The Syndicate

Long Con wrote:Do baddies need to paint targets on people like that?

Precisely.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I disagree with llama regarding painting targets since it also provides a target for protection.

This point too. I've been in chats where expressly staying away from killing the least suspected person has been discussed.

MacDougall wrote:I don't get your point at all Golden. I think supertown players who are being civ read by everyone almost always come up as kill targets in scum chats for being unlikely to be lynched. And I also said it in different words when I said I feel like he was killed for bossing it.

Have you genuinely never discussed killing a player in a game who wasn't attracting suspicion? I find that extremely hard to believe.

I mean, getting close to end game/lylo you need to take out people who are obviously town, for whatever reason. But I tend to find those decisions much more complex than solely who seems to be a top town read.

Taking out someone solely because a handful of people are putting them as a high town read? No. And especially it doesn't seem likely to me by night 2. The game turns around all the time, you don't know if the person town read today will be lynched tomorrow. Much more likely is who is linked to who, who seems like they might have what ability, who can read me well, whose kill do we look least connected to.

Even if 'who is most civ' comes up (and I honestly can't remember it ever coming up in a mafia chat I was in... much more focus on who seemed most dangerous, not who was most town read), it is hardly in a vacuum as the factor that determines the kill.

That's even ignoring that fallacy that baddies would put a target on his back only to then kill him. It's like the chicken and the egg.

@DH - yeah indeed. As a rainbow hater I mean.

thellama73 wrote:The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.

Bullsuit.

Voting llama

I was waiting to see who ran that argument first. I find it much more likely that RadicalFuzz would be killed by someone who wanted to run that argument. I was wondering if it might be DH. I've never been part of any mafia team that has talked about killing someone because others are reading them as civ, nor have I ever hosted a mafia team having that discussion.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I wonder if Brian's death was related to the fact that he missed the vote? Not a mod-kill but perhaps someone has the ability to somehow kill no voters.

I recall in TH we had a role that forced people to multiply their post count or be killed if they failed to meet their post count limit. Perhaps there is a scum or rogue role that makes it so if a person misses a vote they can be hit or you target them and if they miss a vote after that at any point they die. Could be a neat way to get rid of non contributors. Has there been a role like this before? I can see why RadicalFuzz was hit on account of bossing but Brian was barely around and neither was timmer so they seem like less tactical, more "because I can" type kills.

It's a neat way to get rid of busy moms too.

Eloh, you could say, was gotten rid of by a role being used to its potential (Rico's). I'm sorry Eloh couldn't keep up and enjoy the game, because it is much funner when she can.

But I'm not sure what your point is.

Dom wrote:I'm not sure what the point of engaging in that discussion in the game thread is.

If you'll look at what I was talking about, I wasn't talking about this game. I was talking about Talking Heads.

That's a lot of talking.

In Talking Heads, Eloh had trouble keeping up. Then she ended up having to make like 30 on-topic posts or something like that. She tried, but could keep up, and got killed for it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. That's all I was referring to.

Oh right, I get it now.

Yeah, I can see how someone might be attracted to writing that kind of role if they have a history of people not really participating in your games. On the other hand, I don't see SVS including a role like that, tbh.

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:I'm not sure what the point of engaging in that discussion in the game thread is.

The question is - why three kills.

And in some ways I agree with you, in that we can speculate all we like but we don't have any evidence (that I can see).

That's not the point I was talking about.

But also valid.

Well, what point were you making? Because all the stuff about Eloh comes directly from Mac's speculation of there being a role that can kill for non-participation.

Dom wrote:I'm not sure what the point of engaging in that discussion in the game thread is.

The question is - why three kills.

And in some ways I agree with you, in that we can speculate all we like but we don't have any evidence (that I can see).

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I wonder if Brian's death was related to the fact that he missed the vote? Not a mod-kill but perhaps someone has the ability to somehow kill no voters.

I recall in TH we had a role that forced people to multiply their post count or be killed if they failed to meet their post count limit. Perhaps there is a scum or rogue role that makes it so if a person misses a vote they can be hit or you target them and if they miss a vote after that at any point they die. Could be a neat way to get rid of non contributors. Has there been a role like this before? I can see why RadicalFuzz was hit on account of bossing but Brian was barely around and neither was timmer so they seem like less tactical, more "because I can" type kills.

