The Syndicate

@Jay - a big part of the reason juliets has such a good reputation is that her style is inscrutable. It's very difficult to discern any difference in her posting from town-aligned to baddie-aligned.

I need to head to work now so haven't quite examined the potential link between her and zebra yet, but I will and I'll weigh in. But before doing that, juliets has done nothing in particular that pings me. I wouldn't say her posting style (that some people see as 'waffly' but I agree with you in thinking it is simply her fully expressing her thought processes, something that I also do) is specifically alignment-indicative.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:JJJ, like HamburgerBoy already pointed out, despite the fact that you couldn't talk, you managed to easily convey that you believed Llama cursed you, and why you believed he cursed you. Saying "I couldn't bloody talk" is disingenuous.

I don't think I was able to convey why I felt he might be connected to the curse (again, I already clarified that I didn't think it had to be llama that cursed me). Nobody picked up on it at all until the end of Day 1 when Burger showed up. Golden came close, but he still didn't quite read into what I was trying to say.

Were the cars = curse?

that has been bugging me for days.

I think Long Con looks somewhat worse in the JJ/LC exchange. JJ saying he couldn't make any case at all could be read as disingenuous, but I think he is right that he couldn't do much beyond saying he thought llama was bad and might have been responsible for his curse.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think, especially in a Champions Game, a baddie curser role on the first night would not target someone who they want to silence.

Why does it matter at all that this is a champions game? That's irrelevant.

I don't understand LC's point here... is he saying it is more likely that on night one of a champions game a baddie curser would curse a teammate? Like, they wouldn't want to use their ability on someone they genuinely want to curse? That seems to be very odd logic to me. The only reason I can see a baddie curser role cursing their own teammate is for some perceived advantage they get out of it (which I think is, at least, plausible - the desired advantage being JJJ looking townier), not because 'I want to curse others later', and the mindset behind this part of LC's post doesn't quite scan for me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Not finding enough suspects right now. Nice work Zebra.

I told you. Very little real content!

I'd take Rico's advice and try to only read the thread thoroughly from the point where Rico was lynched. Only really need to read before that if you are looking at specific people, I reckon, because any suspicion that is still relevant afterwards will crop up again.

Welcome FZ

Sorsha wrote:

sig wrote:

juliets wrote: I am not Zebra or any other baddies teammate and I am not an indy or an SK.

I actually think this part is more important then the rest of juliets post, if we think there is a lie detector this would be quite a good statement to check. Know there might not be one, but the scum wouldn't know that and I doubt they would say something that could be checked so easily.

Let's just hope golden isn't the again lie detector this game

I just had a beer called butterfly farts :P

Voting for Sorsha

sig wrote:

Golden wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

sig wrote:

juliets wrote: I am not Zebra or any other baddies teammate and I am not an indy or an SK.

I actually think this part is more important then the rest of juliets post, if we think there is a lie detector this would be quite a good statement to check. Know there might not be one, but the scum wouldn't know that and I doubt they would say something that could be checked so easily.

Roughly what percentage of Syndicate games have lie detector roles?

I would be surprised to see one in an SVS game. Can't guarantee it, but I think it is less likely.

Okay thanks, do you think Zebra is indeed scum or was it some form of trickery?

I'll assume really bad unless we get some evidence of that kind of trickery existing.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

sig wrote:

juliets wrote: I am not Zebra or any other baddies teammate and I am not an indy or an SK.

I actually think this part is more important then the rest of juliets post, if we think there is a lie detector this would be quite a good statement to check. Know there might not be one, but the scum wouldn't know that and I doubt they would say something that could be checked so easily.

Roughly what percentage of Syndicate games have lie detector roles?

I would be surprised to see one in an SVS game. Can't guarantee it, but I think it is less likely.

So, I find you suspicious because you didn't find rico's behaviour odd... yesterday... before rico died.

And even though it is now clear that Rico's behaviour was intentionally odd, you still don't find it bad...

Because what should matter is that zebra is dead?

Zebra's death has nothing to do with your defending of rico.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:Especially since now there's apparently a Recruitment mafia thing going on which would hint multiple teams for me.

Adding onto this point, I'll say that if there are multiple teams and if the teams know there are multiple teams (they'd have to right? based on team size), that should invigorate them to push that Ricochet bandwagon, being that they legitimately viewed his posts as suspicious and wanted those sweet townie points before people knew with certainty that there were multiple teams.

Well, you see, the thing about multiple teams is that if you are bad, this cuts both ways.

