The Syndicate

Black Rock wrote:This game was lame. Black Rock was killed night one! Why? WHY!!!???? I loved my role and so wanted to play it. You broke my heart Suits, BROKE MY HEART! I had to follow along the game as a deady ALL game. So very sad. I deserved a chance. I hope you four realize what I have to do to you. It will be very sad for you as well. I had to throw a real life fit at that post, a real life fit. Imagine what LC had to witness. It was awful, his life was changed forever. You will now have to suffer these real life situations for the rest of your life... as long as I have opportunity. I'll never have this role again, I hope it was worth the agonizing death I must bestow upon you.

Yes, LC has been feeding me Rye and Coke all night.

I am a drama queen without this... your names have been recorded... in the brain.

Long Con wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:I agree, I think "info dumping", or at least info-hinting, should be a vibrant part of Mafia. It's the reason why giving the baddies a dead-role-checker (or even a regular role-checker) is so good. What an opportunity!

Perhaps the better way to combat the perceived info-dumping problem is for hosts to introduce things into the game to specifically neutralize the possibility. More baddie roles that can cause wrong information to seem right, variants on the Seemer role, roles that are listed as Civvie but are actually bad...

Also, it's worthwhile to point out that the baddies have a WAY better record on this site than the Civvies. The baddies win disproportionately more. So an infodumping problem isn't hurting the overall baddie win chances.

It is when infodumping is against the rules, which is generally the case.

Perhaps that should/could be changed for future games?

I would like to see that. I think some of the ideas I put out there could really lessen the negative impact of an "infodump".

Thanks, Dom, I really appreciate that. I can only imagine what you guys thought of Gollum throughout the game!

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:Of the people in the end game, the only person who was not outed/didn't out themselves was DH-- when excluding inactives because they don't matter at that point.

Hey hey hey!

Long Con wrote:I agree, I think "info dumping", or at least info-hinting, should be a vibrant part of Mafia. It's the reason why giving the baddies a dead-role-checker (or even a regular role-checker) is so good. What an opportunity!

Perhaps the better way to combat the perceived info-dumping problem is for hosts to introduce things into the game to specifically neutralize the possibility. More baddie roles that can cause wrong information to seem right, variants on the Seemer role, roles that are listed as Civvie but are actually bad...

Also, it's worthwhile to point out that the baddies have a WAY better record on this site than the Civvies. The baddies win disproportionately more. So an infodumping problem isn't hurting the overall baddie win chances.

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:Dh--- you played our team amazingly well. I wish it would have turned out better.



TBH-- Epi you are a great host. I love your games a lot.

Everyone on the team played amazingly. I was just the last one to get shot in the face.

our BTSC chat was awesome too. I'll miss it.


TBH, DH, you have more patience than I do-- I would have, and did, have an in-thread fit. You played it better than I ever could.

I was almost gonna lose it when the Ghost that got rezzed due to clever role claiming/outing also infodumped the Gandalf thing.

Well, I lost it when MP outed me-- you are a better man than I.

Sorry for your luck Dom. I think people should start getting modkilled again.

Don't be sorry-- that doesn't change anything.

Lynch and kill outers. Ruin their games. Make their lives miserable. Ruin everything for them. Make them feel how I have felt when I have played flawless games (see Doctor Who Mafia) and still get lynched simply because all the civvies out themselves.

Long Con wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Hot damn civvies. SVS and I decided on Day 2 that DH was bad and needed to go and he STILL made it to Day 12??????

You guys decided?

I not only decided he was bad, I made it my lifestyle for the whole game!

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:Dh--- you played our team amazingly well. I wish it would have turned out better.



TBH-- Epi you are a great host. I love your games a lot.

Everyone on the team played amazingly. I was just the last one to get shot in the face.

our BTSC chat was awesome too. I'll miss it.


TBH, DH, you have more patience than I do-- I would have, and did, have an in-thread fit. You played it better than I ever could.

I was almost gonna lose it when the Ghost that got rezzed due to clever role claiming/outing also infodumped the Gandalf thing.

Well, I lost it when MP outed me-- you are a better man than I.

bea wrote:epi - who would have come back if the other poll options for the dead players had won?

I'm dying to know who put Abed is Batman.

Marshy - for what it's worth - I did actually want to die so we could bring someone back. I was going to try to bring you back if it happened. Sadly no one tried to NK me.

Long Con wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:rez plz

Get in line, buddy!

thellama73 wrote:Lean your hat styles.

Long Con wrote:Sometimes hosts only allow a rez for nightkilled players... but sometimes it's anyone.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@Epi~ could we give it to a dead person? Like could it amplify MMs self protection powers so that they could be used retroactively? I still feel pretty bad about getting him lynched, and if I can help him I want to.