It's a neat way to get rid of busy moms too.

Eloh, you could say, was gotten rid of by a role being used to its potential (Rico's). I'm sorry Eloh couldn't keep up and enjoy the game, because it is much funner when she can.

But I'm not sure what your point is.

MacDougall wrote:Has there been a role like this before?

I recall something like that this year but I can't remember the game, possibly it was Biblical.

Long Con wrote:

MacDougall wrote:3 kills on night 2 is weird. Surely the scum don't have 3 kills on a single night? The flavour makes it sound like one role was responsible for all three kills. What kind of role would be able to kill three people in a single night this early in the game? I've played with the demo man role before but that wouldn't have been able to kill that many people yet.

I wonder if those three players all did something to trigger their demise. I will take a look.

I think that there were probably three different killers, and each of them were given a Shadowsock to send as an Anonymity Assassin.

I agree with this. I think the Shadowsocks were probably flavour. But Mac's idea cant' be ruled out.

HB, you felt that sig might have stopped a kill on night one, and said something about evidence pointing that way. Can you be more specific about what you were referring to?

Three civilians in a night?

that is not good.

I wonder if Ghost Illyria is responsible for the death of DF.

And, Bea welcome!

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:If humanity survives until the sun envelopes the earth then we will already have colonised other solar systems, and it will not be the end of humanity as we know it, only the end of the earth, therefore Mac is scum.

But all stars will eventually die. It doesn't matter how many worlds we colonize. Eventually, the universe will grow cold, and we will perish with it.

Sure, but odds are against the sun being last.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Maybe the fact taht people piled on Sig means that teammates were trying to protect Lorab from her nigh inevitable lynch?

Maybe. Until LoRab or at least one of the main people against her (Epi, Sorsha, Black Rock) flips I think it's premature to talk about protective votes. Jimmy had as many votes as she did before the sig wagon started.

Pretty difficult to call LoRab's lynch 'nigh inevitable' in those circumstances, isn't it.

I'd say sig's lynch is likely to contain a mix of people who genuinely thought he was bad and baddies who felt it was a safe place to vote (and probably baddies who thought sig was genuinely bad). It is possible some votes could have been to ensure JJ or LoRab remained out of reach.

If humanity survives until the sun envelopes the earth then we will already have colonised other solar systems, and it will not be the end of humanity as we know it, only the end of the earth, therefore Mac is scum.

I wasn't able to vote on that day.

RIP sig.

sig wrote:Also keep an eye on GOlden I don't like his last minute doubts about my wagon, it seems like something mafia would do to try and look less scummy when I flip civ.

No, they aren't last minute doubts. I'm just expressing to you that I do think you have defended as well as you can. I still think you are the best choice for my vote.

sig wrote:There isn't even a good case against me this game.

This is just untrue.

@sig - I think you've defended well and defended all the cases. You've done enough to give me doubt. I'm by no means certain about you.

But you've also done enough to make me feel comfortable about voting your way, I feel good about it. But when people (including me) defend you for 'just being sig'... well, that shouldn't be dismissed. There is genuinely something to you getting lynched for nothing. In this case I just don't feel it is nothing.

I guess we will see.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:Sig went a similar route in bullets over broadway.. when he was going down, he made a couple of similar incriminating posts that seemed more about whether people had caught him for the right reasons than whether he was actually bad.

Just to be clear you're insinuating he was bad in that game too right?

Yes. JJ played it but he subbed in after sig was lynched.

Sig went a similar route in bullets over broadway.. when he was going down, he made a couple of similar incriminating posts that seemed more about whether people had caught him for the right reasons than whether he was actually bad.

@Mac - who do you not like to think you have a good read on?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I like his answer.

I liked it too. It pushed MM up from where he was on my rainbow.

Yeah, I'm feeling pretty good that sig is bad:

sig wrote:linki: Mac you don't have a good grip on my scum play, especially if you think I'm zebras teammate.

read: I am bad, but not for the reasons you say.