You can say 'maybe they jumped on the bandwagon to get townie points thinking he was clearly on the other baddie team'
And I can say 'a baddie can defend him believing he was probably not bad to get townie points'.

Ultimately it isn't about the choice of tactic, it's about how genuine it seems.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:That's because it conflates zebra being a confirmed scum with the idea that it relates to the 'content' created by rico, even though that content is void of meaning and has nothing to do with why zebra died.

Yeah, I definitely disagree that the content had no meaning. What if the argument between Zebra and Rico is part of what caused Zebra to be nightkilled, for example?

Do you know why Zebra died btw?

On what basis would it be what caused him to be nightkilled? It had NO MEANING. It literally was utterly pointless. What thing in there could have been the thing that got zebra killed? Unless people were just annoyed with the noise, and if so this still doesn't give the content meaning.

I don't know why zebra died, although I do have a theory that it was because he described himself as unkillable.

MacDougall wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:I still think HBoys attitude towards Rico deserves a bit of scrutiny today.

Rico's behaviour was notably bizarre, and now we know it was completely intentional. I'm not sure how HB got to the point of it 'not being so bad'... and I wonder if he was trying to get some cred for rico not coming back bad.

I don't see it as bad at all. Ricochet got Zebra, confirmed scum, to generate a ton of posts to sift through. This is why I appreciate all content and arguments, even if I disagree with them.

This is an unusual defense. It doesn't feel authentic.

That's because it conflates zebra being a confirmed scum with the idea that it relates to the 'content' created by rico, even though that content is void of meaning and has nothing to do with why zebra died.

HamburgerBoy wrote:The conspiracy side of me also makes me want to put Jimmy into the longer-wavelength side of the color spectrum. If you're going to curse a teammate to make them look like a victim, it makes sense to do it early, and that Jimmy was able to give his own conspiracy candidate to blame gave it additional power. I don't really buy that llama was so threatened as to silence Jimmy.

This is believable. I wouldn't put a vote there without other evidence, but it is something that I can see as possible, especially given it gives 'apathetic' Jimmy the ability to post less without really taking any heat for it.

Btw - do you understand why Jimmy is calling you superman?

Anyone play a game where paper rock scissors was relevant? It's not ringing bells with me.

Nice dead eye, rico.

@JJ - I think it is worth you translating any of your emoji posts that a) people didn't figure out and b) you think are of value.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:
Also, I note that zebra's death makes it very likely there are multiple baddie teams. Not quite confirmed, given role secrets, but probable.

@Mac - rico already answered which ones he was genuine about. He didn't say zebra then I'm on to you rico

Multiple teams or SK, I'd say.

I should have kept zebra in the mix for god-like magician cred right now.

If SK, I think we'd have seen two deaths in the original post. I don't think DF's death was the mafia kill. I mean, I guess the mafia kill could also have been blocked. There are explanations. But Occam's Razor, for now...

I still think HBoys attitude towards Rico deserves a bit of scrutiny today.

Rico's behaviour was notably bizarre, and now we know it was completely intentional. I'm not sure how HB got to the point of it 'not being so bad'... and I wonder if he was trying to get some cred for rico not coming back bad.

Also, I note that zebra's death makes it very likely there are multiple baddie teams. Not quite confirmed, given role secrets, but probable.

@Mac - rico already answered which ones he was genuine about. He didn't say zebra then I'm on to you rico

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.

Sorsha wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIH roger rabbit- so he was behind the jjj curse then?

Sounds probable.

We did, after all, vote for the fourth option on the first poll...

I think this time we voted for position 5.

I wonder if he's the only player with the positions aspect to his role. I'd guess not likely.. that was a fun aspect of the game.

Given 4 of his positions are the same... I find it very unlikely.

Turnip Head wrote:Well at least there was only one death!

Sorry to see Faraday and his role gone

Golden wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIH roger rabbit- so he was behind the jjj curse then?

Sounds probable.

We did, after all, vote for the fourth option on the first poll...

I think this time we voted for position 5.

Sorsha wrote:RIH roger rabbit- so he was behind the jjj curse then?

Sounds probable.

S~V~S wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:@JJJ - when talking in smilies I couldn't really tell but I felt like your was indicating you had at least a mild suspicion of me.

Could you talk more about this please.

Nah, I just couldn't find anything suitable to represent you. I looked everywhere for a decent gold bar or even a kiwi, and I found nothing. I couldn't believe the Internet had never produced those things to this point. They did exist, but they were more picture than emoji and it seemed lame.

