The Syndicate

Page 13:

Russtifinko wrote:

Scotty wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:WHAT HAVE YOU ALL DONE WHY ARE THERE ALREADY 7 PAGES

I'm going to bed. I'll catch up with this tomorrow

You know, I've been in bed now for 2 hours. One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was bringing my laptop with me. Good on you, ninja

I sympathize with Ninja.

The G-Man alignment discussion started out feeling to me like a really solid case, but as I thought about it more it got so WIFOM-y that I really can't make head nor tail of it now. I will say, though, for what it's worth, that every single non-civ role in this game seems pretty darn anti-civ, especially now that we know for sure Watchmen are civs. So saying you're not anti-civ = saying you're civ, in my mind. I don't think that would fool a lie detector test, but I also can't figure why he'd bother wording it so carefully. (By the way, as MM pointed out, the LD discussion seemed super superfluous. Who even brought that up?) I could potentially see myself voting there, but I can't say I'm fully convinced he's bad.

I believe it was LoRab who brought up the LD issue, culling from the annals of LP history. Bass kind of agreed with her and MP concurred with LoRab, culling from the annals of STV history.

Russtifinko wrote:Went G-Man. Mainly because what I said about always being suspicious of Elo. I think I should give her a breather.

Seriously? Even after you just went to length at explaining how the case against me gradually eroded in your mind and the whole LD issue seems nonsensical? Wow.

Russtifinko wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Elo, thanks!

How about: Where are you leaning for your vote today? Has it changed at all?

Linki with Ninja

If no one was finding me suspicious, I would most likely vote for G-man or sloonei (I know I said I would table my thoughts on sloonei). But, I am still back and forth on sloonei. He now finds me suspicious b/c I reread him and decided that I couldn't find any hard evidence against him? What?!? I wish G-Man would come in and talk.

But it looks like I may be trying to save myself :/

Why did you read him as "scummy" the first time, then? Moreover, why did you give in to a "vibe" rather than rereading him, if it would have left to the same lack of hard evidence, in theory?

I didn't give into a vibe, I just mentioned it. He challenged me to reread him and I found nothing astoundingly scummy. That was all. But his response to my response IS scummy to me.

MP your case on scotty makes a lot of sense.

There's a case on Scotty? I think I missed it. Anyone with a reminder or link to the case?

MP, your policy of underlining names to direct things to people is super helpful, btw.

I found the "case" on Scotty to be weak (at least MP's justification for voting Scotty). I'll have to go back and look for any potential buddying up to MP though.

Ricochet wrote:This is impossible to fully address. How 'bout we start endgame two hours earlier next time? Sticking with Eloh for now.

I certainly hope you took the time to elaborate after the poll closed. I will be looking for that or else I will ask you to elaborate when I am finished re-reading.





MP criticized a few people who voted Sloonei because something felt off about him and they could not put it into words to MP's liking. Two of those people have experience playing with Sloonei in the past I believe (Dragon and espers), so I find MP's criticism to be weak. We put forth reasons for why he did not suspect Sloonei without it feeling like a defense- I would think an experienced player like MP would know how to do that effectively. As of right now, I suspect MP of being Sloonei's teammate. He ran with early suspicion but indirectly defended Sloonei with posts explaining why his suspicion of Sloonei broke down. He went into detail and going into detail is a sneaky way to be persuasive without being obvious about it. I'm watching you, bro.




I feel like this post by Scotty is pretty solid.





And Slooeni was a baddie! You know what that means....



BIH Sloonei!

PS- If you play or follow the Frisky Dingo game, you'll get to see me back in action with wacky themes. This one is going to be just as memorable as Econ!

Hey hey, back from the campground. Still catching up but I'm on Page 12, where the vote deadline looms eminent. Very interesting to read through. Here are some thoughts and observations:

DharmaHelper wrote:In my re-reading, I am also pinged by the big deal being made out of G-Man's lie detector statements. Especially considering he said "I am not a mafia" which is an equally lie detectable statement as "I am a civvie".

