The Syndicate

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Do yo thing. Stay hungry. Move a muscle. Make a motion. Pull it tighter.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:MP interrupted the meeting.

The following employees have not voiced their opinions:

DrWilgy
Long Con
Russtifinko

So, gents, what do you think? Let's get this show on the road, shall we?

Only on the condition that the non-voters be modkilled.

This is the best idea in the thread so far.

Seriously though, I'll do whatever is easier for the host.

Wanting to kill inactives? What's next, wanting to lynch low posters on Day 1? Sounds like BWT alright.

Same as it ever was!

I would consider it depending on the circumstances. But given it's not even Day 1 yet, I'm not even looking at lynch candidates yet.

Or maybe we lynch Rico since...

We'll Rico was....moving right there and he was.

Take it easy baby... Don't let your feelings get in the way. I apologised for Recruitement, didn't I?

Do yo thing. Stay hungry. Move a muscle. Make a motion. Pull it tighter.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:MP interrupted the meeting.

The following employees have not voiced their opinions:

DrWilgy
Long Con
Russtifinko

So, gents, what do you think? Let's get this show on the road, shall we?

Only on the condition that the non-voters be modkilled.

This is the best idea in the thread so far.

Seriously though, I'll do whatever is easier for the host.

Wanting to kill inactives? What's next, wanting to lynch low posters on Day 1? Sounds like BWT alright.

Same as it ever was!

Okay, so I guess a disclaimer is needed, until I most likely run into the same issue with the RYMers bunch.

This is - unless my math is also shit (which usually it totally is) - my 10th mafia game on The Syndicate. It's also my last game of 2015.

I want to have fun with this game. Talking Heads is fun and zany music, so I want to have fun and be zany. I'm no die hard, long time fan or anything, but ever since I finally got into albums such as their debut or Remain in Light, their music constantly pumps me up and gets me in a good groove.

So I plan an immersion in the theme, no matter how much players usually dislike that, once the game properly starts. I would add that this will not influence my usual gameplay.

My immersion will take a shape that should be easy to tell, in principle, and me explaining it would simply be no fun. All I can say is separate what looks like real content from what looks like something extra or odd. Research, google, do whatever with the extra part and it should become clear. It might also help looking for this little indicator over here -> , which will be my official emoticon for this game.

So how much fun you will let me have with this is up to you, but until then, I'm gonna rock it 'till I shock it, gonna kick it 'till I drop it.

so only Russ missing now?

reywaS wrote:

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

sorry. I'm stoned.

Lie detect that.

LMAO

Facts are I'm going to bed (even though my bed's on fire) and the poll is currently tie free. No improvement needed at the moment.

kneel4justice wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Hi, K4J. You speak of the "whole thread trying to avoid" ties. Does that mean, that if I pull a list on everyone who create ties when they voted, we have our mafia members on this side of the fence? Doesn't seem to make much logic. Some had it easier, others didn't. I was clear that I didn't get an easy tally to work with. That's all. Don't want to hurt nobody.

I see what you mean, but I don't think what I am saying is that simple?
I was speaking specifically on your decision and what it brought upon you, because had you not voted for option 6, it would be at 0 votes and in no danger of causing a tie. I am saying that - why would you go out on a limb to vote for the already safe (from a tie) option, if you were mafia? Obviously the thread (as a whole) is trying to avoid ties because of what MP said, in the end, even if not with their individual votes - I expect people to work around it, and try to fix it.

I'd say my voting for an option with no votes that created a tie with the only other option with 1 vote is only a problem because of that other option having only 1 vote. bea got to voting for an option that, as you say, would otherwise "be at 0 votes" faster and she's in the clear simply because she created no ties. This low-end tie can easily be corrected by any option gaining more votes, thus leaving the other option behind in the last place again, untied. If both options 6 and 8 will in fact never progress past this 1-vote point, then I might reconsider my vote there and modify it to a better result. So I don't get the damage that's allegedly done, except for having created two ties, which I had no way to avoid.

Matt F wrote:

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.

There is no motivation behind not managing to stay clear of avoiding ties. I had no choice for two of my three options. That's the point.

Matt F wrote:

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?

I liked the option. It's called preference. The enhancement could land in a civ's hands and work to good effect. I don't have expectations of this option winning, hence getting to be used "so soon", if that will even happen (the Host has made no specification on how will this work, who will "win" what, etc.). If it'll happen later and I'll be made in charge of it, I'll trust my instincts. As I've said, absolute trust keeps me going in the right direction.

Hi, K4J. You speak of the "whole thread trying to avoid" ties. Does that mean, that if I pull a list on everyone who create ties when they voted, we have our mafia members on this side of the fence? Doesn't seem to make much logic. Some had it easier, others didn't. I was clear that I didn't get an easy tally to work with. That's all. Don't want to hurt nobody.

Matt F wrote:

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.

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?

Matt F wrote:

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.

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

Matt F wrote:

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.

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!

Matt F wrote:

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.

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).

Matt F wrote:

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.

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.

Matt F wrote: 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.

Nice to meet you, too.

I said before I'd make improvements when the poll develops further. Gee, I wonder if I just intentionally contradicted myself there or if the problem sentence was all flavour.

I don't have to prove... that I am creative.

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?

As I've said, I'd expecting anything from our Host. The zanier, the more likely, so to speak. Same as it every was!

Only thing is, if we probably won't collectively get a sense of what the options' effects are (as in some might get info or powers, the rest of the field won't), what would be the point of a design in not getting a sense of what options we would receive from the other party, that we wouldn't even know of?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Matt F wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Epignosis wrote:I don't like Talking Heads.

I don't like Yes.

(Okay fine, except Relayer)

Epignosis wrote:Like all themes, I will experience the experience. I will listen to a Talking Heads album this weekend.

Same as it ever was!

Can't wait to see you try Godspeed You! Black Emperor, then. Even the placement of that exclamation mark should drive you nuts.

Matt F wrote: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.

As if the Syn Host would actually side with us and only make a private room for the Syndicateers.

The latter is not a bad guess at all. I can see our Host challenge both sides in such a way.

I'm still thinking... on the options. But first, breakfast. Oh, and work. Musn't forget work.

Qu'est ce que c'est freakin' ça?!

Gender check on K4, please. And alignment check on Llama.

And you may ask yourself: where is FZ, Golden and MM?