I chose magnifying glass guy because you're an investigator and stuff. :P

That is my Long Con made personal smilie

So, I was Roger Rabbit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The role was both civilian and had absolutely nothing in common with what zebra's role was, at all. Not even vaguely. Postitions were from Recruitment. So, I guess that goes to prove things are a mashup.

(PS, I knew Turnip was the monkey.)

Ricochet wrote:Serious question now, how long should we wait for a sign of life from b24? I have him written down as gradually warming up his hunt game when civ. What's his dark side?

In Star Wars, he was very vocal and hunty early. The only other game I can remember that he was bad was RYM87 (Stock Photos), where he was under the pump from fairly early for coming across as disingenuous, but it was only his second game after having a supatown debut. I find his absences far more real life related than affiliation, in my experience.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:
I agree that Long Con's questions on the matter could use some answers. Rico, do you have the answers? Otherwise, we might need to hope for host clarification.

I'm not withholding any information with LC's second question. I really don't know how to answer that. If I don't show up in the poll on D2, that'll be clarifying. If I do, we'll see about the endgame issue.

I missed your answer the first time. I assumed the first was true, its the only way to make the role fun. The second is the more important one, though.

Also, ordinarily I would maybe call a mafia lynch better than this result but the specific reason I think this is better is that the only way it could happen is on day one. So Rico had to make it happen that day or we would lose the resource.

I would have preferred a mafia lynch if rico's role was simply 'whenever you die, you get this ability'. But I far prefer it when civs take advantage of the opportunities they have.

I agree that Long Con's questions on the matter could use some answers. Rico, do you have the answers? Otherwise, we might need to hope for host clarification.

@JJJ - when talking in smilies I couldn't really tell but I felt like your was indicating you had at least a mild suspicion of me.

Could you talk more about this please.

Ricochet wrote:Also reading through the reactions, I'd be interested in an exercise: everyone should claim if you picked up what I was up to and just played along with lynching me or if you genuinely got rused by my actions. There's no sentimental value on my behalf in this inquiry, simply claim how you (plural, of course) played your part.

I believed there were two possibilities to what you were doing. One was that lynching you would give you power, one was that you were playing wifom.

I felt that either way lynching you would be the best choice. I didn't expect you would actually flip if you were bad. I was absolutely sure your behaviour was linked to your role in some fashion.

Civ pleasantly surprised me, though.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:My goal was to figure out whether there is 1 mafia team or more, and potentially discover who might be mafia. I believe there are two mafia teams. I think three is far-fetched, and one would be "less fun". Also I know I had a discussion with SVS about multiple mafia teams before. I believe she had stated that she prefers smaller teams, but I'm having trouble finding this conversation.

My experience of SVS as a host is that she prefers two teams. I do think it is possible in closed setups to have an educated guess at some mechanics based on the host. Just not rely on them.

DFaraday wrote:

Golden wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

It is implicitly demanding when a player is viewed as bad if they don't explain their deviation from the wagons to the satisfaction of the interrogator. My broader issue is with a recent trend in games where players adopt certain tactics (eg. the above, GTH, rainbow lists), then suspect other players if they refuse to use those methods.

Do you find people who vote on-wagon equally suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so? I'm more inclined to feel the reverse, and think better of players who think for themselves rather than parroting the prevailing groupthink. I honestly can't comprehend how conformity with bandwagons is supposed to be a good thing now.

I'm not talking about gth, rainbow lists or any 'method', DF. I'm talking about EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE. It's a basic, normal and fundamental part of playing the game, not a newfangled device. If you aren't willing to do it (not you specifically, but anyone), you deserve all attention you get for it.

"Thinking for yourself" is great. "Parroting groupthink" is bad. So we completely agree on those points. Neither of those things is relevant to the point I made though, which is this...

If you do not vote on one of the prevailing wagons, you are voting somewhere it is easy to hide. If you haven't sufficiently explained why you are voting off-wagon, then I will find it suspicious.

That might be an explanation for why you are voting for the person you are voting for, or it might be an explanation for why you are not voting for someone who can actually get lynched.

But either way, voting for someone who will not get lynched is a vote that will have no impact, so the only way it can have any meaning is with words in the thread. Votes on the major bandwagons speak through the result of the lynch. Votes off them do not. That's why they become easy places for baddies to hide. As I noted, in Biblical, it became very apparent that one of the key tactics of the baddie team was basically for all of them to nearly always be off the major lynches. It's such an easy tactic for allowing the civilians to pick each other off.

I'm not a fan of demanding others play a certain way either. But I don't see a lot of demanding that people do rainbow lists or demanding that people to gth reads. I think some people do them by choice.