Of the people making a fuss about it LoRab strikes me as most suspect, I may put my vote there.

I too am curious about why my statements became such a big deal. LoRab had to reach back a long time in history to pull out the LD point from back in my early LP days. I mean way back. Same goes for MP (i think) for going way way back to the stone age of STV too. I choose my words carefully every time. Curious how they chose to think back past an awful lot of my playing history to find a possible reason that they could use to implicate me as a baddie.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Scotty wrote:I'm still combing through 5 more pages to respond to, and I will, but for now, I'm voting Ehlo. Someone asked if DDL seemed "comfortable" and I don't really know what that means in respect to DDL because no one was really suspecting him. But ehlo's recent response seems comfortable and jokey, and it's standing out to me right now.

I also do not find anything Sloonei doing in this game different than the last game. Granted, I don't know if he was civ in that game, but it also doesn't ping me.

Can you explain why you think this makes her mafia?

Can you answer my question, when you get a chance, about whether Metalmarsh's behavior being unhelpful makes him mafia or not? You've made quite a few comments saying that regarding him, but made no issuance of whether you suspected him or not, or anything like that.

Your questions to Scotty are lose-lose questions. Perhaps he simply finds MM's unhelpful behavior frustrating. You seem to be asking him to make a judgement call on MM based off of one aspect of his play. That's an unfair question. You can be frustrated with someone's behavior while still feeling neutral about them. I'm going to keep an eye out for other poor questions from MP.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I don't buy that Ninja Blooper is mafia. I am roughly 50-50 on Sloonei and G-Man, but I think I will go Sloonei today. He seems way too defensive to me.

Can you elaborate? Why?

The burden of proof is on the person trying to convince me that she is mafia. I don't have to have a reason not to believe.

How philosophical.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm going to go ahead and vote Scotty. His buddying up to MP pinged me at first. MP pointed out that Scotty has been part of the discussion with out throwing out any of his own suspects. He also made a big deal about me voting late in B.O.B and he has yet to vote so I found that odd.

What do you think of his Elo vote, now that he has voted?

I really don't understand why he would vote that way when he said he was looking at people who weren't posting. Elo has posted more the LC so why not vote LC.

I agree. I think you're onto something, Bass.

I think Scotty's Elo vote seems disingenuous. I actually am leaning toward casting my vote there.

His vote is super weak reasoning to me, like he had to come up with SOME reason to justify a vote:

Scotty wrote:I'm still combing through 5 more pages to respond to, and I will, but for now, I'm voting Ehlo. Someone asked if DDL seemed "comfortable" and I don't really know what that means in respect to DDL because no one was really suspecting him. But ehlo's recent response seems comfortable and jokey, and it's standing out to me right now.

I also do not find anything Sloonei doing in this game different than the last game. Granted, I don't know if he was civ in that game, but it also doesn't ping me.

Hence why I asked him to elaborate here.

He doesn't even say why "comfortable and jokey" from Elo makes her likely to be a member of the mafia. He says it's "standing out", but again, how does that mean he is casting his vote for someone that he thinks is bad?

Even further, he makes no mention of Elo being a low poster as the reason for his vote, which I find odd, since he called her out for being a low poster, and here he emphasizes he is focusing on no shows.

Combine that with the fact that he kept harping on MM being "unhelpful", which is something I've done in past games as a mafia to try to take advantage of his unconventional playstyle, yet refusing to issue an issue of suspicion on him, and I'm really starting to suspect Scotty.

I'm starting to worry about you, MP. This sudden "a-ha" moment on Scotty feels forced and flimsy. I feel like I understood what Scotty was trying to say about Elo's demeanor. Either you're overthinking things far too much or you're trying to manufacture a case against Scotty.

Golden wrote:Completely frantic at work.

Haven't caught up on thread since I last posted. Haven't even looked at poll situation. Voted Ninja. Will we back in about two hours.