FZ. wrote:No idea who to vote for. Can I get a pass on my first day? I want to sleep.

For me, the most damning part of the case on LoRab is that people who are relatively good at reading her well have called her out and haven't let up. Sorry, I'm not the best to describe it, I know you've been looking for something in that direction.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Zebra's role isn't a seemer. She would have framed a player to show up bad on checks. That's just manipulation. A seemer would show up as good when lynched.

The speculation plausibile would be if Zebra's killer would mess with zebra's role reveal, turning it into a bad flip.

Yeah, but think it through.

1) The basis for sig's suspicion is that 'Roger Rabbit was a civ role last time' - coming from the fact that I was a civ as Roger Rabbit and said so.

2) So, is the idea that Zebra's role is true, but his role powers and affiliation are not?

3) Surely either only the affiliation would change and everything else would stay the same (in which case, the powers look bad and so I think there is no change to zebra's affiliation)... OR

Everything has changed.

Sig's theory doesn't check through, if you consider the fact his starting point was 'last time Roger Rabbit was civ'.

1) I'd need a second baddie flip to see if former civ roles can be redesigned as bad or if is, indeed, an dubious instance.

2) Not sure what you mean...?

3) The character I have was role transformed (powers), but not allignment transformed. Roger Rabbit's seems to have suffered it both ways (unless I'm mistaken and some of his powers were the same in the original game; my memory is danish bae, tbh). Also, the powers themselves seem very corruptive, no matter what name (character) you give to it. So either zebra was a) bad with a former civ name; b) bad with a name that her killer changed it to a civ reference (...which would prove...what?) or c) entirely good (with a name worthy of that, from original game), but transformed via alignment and powers to look bad...

...is that what you're trying to imply?

I think people are going way too far down the rabbit hole.

I'm trying to imply that sig having a theory that zebra wasn't bad seems like disingenuous speculation, because he speculates Zebra is good BECAUSE she was Roger Rabbit, but that means both affiliation and powers would have to change without the role name changing. And all because Rabbit was civ last time? Doesn't that sound to you like a baddie who knows that a number of the baddies have roles that were civ last time and is trying to minimise this? It's what it sounds like to me.

For what it's worth, my role as Roger Rabbit as civ also involved getting people to post emojis and being generally speaking a prankster, so the role remains entirely in spirit with the original role. Just a baddie version of it.

Black Rock wrote:

Golden wrote:

FZ. wrote:Do you have any idea why it seemed like zebra knew she was going to die before it was revealed? At least that was my impression.

I don't have any theory on that, other than to say that I can see why people feel she may have known.

The way I took it at the time was that she was wifoming an unkillable role for funsies (since she seemed to be doing a few things for funsies). If we were ever able to get some kind of confirmation that she would have known, though, it would change the way we look at her suspicions.

@BR - I guess what the theory is about is a reverse seemer (is that what people call a miller?)

You mean someone who makes another player look bad?

Unless they changed the wording in the role description as well the description is of evil.

No, someone who flips bad when they are actually good. Thats sigs theory. And your last sentence describes exactly why I'm saying that the idea doesn't make sense for zebra. Clearly the role power is bad.

FZ. wrote:Do you have any idea why it seemed like zebra knew she was going to die before it was revealed? At least that was my impression.

I don't have any theory on that, other than to say that I can see why people feel she may have known.

The way I took it at the time was that she was wifoming an unkillable role for funsies (since she seemed to be doing a few things for funsies). If we were ever able to get some kind of confirmation that she would have known, though, it would change the way we look at her suspicions.

@BR - I guess what the theory is about is a reverse seemer (is that what people call a miller?)

Ricochet wrote:Zebra's role isn't a seemer. She would have framed a player to show up bad on checks. That's just manipulation. A seemer would show up as good when lynched.

The speculation plausibile would be if Zebra's killer would mess with zebra's role reveal, turning it into a bad flip.

Yeah, but think it through.

The basis for sig's suspicion is that 'Roger Rabbit was a civ role last time' - coming from the fact that I was a civ as Roger Rabbit and said so.

So, is the idea that Zebra's role is true, but his role powers and affiliation are not?