Putting this in a very easy to understand, logical train of thought

1) Focus is often put on people for their vote when they vote for or against major bandwagons.
2) Focus is rarely put on people for their vote who vote off bandwagon
3) Meaning can often be drawn from votes on the major bandwagons
4) Meaning can rarely be drawn from votes off-wagon
5) Therefore, as a baddie a very easy move is to engage minimally and vote off-bandwagon. It is also a very COMMON move.
6) Also, as a civilian who wants to contribute to a civilian win, it is more likely that they will have thought about and are able to put into words why they are not voting on wagon, since it is more likely to be an active decision that they don't find those people suspicious.

6) I believe, statistically speaking, baddies vote off wagon a lot more commonly than civilians, and for less clear reasons.
7) I believe, therefore, that if a person who votes off wagon isn't giving much of an explanation for why, that is suspicious.

8) Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to suspect people voting off wagon if they haven't provided a reasonable explanation for why they are voting the way they are.

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

Past behavior tends to be a predictor of future behavior. I'll admit that I haven't yet read what he has posted after his death, so perhaps I misjudge him. Anyway, not a great lynch result, I would argue.

Rico has a clear role related reason for his behaviour on day one that no longer applies, so I see no reason for assuming it is a predictor of future behaviour.

I'll admit when I asked I forgot your history with Rico though.

thellama73 wrote:I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

I'm even happier voting for Brown Bear, tbh.

Brown spider monkey would be the obvious second favourite.

I'm not sucking up to the hosts at all.

I guess "domestic cow" best stands for HamburgerBoy?

It's not a polar bear???

a2thezebra wrote:I'm voting marmota because marmot, hellooooooo

Not realising that the one above it is zebra...

Choose your favourite

Brown Spider Monkey
Cattle
Plains Zebra
Yellow-bellied Marmot
Polar Bear

This poll makes me feel as though the Trickster role from World Reborn is here, or something like it.

No offence to zebra or marmot, but I'm taking a neutral option, and going for the LOST reference (after all, I am hosting that other game).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Tranq wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Okay, I'm going to finish this episode of Brooklyn 99 and then explain why I think Day 1 was an immense pile of dumb.

Looks like this is the best possible Day 1 result in the game. Do you disagree?

A bad guy lynch would have been better, but yeah this is nice for a town lynch. I actually didn't read the fine print and see his role description until now.

#invested

#attentive

#supertownjimmy

Some stuff was definitely dumb though. Maybe not an immense pile of dumb. Scattered dumb fragments. Stay tuned.

But a bad guy lynch would have lost Rico his role forever. He played it very well.

I didn't expect you to come back civ, rico, (I was fairly hooked on the idea you were an indy) but...

Golden wrote:Oh, and also, if it is a role like your one in World Reborn than I don't really have any fear playing in to it. If Rico was that kind of Indy, I could trust in him to have no loyalties whatsoever and do whatever was best for him, which isn't necessarily anti-town. Indeed, if Rico is actually civ and the goal is for him to gain power through lynch votes I also don't have any problem with it. The only think I'm worried about with lynching Rico would be if he was mafia-aligned but his role got power from lynch votes and he could survive the lynch. Then it would suck.

This is a large part of why I had no intention of ever changing my vote. Sometimes if people want to be lynched, its best to give them what they want. We shy away from lynching that person too often, I think. I was heavily influenced by my own game in Star Wars and in Talking Heads, in both cases I wanted to be lynched. I've never sought to be lynched as a baddie.

Ricochet wrote:Hi.

Perfect

HamburgerBoy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:The only chaos you see out of me as a civilian is early game to provoke discourse and when I am engaging in a firefight.

I wasn't exclusively talking about your behavior in this game. Golden and zebra asked me what possible pro-town motive exists for Rico playing the way he is this game. You've just given the motive (not that I hadn't already said it but no one was buying it just from me), so danke.

No, that isn't a possible motive here. As I have already established before you hit the thread, that motive is fine... provided you actually go into srs business mode when it counts and pull the mask off. Rico hasn't. There is nothing similar between Rico's behaviour and Mac's form of creating discourse. Rico has created none, the discourse has happened around him. In fact, in some cases, he has actively prevented some people who can't keep up with the thread from being involved in discourse. He has far more harmed the ability for discourse than helped it.

He has only spoken nonsense, HB. He hasn't created anything of value. Literally zero. Since sometime late on day zero, anyone who has been up with the game has virtually ignored him, because there is nothing of value that can be done in response to his behaviour.

MacDougall wrote:Actually Zebra I have a thought.