Interesting that he makes a point to specify that he hasn't even looked at the poll. Almost like it is a built-in excuse for later when people come after him for tying up the poll between Sloonei and Niju. But it's curious- why point that fact out? Have people pointed that sort of thing out before when they vote in a rush or do they say later "oh, gosh, I didn't even know I was tying the poll up when I voted!". Golden strikes me as smart enough to know that playing dumb about tying up a poll after a lynch doesn't make you look any better. This feels calculated to me.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Come on G-Man I can fail at math sometimes too.

Math calculations done at mafia games shouldn't be taken seriously lol

I have no idea how to react to this.

That's what she said!




Going to try to cover page 12 here at the end of the work day.

Elohcin wrote:G-Man, what is your favorite color?

Is there a particular reason why you're asking? If so, please tell me why.

Printing more reports. Here's Page 11:

Golden wrote:Also, I have literally zero suspicion of sloonei. I do not yet see any reason to think he is bad and I have not really agreed with any of the cases on him. I think he is the person who looks most at risk of suffering my econ day one fate - someone that no baddie is going to be sad to see lynched because he can be a threat to their chances of success later on. I'm much more wary of those who have simply jumped on the 'sloonei looks bad' bandwagon than I am of sloonei.

Maybe it's just because I'm reading the thread in hindsight but I'm surprised you didn't see anything squirrely with Sloonei. After the first one I noted on, his posts got progressively curiouser.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Regarding where I am at this moment:

I have very slight suspicions of G-Man and Ninja. That being said, I think a lynch of Ninja right now would be "easy", and I'm consequently hesitant to cast my vote that way, or in G-Man's direction. I'm going to examine the players I have in my No Read section now.

That said, Ninja does have the highest propensity to receive my vote as well, but man, these lynch trains always make me nervous, and they do minimize the information we can gleam in subsequent Days from looking back at this lynch, especially if hardly anyone casts off.

Good call avoiding the low hanging fruit (at least me anyway). I hope that holds fast in Day 2.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:Also, I have literally zero suspicion of sloonei. I do not yet see any reason to think he is bad and I have not really agreed with any of the cases on him. I think he is the person who looks most at risk of suffering my econ day one fate - someone that no baddie is going to be sad to see lynched because he can be a threat to their chances of success later on. I'm much more wary of those who have simply jumped on the 'sloonei looks bad' bandwagon than I am of sloonei.

I'm very glad you said this, because that's precisely the reason I backed off of my gut-based suspicion of Sloonei earlier. I started feeling like I was expecting too much of him, realizing that my thoughts on him were exactly "trying too hard to meet meta" and other vague feelings that are not logical or based on actual content. It's the same kind of vague poisonous suspicion that took you down in Economics.

Consequently, I will NOT be voting for Sloonei today.

So you got suckered. Interesting. MP has a heart after all. The accounting gods will not approve. Your punishment will be 50 box audits by Monday and be sure to get your TPS reports in by 3:oo, mmm-kay?

espers wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

I think you can add Silk Spectre and The Comedian to the civvie side of the equation. Neither of their win conditions suggest any harm to the civvies. Regardless, we're always more likely to lynch civvie than a baddie whether we use randomization or our best effort to deduce the identity of a baddie. Using strict probability, the odds are always stacked against us.

Silk Spectre wants to stay alive long enough to find the roles she is looking for. If I were her, I'd help whatever faction seemed to be losing at the moment. If town starts winning too hard, I could see her helping mafia.

The Comedian would benefit from looking very civ, since he has to be night killed. So he is likely the most pro-civ one. But he still has a separate wincon, and might change sides if town starts winning too hard.

Nite Owl has a wincon that looks very pro-civ. He will be helping us at start. But if his dad is still alive and he has a chance to help hammer a civ lynch to end the game, he will. Likewise, if he kills the guy he has to kill, but his wincon means he has to survive till the end of the game, he will want the game to end faster.

Rorschach is a serial killer. He will kill anyone in his list, regardless of the alignment. Whether that helps town or not will depend on our luck.