If not, i guess I could use a helmet myself

Living only, please.

Dom wrote: Metalmarsh is a silly guy who often times makes no sense whatsoever.

Mongoose wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Are yuppies still a thing?

I hope not :/ I always thought I was more a hippie with my incense and kombucha loving ways.

Where do you get your incense?

Spiritualist store, health food stores, craft fairs, yoga studios, any ole place! You can't beat Nag Champa, but I like fun scents too. Love Dragon's blood and that fizzy one and anything citrusy. I usually have some sort of candle burning as well, and today I invested in an essential oil diffuser! I put almond biscotti essential oil in it (which I bought at a handmade Christmas market here in Tally).

Mongoose wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Are yuppies still a thing?

I hope not :/ I always thought I was more a hippie with my incense and kombucha loving ways.

Black Rock wrote:I wonder if the lynch post will include a rez for me.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:So what reaction did you want?

/pulling teeth

Don't give me the pulling-teeth thing. You're the one framing me (even if unintentionally) at the last second and potentially swaying voters.

I was looking for something pingy. I did not get something pingy.

Linki: Well if I die, for the record, I don't think DH is bad.

On this we can agree.

S~V~S wrote:I am not framing you. I think you are bad MM.

S~V~S wrote:So what reaction did you want?

/pulling teeth

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I tend to ignore Llamas humor though ( ) and pay attention to his suspicions.

So we should pay attention. If you are NK'd it will probably be llama's doing?

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.

I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.

I was looking for a reaction from SVS. The question was not shifty, nor was I trying to set llama up.

DharmaHelper wrote:I wanna live. Swapped back to MM

S~V~S wrote:Is that so MM? You were looking to see if I was being defensive?

Lizzy wrote:Butt then again I shall be voting for an individual who hasn't been too active and hasn't made any on topic posts as far as I could tell.

Roxy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Are these Maths a joke too?
I disagree with a good portion of this.
Tbf a lot of your posts make my nose twitch.

No. I was logically proving that Boomslang's theory is inaccurate.

So you disagreee with llama and agree with Boomslang?

Linki: ture

Did I state anywhere that I agreed with Boom? Nope.

Roxy wrote:I said I disagree with your posts.
First off is your vote for SVS to get convo going seems like a bit of a stretch. bc A) you never stated any reasoning to, ya know, get convo going. b) bc when asked who you were changing your vote to you ignored and acted like we should have deduced ourselves who you were voting for.

Roxy wrote:As far as the quoted post goes your interpretation of how behaviors are not important then go on tosay yes they are important. You rode the fence in your entire post. you say this is important but then say its not as important as this.

I say behavior is a big part of locating baddies. You telling people what is right or wrong in hunting baddies is more or less telling them don't play your own way bc it. is wrong. I super disliked it when inh called boomslang stupid which is the #1 reason I do not like your or his reactions to one post boomslang made. I realize YOU did not call him stupid but you still argued with inh against boomslangs post. (Which may be wrong but who am I to judge how boom plays?) yes its worth noting but is it worth a vote I do not think so.

Roxy wrote:I do think your behavior this game is quite different than other games. You seem much more into it than before - more in your face - though thats not quite it either.

Roxy wrote:I do think I will be voting for you.

Boomslang wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Just want to throw this out there, but I'd recommened that y'all don't lynch me.

For those of you keeping score at home, there's the vague threat of retribution!

DharmaHelper wrote:Since MM changed his vote to me, out of what I assume is self preservation, seems I must do the same.

DFaraday wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.

I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.

I was looking for a reaction from SVS. The question was not shifty, nor was I trying to set llama up.

That may be, but as I don't have time to analyze this DH/LC stuff, I'll still vote you because it cricked my brow.

reywaS wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:For the record SVS, my only goal with voting you the way I did was to instigate some real Day 1 discussion. I believe I was successful. I had no suspicion of you then, nor do I have any of you now.

Per my comment on Mongoose, I was not distracting. I just wanted to point out that Mongoose has been logging onto the Syndicate and posting in other places, though she never bothered to check in on Day 0 even for this game.

To whom are you planning on changing your vote?

I don't plan on voting you, but I am certainly unappreciative with your approach today. You've maintained that voting early is suspicious, but somehow forget to bring up my name in that discussion. Players are bound to draw connections there. I do not want your vote, but being ignored is worse.

You didn't actually answer this yet, did you? Who are you planning on moving your vote to?

I thought that just the fact that I hadn't moved my vote would be answer enough. I don't know yet.

But I can assure you that by the end of the day, my vote will not be on you.

Really??? So, in essence, S~V~S is getting a pass today?

Boomslang wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.