Boomslang and HamburgerBoy have both inferred that I am playing like Ricochet, which is actually a suggestion that I am playing like what many perceive my general meta to be. HamburgerBoy has experience with my general meta but Boomslang does not. As you have observed I am not actually playing like what they are insinuating I am playing like, they are resting on a perception of what I usually do play like without having noticed that I am not playing like that at all (which both Golden and you have noticed). This sounds to me like HamburgerBoy has been talking about me in their chat and Boomslang has picked things up that he wouldn't otherwise know about my meta.

Speaking of which there are some falsities being spoken of as fact here about my "meta". Like it's normal for me to play chaos. It's actually not normal at all. The only time I've actually played chaos on TS was as a caught scum in TH and as an independent role that absolutely justified it in Reborn. In Star Wars, Dune and Tree I played like I am here for the most part. There were times in Star Wars that I got melodramatic but that was in context I've yet to find here (an argument with someone who is scum reading me, who I am scum reading), though we are approaching this point with Boomslang.

In fact if you analyse my RYM history, the majority of my "chaos" performances were as scum and they are renowned because I won while doing so. The only chaos you see out of me as a civilian is early game to provoke discourse and when I am engaging in a firefight.

At this point, I'd sooner vote for boomslang than for either lorab or llama.

I don't find llama particularly suspicious at all.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

He's definitely made arguments, even if not all of them were committed. I don't really see the difference between Rico's scattershot approach and Mac's (which, as I believe you already admitted, he can do as town or scum). Plus, it has been hinted that Rico would have a role-specific reason for doing as such.

Mac's is normal Mac

Rico's has no precedent.

That's a pretty big difference. It means Rico's seems to me most likely directly role related.

Ricochet wrote:In all seriousness, I'm beginning to be sorrowed by your willignness to put me down for the same reason you were lynched in Recruitement so badly - playing the game your way, to the best of your powers, with full confidence in being on the right path of exposing baddies. That's, frankly, what's unfathomable.

In Recruitment I was a neutral who pulled off a gambit to get Epi dead solely because he was trying to get me lynched, in a game where I had no idea what team I could end up on. Why does this help me see your behaviour from a civ perspective?

You've been completely unwilling to actually engage people on the purpose of your behaviour, or to provide any civ angles for it. Having 'full confidence' that you had exposed four baddies on night zero is, frankly, one of two things: Nonsense, or self-deception. Coming from you I have to assume the former.

Your entire game has been nonsense. I'm waiting for you to come to the party (with posts like this one 'in all seriousness...' about time, rico, about time! Now why don't you continue posting in all seriousness, and there might be just a possibility that you might avoid the lynch. Or is avoiding the lynch what you are trying to avoid?

HamburgerBoy wrote:

3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.

What do I have to gain by defending Rico?

Well, thats exactly why I said I was torn and that this was a point in your favour.

I think that, particularly when you posted, there was (and perhaps still is) no certainty of rico's lynch. In addition, it's possible rico won't actually be lynched at all, or there is low risk to you for other reasons (for example, Rico or a teammate is Trickster from World Reborn). So I don't think defending Rico necessarily absolves you, but I also think there is an extent to which it is genuine.

Honestly, if you hadn't made that one sentence where you said, basically, 'you could see him as bad if he was being bussed', I would probably read the whole thing as civ. It's just that feels like a sort of opportunistic wishy-washiness and that bothers me, and it's probably the only bit of the stuff you said that really bothers me.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Feel free to interpret it this way; for a lynch like this, I'm not going to award many townie points simply for having the right vote. That you were the very first person means you'll still get some points, but since nearly everyone at least acknowledges that he is playing weird this game, and has been since before day 1, it gives scum plenty of incentive to bus early.

In a closed set up, where we don't even know how many baddie teams there are, I'm not going to go giving townie points for who people lynch, at least in the early running. I think it is a sensible approach not to give townie points if rico comes back bad. Someone/more than one someone bussing him is entirely likely in that scenario.

HamburgerBoy wrote:What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.

Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

DFaraday wrote:I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

a2thezebra wrote:Everything HBoy has said regarding Rico is leading me to believe he's desperately trying to save his teammate.

There's a part of me that feels that this is exactly what is going on. That sentence I requoted for emphasis feeds in to this in particular. That whole "I guess I could see an angle where that person is bad, and it is angle x' thing... it feels manufactured.

There is another part which just feels like a player who is trying to catch up on the thread and missing large chunks of information, but even if bad I like that he has come in so late and made an effort. It would be tempting to just slide by for a while (especially if bad), so that is a point in his favour.

I'm torn. But I'm interested in his responses to my questions.