real conversation to me. That's all, I understand that you don't want me or anyone else to feel that way, you have given reasons why it "makes no sense"... but the zebra I know and the Wilgy I thought I knew don't always require that logical core, they are players who are willing to freewheel it and splash a little chaos in order to hopefully come out on top of it all. Unlike players such as Dom and Epi, who I view as wanting to keep tight control on their perspectives and posts at all times.

Lastly (on this point anyways), as a teammate, you would have had no idea that the zebra accusation would catch on as much as it did, but your back-and-forth ended up dominating a large part of Day 2, due to this being a quieter sort of game.

DrWilgy wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Quick question, LC & Sorsha, can I get opinions on each other? Not becasue I specifically suspect either of you, but becasue of recent history, I think it would be valuable.

Hmm... What recent history is this SVS?

Also, LC and SVS, could you two comment on each other? I'm intrigued as to what you two think of each other.

Ok, I guess I should two-in-one this. Sorsha is a quiet player whether she is Civ or baddie, so, while that makes her relatively easy to ISO, it makes her harder to analyze. She's made a few comments about S~V~S and Wilgy, but nothing too definitive. She didn't pursue that S~V~S "three way tie" thing, but maybe no one answered her. (My answer: I don't think that seems like usual S~V~S behaviour... more like Metalmarsh behaviour: tie it up for fun for the heck of it, leaving no strong trail after the dust settles.) Her last comment on me was, like, "maybe LC is bad, I really don't know, but I'd go for that lynch!" A bit wishy-washy, which could be a baddie sign. I certainly didn't like the comment, personally.

And S~V~S? As I said in response to Sorsha, the tie-up-the-lynch thing doesn't seem like her usual M.O., but it's pretty early in the game, and I am having trouble making a logical connection to link it to "baddie S~V~S". I'll look deeper, but I want to post now and then come back for that. This post has been gestating too long already, due to distractions and BsG game posting.

I flipped over here from BG to have a quick catchup, and that gleam post intimidated me too much. I'll absorb it all at a later time tonight, right now I'm AFK for a bit again.

Ok Wilgy, I'll try to answer things for you tonight as well. My attention has been taken up with having lots of fun in the BG game lately, but I will try to balance out tonight, I do not understand what links me to BWT though.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

llamaman wrote:The second in my ambitious series of Kubrick themed mafias, based on my second favorite Kubrick film. This will be a straightforward game with no secrets and everything out in the open, only with an added Hierarchy mechanic. This being a story of people swept along by the whim of circumstance, the individual players are fairly limited in their night powers, but I do not think that will lessen the fun substantially.

Ah... ok then, and inactive failure? I see Scotty voted for gleam, is he the only inactive one?

Nice night. Maybe there's some stuff going on behind the scenes we don't know about?

Wilgy, don't make me go Barry Lyndon Super Saiyan on your ass. Your whole exchange with Zebra was approaching ludicrous. If you're trying to head me off from jumping on you by coming for me, well... we'll just see. With the numbers we're dealing with in this game, I have no doubt that the baddies will be making some bold moves, and you fit the bill for that right now, both with your convo with Zebra and you trying to control the situation now.

The show is great, and the tinfoil just gives me better reception. I have to go shower now, and I'm voting a2thezebra now.

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:You both look bad right now to me.

Why is that?

This whole back-and-forth has reached the level of contrived.

So you're saying we're teammates? Okay.

That's the only possible meaning of "you both look bad", isn't it?

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:You both look bad right now to me.

Why is that?

This whole back-and-forth has reached the level of contrived.

You both look bad right now to me.

a2thezebra wrote:Your patterns, I've told you this before. This is Star Wars Wilgy on full display.

How sure are you about this? Have you been right about Wilgy in the past?

S~V~S wrote:Becasue if Serge had BTSC with sig, he did not have it with LC.

Why has this been so hard for people to figure out?

I hadn't thought too much about it. That is a good point, so no more of this damn dragon talk, I frakking promise I'll treat my linkitis the way everyone expects from now on, with a separate line, and the word "linki", and a colon. Yay hugs!

Scotty wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Anyone who actually votes for me based on this should be ashamed.

I think the biggest thing for me is your lack of content in that post. Why even comment about the lack of voters if you yourself haven't voted?

It looks to me like S~V~S came in to vote at the last minute, and was confused by the lack of votes. Because she was there to cast a vote (however late in the perceived lynch, which is something else that is more worthwhile to discuss), commenting on the lack of votes isn't hypocritical in any way to me. She wasn't a non-voter. She was a "I'm late but I made it in time" voter. Perceived.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Do point out observations on defence vs neutral and aggro please. Are there any key words that set a defensive tone?

Why do I change my spelling of defense?

...

Are both correct? I think both are correct... EPIIIIII!!! I need you!!!

Also, I like the SVS observation. Has she done this before?

Pssst, DrWilgy. Epignosis stated that SVS has done this before. You can lick her now.

That's right. Let 'er rip.

I'm willing to follow that S~V~S vote. As I recall, her Civ game usually has her becoming more uptight when receiving suspicion, whereas she has been more careful to keep her cool and try and deal with things rationally in this game, which is a baddie tell for her.