The others are a mystery.

not a fan of this exchange, particularly the last post. it feels like ddl is fluffing here; we don't have any info on the watchmen roles besides what's in the op and speculating on them isn't useful right now, imo.

For someone who scolded me for questionable statistics in Economics Mafia, I was certainly surprised to see Dragon's fuzzy math here. Speculation has its time and place but I agree that Dragon muddies the waters here.

Also, espers, what say you about the discrepancy between you and MM about getting something/nothing after the Day 0 vote?

DharmaHelper wrote:

MP wrote:Speaking of DharmaHelper, can you elaborate on any of the reads you have made just yet, or are you still forming them? I've noted what you've said thus far, but I'm a bit unclear on whom you're considering for your vote at the moment.

I am not sure what to think of Scotty, personally. Something about him is giving me pings, but I don't feel comfortable right now voting for him, since it's 100% a gut read and I'd have a hard time building a case around it.

The crowd you asked about originally (Llama, DDL, G-Man, etc) have my eye as well, and I'd maybe put a vote in there. I still haven't gotten to the sloonei thing yet, so I don't know too much about that. Timmer's self vote is frustrating but I feel like there's enough discussion to put a vote somewhere else.

My read on you is kind of odd. You are way too agreeable and friendly, for one thing, like you're afraid to ruffle feathers and you want to get on everyone's good side. Your massive posts also skeeve me out. You are reminding me of me, when I'm bad and I want to take the leadership role in the thread.

Intriguing observation. Especially considering MP's absolving himself from voting Sloonei and then tacking a mid-to-late vote on Scotty to bring him within one vote of Sloonei and tied with Niju.



Also, perhaps I just missed it but did MM state a reason for his vote for Niju in the thread? I'll look back for it later if I can.

Last one for a little while. Page 10...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:So did anyone get anything from the day zero poll?

I did not.

I did.

I'm curious to see if there is any fallout or follow-up due to Espers' claim of not receiveing anything despite voting the same as MM.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why is everyone so hyped up on the lie-detector thing? As far as I know, there is only one role that can lie-detect, and even that role (Night Owl II) can only use it once in the game. Also, Epignosis is hosting this game, so I don't believe a lie detector would be permitted to check any of the statements made in this post.

Interesting to see MM take a quasi-Hillary Clinton approach to the subject. I'm not sure if that feels like a natural response for him. I'm not sure that I have enough experience with him to tell though.

Sloonei wrote:I have to go to work in a moment, and at this point the two strongest "pings" I've got have been frok Elo and Ninja.
Elo for how quickly she stated and abandoned a suspicion against me. She first listed me and G-man as her two early suspects. I very simply asked her to explain her suspicion of me and her response was essentially "never mind, i'm not suspicious of you." I can see this as a player (Elo) who wanted to cast suspicion on a vocal player (me) for the sake of having a suspect, but when I pressed her on it she was not prepared to back it up.

Ninja for that one big post of hers. I am not happy that the two people I've narrowed my vote down to have a combined 7 posts between them. But in ninja's posts she provided a wishy-washy fence-sitting read on G-man and also gave a suggested some pretty empty support of llama and the "adverb/smiley" theory without offering more of her own opinion beyond "I don't like Day 1s." I would like to hear a lot more from ninja on some reads and I know she is a capable player, but for now I think she's the player I feel most comfortable voting for, so I'm voting Ninjajuju.

This has been a pretty solid Day 1 but it still feels like there's a lot of people who have yet to weigh in. I hope to get some more voices in this discussion before he day's end, but I will not be able to take part in it. If anyone is having trouble coming up with things to say, just post the first thoughts that come to mind when you look at the thread. Literally anything is better than not posting.

This post by Sloonei gives me pause. I know from skimming that there is speculation that other members of the Inmates may have voted Sloonei but I have to wonder if the Inmates would even come out against each other in the thread. I mean, there are just three Inmates, so they can't really afford to lose a member, especially with Moloch out there as a potential second kill. Does anyone think the small size of the Inmate team would keep them from grabbing for cred by talking about each other as suspicious? Hopping on a bandwagon and riding the tide I can see but trying to set up one of your two teammates? The accountant in me doesn't like those numbers.