Surely either only the affiliation would change and everything else would stay the same (in which case, the powers look bad and so I think there is no change to zebra's affiliation)... OR
Everything has changed.

Sig's theory doesn't check through, if you consider the fact his starting point was 'last time Roger Rabbit was civ'.

I have to say one of the complicated things going on with me is my biggest suspects seem to be at odds.

But I will say sig saying he reads Long Con as civilian does not appear to me to be buddying up.

In fact, I hesitate to say anyone merely saying 'I read person x as civilian' without much more to it is buddying up. My own reads are not deterred simply because someone reads me a certain way (I don't stop thinking someone is civ because they think I'm bad. I don't stop thinking someone is bad because they think I'm good.)

a2thezebra wrote:Golden and I seem to be on a very similar wavelength so far this game, I can dig it.

THIS is what I call buddying up.

FZ. wrote:This might be a difference of cultures issue. I think a seemer is either a person who will look bad when checked or a person who can make someone look bad. Or did I misunderstand what you're asking here?

Maybe. Sig didn't obviously 'speculate' that it could be someone who can make someone look bad, since the role said that outright. Sig was speculating that zebra was actually good. Further than that, he was speculating that Zebra really was the Roger Rabbit role, just that her affiliation was wrong.

But look at the role powers. They do not appear to be the role powers of a civilian. They appear to be the role powers of a baddie.

But, let me ask you something FZ, you seem quite passionate in your perspective that sig is civ. This is interesting, given you have recently subbed in and so bring a different perspective. I think you've explained well why you think some of the points made against sig are suspicious or unfair, but could you put into words why you think sig is good (if I am reading you right and you do).

I mean, BEFORE I had him in my rainbow list.

Epignosis wrote:If Black Rock is bad and not genuine in her suspicion of Lorab this early, I will be surprised.

I agree.

Of the people with multiple votes right now, I'm most likely to vote sig but could also vote LoRab. I'm not going to vote JJ.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

sig wrote:Why am I a moderate baddie? I also find it funny you have LC and Wilgy both in the same class of reads. I can't recall you voicing suspicious on any of us especially me?

He did suspect you for your Zebra interactions; you should probably go back and reply to his case there.

I don't recall doing that. I have expressed my suspicion of LC a few times, though.

DharmaHelper wrote:5. This is a big ping for me. A huge indication of mafia is their tendency to bring speculation into the thread.

Also, this (re the speculation that zebra could be a seemer).

I bring speculation in to the thread all the time as a civ, so I don't agree with DH's premise so much. I think it depends what the speculation is.

Zebra's role:

S~V~S wrote:

Roger Rabbit - Who Framed Roger Rabbit~ A BADDIE
In position 4, Roger Rabbit can frame a player by making them appear bad to alignment checks.
In any other Position, he may target a player and force them to post using only emoticons for the next Day.

In what world does this role power say 'seemer'? For me this is probably the biggest strike against sig.

DrWilgy wrote:

Golden wrote:Re timmer, gut/meta in the face of very little evidence. But you make good points, HB, about the World Reborn, and I had forgotten anything about engaging with him on day zero.
Re Doc, your iso is remarkably bare, even taking into account the DrWilgy stylistic flourish.

Gotcha, I don't really know why that puts me low on your list though (ISO-ing on mobile is hard, just adding pink text to quotes is a nightmare). What are your thoughts on Sig? He's in the same maroon that I am, and you've also never mentioned him outside a quote here and there.

No, I hadn't. Sometimes when you stick everyone in a list and force yourself to write a read on them, you come up with things you hadn't said in the thread before on people you hadn't thought deeply about. This is why I personally think the rainbow list exercise is useful.

I've found a number of sig's contributions to be... I guess reaching and not overly contributory. I thought I didn't agree with llama's view on sig, but I think I've discovered that I do, after a longer period of time. Sig in West Wing was relatively quiet and not overly contributory, and he was bad. I find civilian sig is often getting lynched for putting his foot in it because he is trying hard to present ideas. I don't really get the same vibe here.

Re timmer, gut/meta in the face of very little evidence. But you make good points, HB, about the World Reborn, and I had forgotten anything about engaging with him on day zero.
Re Doc, your iso is remarkably bare, even taking into account the DrWilgy stylistic flourish.