I am not willing to cast the vote yet, since there is a day left in the poll, and I'll give her a chance to respond.

Welcome, Marmot!

Wilgy, I agree that it's true that it's mostly liars feel the need to profess their honesty. I have specifically tried to erase such things from my baddie vocabulary.

a2thezebra wrote:Your meta's looking pretty bad right now Wilgy, to be honest.

What do you mean by this?

Ricochet wrote:I find Sir Con's attempt for a summary suddenly overelaborate. Unlike the views shared by Madam S. van S. and Sir Bird, the short interval of time between Sir Serge's and Sir Con's posts would work in favor of Sir Con's added sentence argument. But now that Sir Con has even considered not posting altogether, as to avoid relating in context to Sir Serge's jest, it feels like a change of statement and my pings feel suddenly activated.

Hey, you wanna tunnel me, fine, it will probably make me less likely to get nightkilled. But just so we're staying honest here:

Long Con wrote: Well, yes. I was taunting S~V~S, and then I saw his post with the dragon in linki, and then I thought of deleting it altogether because he kind of beat me to the punch, and then I added the dragon part as a nod to his post in a quick way.

The statement that I had considered deleting the post isn't something that I just added - I mentioned it before. It's just the truth.

*uses pliers to remove staples from Wilgy's tongue*

Ricochet wrote:

Serge wrote:Hey, why am I leading? It was obviously a joke. I would've used it on anyone, if they had captain on their tag, SVS just happened to be the person to have it. I saw the opportunity to crack a joke, I did. Weak sauce, Serge voters.

Sir Scott may have voted you for such a reason, but Sir Faraday and myself did not.

I imagine Madam SVS and/or Sir Con would cry "mischaracterization" about this, now.

That's quite an imagination. Am I truly that predictable?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I didn't realize they were that close to each other. Yeah that does look a bit weird.

Allow me to add some context, which will clarify the situation.

I was catching up with the thread, and I had scooped up the quote from Serge along the way. I had reached S~V~S' post here at 6:27pm:

S~V~S wrote:OK, if you say so. I don't think you can, but shoot. Put it out there.

...and I was caught up with the thread. Since S~V~S was the last post, and the most current poster, I decided to engage her a little bit, in the form of some pressure:

Serge wrote:I believe Barry Lyndon should come out now and help us get rid of the captains. Come out Barry. We have fancy cakes and teas and potatoes and stuff all Victorian people like. Plus, monoliths. Here, Barry, Barry, we promise we don't have an axe somewhere.

That's not possible, there is a specific rule against role-outing and such things.

S~V~S wrote:OK, if you say so. I don't think you can, but shoot. Put it out there.

Getting nervous, S~V~S?

During my catchup, I had also been intrigued by the way that a couple of people had cast their unchangeable vote 24 hours before the deadline because they were faked out by the poll error, so I added a couple of lines about that:

Long Con wrote:

Serge wrote:I believe Barry Lyndon should come out now and help us get rid of the captains. Come out Barry. We have fancy cakes and teas and potatoes and stuff all Victorian people like. Plus, monoliths. Here, Barry, Barry, we promise we don't have an axe somewhere.

That's not possible, there is a specific rule against role-outing and such things.

S~V~S wrote:OK, if you say so. I don't think you can, but shoot. Put it out there.

Getting nervous, S~V~S?

That false-ending poll made some cool stuff happen, made Epi and sig reveal their hands early.

Do either of you expect to be casting your vote at your chosen targets by tomorrow's deadline?

All in all, this took me about two and a half minutes, I estimate. I then went to post it, and saw Serge's post about unleashing the dragon in linkitis. Due to the similarity of his comment to my own, I wanted to either erase my whole thing to S~V~S, or to acknowledge the comment with something. I chose the latter, and posted it at 6:30:

Long Con wrote:

Serge wrote:I believe Barry Lyndon should come out now and help us get rid of the captains. Come out Barry. We have fancy cakes and teas and potatoes and stuff all Victorian people like. Plus, monoliths. Here, Barry, Barry, we promise we don't have an axe somewhere.

That's not possible, there is a specific rule against role-outing and such things.

S~V~S wrote:OK, if you say so. I don't think you can, but shoot. Put it out there.

Getting nervous, S~V~S? Is the dragon coming out?

That false-ending poll made some cool stuff happen, made Epi and sig reveal their hands early.

Do either of you expect to be casting your vote at your chosen targets by tomorrow's deadline?

That is the exact way that my scrutinized post was put together. If you still think it's somehow weird, please refer to this guide before asking something that has already been explained.

*grabs Wilgy's tongue*

*staples it to bulletin board*

Ricochet wrote:Well, no sight of Barry, but we just killed his mom. Requiescat in pace, Sig.

Shame about this misdirection, in hindsight. Carelessness is a baddie trait? My regard of Sir Con has considerably worsened.

Funny how your regard waited until after he was lynched to show itself.

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.

I already said that I think Serge is Civ.

Then Sir Sig is a baddie mischaracterising Sir Serge's votes, with which he does not agree, to what purpose?

Well, I suppose an answer doesn't mean anything now... but, as I said before I thought his lazy play could be a baddie tell. Clearly not. Sorry sig.

Ricochet wrote:Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.

I already said that I think Serge is Civ.