Golden wrote:OK, so, here is my question in relation to people's Elo suspicion.

Do people agree, or disagree, with her assertion that DDL seems comfortable?

I don't know about comfortable but I haven't seen anything that seems unusual. After getting curb-stomped in Guess Who, I'm pretty sure his baddie game has been elevated. I am more curious to know if people think it feels like he's holding back. It seems some people got clued into Sloonei by him faking his civ game. I have not seen enough of Dragon's posts to reach a conclusion but have others felt one way or the other about this?

Sloonei wrote:Some other quick thoughts I have:
I have expressed vague support of G-man, but I don't necessarily have him as a town read. That said, I don't support any of the cases I have seen made against him thus far. That does not mean he should not be looked at further.

I do not wish to OMGUS thellama, but I find his case against me to be a bit weak and that is something that could become suspicious down the line, depending on how it progresses, but for now it's too early to make a judgment.

I am now 10 minutes late for work, woohoo

And there's the straw that breaks the Sloonei's neck. Vague? Really? You, sir, just got rolled like Dragon did in Guess Who.

Page 9 was a breeze:

Golden wrote:I'm feeling better about G-Man. Not 100% better, but a fair bit better.

I sort of understood the suspicion around his curiously worded statement, until we started getting into the lie detector stuff. Then I remembered how, back in the STV days, (ah, the STV mafia days) wording statements in that kind of way was completely normal. I had actually completely forgotten how we used to draft everything in such a way that the lie detector might be able to check us out, and because they couldn't check statements like 'i am civilian', you did used to say stuff like 'i am not a threat to the civilians'.

G-Man has been on break since STV days until very recently, so when I thought that through I realised that it would be pretty logical some of his phrasing would show vestiges of the way we used to do things on STV.

Not sure how it translate into STV time but I have been on hiatus pretty much since the Piano died or roughly a few months after RM got started. I went back to college part-time to pursue my accounting degree and just didn't have time for mafia between school, work, wife, and kid.

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:Yeah. Bass wasn't around back then, but I'm pretty sure LoRab was, and the entire exchange has given me a bit of a ping on lorab too.

Not nearly so big as my ping on ninja though.

If I was voting right now, ninja would likely be my vote.

MovingPictures07 wrote:LoRab, don't forget you have the smiley named after you!

Anyway, updated rainbow list incoming. Golden and I are on the same wavelength, since in catching up I was just typing out something that Blooper's entire post was "a whole lot of words without saying much of anything" and that particular part that Golden highlighted appeared to me like she was providing cover for herself to make a Day 1 vote later, as if she doesn't genuinely care to baddie hunt.

I also am starting to come around to giving G-Man another Day, especially since the STV context (I forgot about this, but I think we had a similar discussion in a different game with zeek), and because he is posting a lot. There are way too many players hiding back, the momentum is way too heavy against G-Man, so I'm way more interested in searching for other suspects at the moment.

I'll have to go back and re-read Niju's posts. Maybe I don't have a problem with posts that say very little because I am guilty of that myself.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Did anyone else notice how Elo seemingly jumped onto a vibes-based suspicion of Sloonei (which I held), and then dropped it, after I dropped it? What do folks think of that? I'm not sure what to make of Elo right now.

I'll be curious to read about how your stance on her developed as Sloonei became the target du jour and flipped Inmate.


I'll try to get through Page 10 before lunch is over. No promises.

Responses and thoughts from Page 8:

nijuukyugou wrote:I'm just gonna talk. It's gonna get a little stream-of-conscious-y, so I hope y'all don't mind.

G-Man wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Personally, I have a "policy no-lynch". Which is, I avoid lynching on d1 people I know are really good at the game, unless I have a strong reason to.

I like this policy.