A rainbow, because why not:

Notable points: I've been getting decent vibes from HB today. I think he has handled pressure relatively well. So he isn't at the bottom as people might have expected from my post history, I've moved him up as far as mild town. Some of the low posters, my reads are essentially based on meta for being so quiet, as I don't have a lot of content to go on. I have no overly strong baddie reads.

Strong town

RadicalFuzz

Moderate town

Tranq
JaggedJimmyJay
Black Rock
Draconus
DharmaHelper

Mild Town

Hamburger Boy
FZ
MacDougall
Boomslang
thellama73
Timmer
bcornett24

Neutral

Motel Room
Juliets
nijuukyugou
Epignosis

Mild baddie

Matt
Dom
LoRab
Spacedaisy
Metalmarsh
Sorsha

Moderate baddie

sig
Dr. Wilgy
Long Con

Why the slight town read on Matt, HB? I would have him at mild anti-town right now.

JJ also called the theory crackpot when HB brought it up (or similar words). I do find it jarring that JJ is so dismissive of that theory. I also said to HB when he raised the theory that it actually does have merit as a theory.

But I find LC's approach to the case shady as well. He is making a lot of very firm statements that, in my opinion, push the theory further than it can realistically go without a lot of evidence.

I mean, from my perspective, if zebra and JJ are teammates and zebra cursed him, it doesn't take some grand plan about things you don't want to do tonight or do want to do tonight etc. It would be, very simply, about giving JJ a posting break and some town cred.

@BR - ok. I'm happy with that answer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not critical of you defending LC or chalking it up to you being married... I just know that when you do it means something, so wanted to hear where your head is at.

*alarm* BR defending LC alert!

In all seriousness though, my thoughts on BR is that she has been way more active than usual, and I've found her contributions generally positive, helpful and unique. I have a moderate town read based on the content. I'm not sure if there is anything to be read into the frequency.

I do genuinely find her defending LC slightly disconcerting, though. Not just because I am slightly suspicious of LC, but also because I think I remember BR saying something like she prefers to stay away from opinions about LC's affiliation. BR, what is it about LC that you think warrants you giving an opinion?

I think I could probably do a rainbow now if I put my mind to it. DH will love that.

Black Rock wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:No wonder Zebra was having the most fun observing my emoji frustration. :P

Should be some great opportunities for finding her team mates. She was highly vocal.

Having said that, as I noted yesterday, when I isoed her I found very little, despite a high post count. A lot of sparring with rico, but not a whole lot of interaction beyond that. Of course, that was up to the point in time at which I did the iso.

I had come in here intending to make zebra my first suspect today, so I need to refocus I guess.

I must have missed where you suspected her before.

I didn't in so many words. I had said she was slightly bad if I made a rainbow list. But it was some of that stuff coming from her iso, plus her behaviour in that last little time leading up to the nightkill. And when I say 'first suspect', I don't mean full-on golden attack. I just mean that was where I was intending to start my day in terms of effort and providing my opinion.

Lol, yeah that wasn't clear at all. Obviously not all roles are position roles (see: Rico). As for whether or not whoever cursed Draco is a position role... I think we are most likely to resolve this by whether or not it happens every day, so there probably isn't a lot of merit in speculation when proper evidence ought to present itself. Zebra's cursing function existed in 4/5 positions.

Matt wrote:Boomslang, I find it unlikely that there are two curse roles in a game where there were up to 60 roles (and I'm assuming, role powers) originally but was cut to 30. No doubt our hosts have all kinds of cool shit planned for this game, so why would they keep two roles, one that curses in smilies and the other that curses in questions? Overkill for a champions game, I think.

As for positions, I dunno. I didn't play Recruitment and my role has nothing to do with positions, but I suppose it's possible given Zebra's flip.

Why are so many against looking at Draconus?

juliets, were you faking your confusion earlier or was it legit?

Positions aren't 'possible' given zebra's flip.

They are 'confirmed' given zebra's flip.

Not sure if you meant positions or the existence of two cursers, though.

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:Boomslang, another potential scenario I thought of was that we have one of those roles in the game that does something different every night. One night you curse, one night you are night protected, one night you block, one night you protect, etc. I have seen that type of role in games before (but I don't remember if they were 2015 games) but I think it's at least a possibility in this case. In fact, it's the only way I can make two cursors make sense in my mind. Draconus could have been cursed by a role like that.

(And I have to say my heart bleeds for AJ McCarron...my husband and I are Alabama alums so we were really rooting hard for Cincy)

We do know that positions have at least some presence in this game, as per Recruitment. Did you play that?

Yes I did. Maybe that's one of the games I recognize that kind of position from. My memories of past games and the roles in each game are all muddled.

For a lot of roles that gave a different ability for each 'position', so I think that could make two cursers possible.

I think Draconus was being truthful about his curse. I don't see any reason for him to have faked it.

juliets wrote:Boomslang, another potential scenario I thought of was that we have one of those roles in the game that does something different every night. One night you curse, one night you are night protected, one night you block, one night you protect, etc. I have seen that type of role in games before (but I don't remember if they were 2015 games) but I think it's at least a possibility in this case. In fact, it's the only way I can make two cursors make sense in my mind. Draconus could have been cursed by a role like that.

(And I have to say my heart bleeds for AJ McCarron...my husband and I are Alabama alums so we were really rooting hard for Cincy)

We do know that positions have at least some presence in this game, as per Recruitment. Did you play that?

motel room wrote:Old mate wanted to get lynched, got lynched, is now a permanent but limited part of the game or something? Two nightkills, one town one scum? Day 2 motel room arrives crowd goes nuts? Is that about right?

Possibly one indy one scum. Not even out of the question its 2 scum. Interesting that we were told with DF that we couldn't know anything about the death.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

motel room wrote:hi Champions. I have a shitton of catching up to do.

Hey Kiji. My suggestion is to do what I suggested to FZ. Start from Rico's lynch post, and read from there. Anything before that point, only bother about if you are isoing particular individuals. It's dominated by rico's attempts to get lynched, so a lot of it isn't of much value.

Might want to pay a little attention to a2z's posts though.

Not so difficult to do with JJ's isos. The point I made to FZ is that suspicions and analysis that are still relevant now have still been talked about since that point, and you can then pursue those backwards as needed.

motel room wrote:hi Champions. I have a shitton of catching up to do.

Hey Kiji. My suggestion is to do what I suggested to FZ. Start from Rico's lynch post, and read from there. Anything before that point, only bother about if you are isoing particular individuals. It's dominated by rico's attempts to get lynched, so a lot of it isn't of much value.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I would have done it tonight or tomorrow, after returning from my trip, but nicely done. Like my noble title, too.

Hey Golden, remember when you had a giggle at my exchange with zebra about his six suss names? How are we on that? What to make of it? Feels like MacDougall releasing his scumlist before getting offed, back in THM. Would zebra be the kind of player to distance herself from teamies or put them in a susslist, for Wife-Ohms?

One difference is that zebra probably did not know she was going to die, whereas Mac, I assume, timed that scumlist at a point in time where he suspected he might be lynched.

Besides that, though, I doubt zebra's list is entirely devoid of teammates, but I'm not sure we can be certain enough to do much based on it.

That's true. Although I'm still unnerved a bit by her starting to say her goodbyes, 30 minutes before the gunshot. What do you think? Night kill victims being told they're going to die in advance? Since when?

Bizarre. It's why I say 'probably didn't know' instead of 'didn't know'.

Ricochet wrote:I would have done it tonight or tomorrow, after returning from my trip, but nicely done. Like my noble title, too.

Hey Golden, remember when you had a giggle at my exchange with zebra about his six suss names? How are we on that? What to make of it? Feels like MacDougall releasing his scumlist before getting offed, back in THM. Would zebra be the kind of player to distance herself from teamies or put them in a susslist, for Wife-Ohms?

One difference is that zebra probably did not know she was going to die, whereas Mac, I assume, timed that scumlist at a point in time where he suspected he might be lynched.

Besides that, though, I doubt zebra's list is entirely devoid of teammates, but I'm not sure we can be certain enough to do much based on it.