I don't. Good players won't usually give you a good reason to vote them on Day 1. If they did, they probably wouldn't be on you 'good players' list. Giving a pass to "good players" is bad. While I realize that you're are not saying that you wouldn't put pressure on or look closely at a "good player" Day 1, you are in a way creating a class of people who are worthy of a free pass. You better believe they take advantage of that charity every time they can.

In writing, there's a phrase: "murder your darlings." Don't be afraid to apply that here. Heaven knows the baddies do it all the time.

Agree with this. Don't ever give mafia a reason to act like or be something - they'll use it to their advantage every time.

DharmaHelper wrote:Also, I ain't doing no rainbow list. Fuck that noise.

MovingPictures07 wrote:For anyone that has ANY reads whatsoever, that hasn't voiced them yet, I am literally dying to hear them. I'm incredibly intrigued.

Oh dear. You might want to get to a doctor

Since G-Man is prominent in the conversation, I'll include my two cents. I'm torn about him. I agree that he seemed to take the comments in jest about "policy lynching" him Day 1 (P.S., I hadn't heard the term "policy lynch" until this game, but I understand the concept now), which could point to defensiveness. But then again, I empathize with the feeling of being bombarded, in jest or not - it can get rather irritating regardless of alignment, so I'd probably react negatively eventually. But now that I'm re-reading him again, he doesn't sound as irritated in his posts that I previously thought, so I agree with a lot of the points he's been making about mafia in general. He hasn't made any accusations (just an idea to lynch Golden for shits and giggles), but that's pretty normal for Day 1. I think. So, in conclusion, I'm less torn and more...observant and wary, really, since his name is being brought up.

I've always found the concept of using too many adverbs as a sign of baddiness intriguing. Smileys I understand. I like llama's line of thinking, especially for a Day 1 vote. While Days 1 are some people's favorite hunting days, I hate them with a passion, so sometimes you gotta go with whatever you can without a vote record - silence/hiding, evasiveness, or someone profusely and excessively using adverbs and smileys to a great extent I crack myself up

I'm done now. I'll be back after a day trip to Asheville to discuss and vote and stuff.

1) I'm glad someone agrees with me about not liking the "give 'good players' a pass. If you're willing to lynch a new player for BS reasons you should be willing to lynch a 'good player' for those same BS reasons. I'm very pro-egalitarianism. 'Merica and all, you know?

2) Unfortunately my short game is terrible. I'm not usually much of an idea guy until I have some meat to digest. I often say that I need three or four days of vote data before things start clicking for me.

3) I just assumed people were joking about being suspicious of adverbs and smileys in the other games I've played here. Adverbs are the devil and are a sign of writing skills that need improved (not judging- I use them too now and then). There is an eloquence to being succint with your words. Not sure I find them suspicious; more like melodramatic filler that can be skipped over.

Sloonei wrote:I do not currently have you as a suspect G-man, which is actually saying something in your case because you're one of the few people who's posted enough to bave anything to go off of.
I did not have any bad feelings about your wording with regards to your role, and I feel like it's an odd thing to be suspicious of, but it's Day 1 and I do not object to its being brought up. I simply saw it as a player making the routine empty remarks about not being bad. Your phrasing changes very little. I am also not bad. So is everyone else.
We do have at least a 1-shot lie detector in this game, for what it's worth.

I agree that people overreacted to the way I phrased my claim to innocence. I disagree that I posted enough during Day one for anyone to have a good read on me. My Day 1 content is usually fluff-heavy. I'm not going to pretend to read players and come up with questions because I would sound forced. Day 1 is Day Fun for me. No wonder people started looking your way.

I am curious about Sloonei's motives. He knows that I am not one of the Inmates/Mafia, so sticking up for me could serve three purposes. First, he sees that I'm ripe for being the lazy, garbage Day 1 civvie lynch and can gain cred by sticking up for me and rubbing it in everyone's faces when I flip Civilian. Second, he's doing it because he knows my death won't hurt his team- even if I flip Moloch, he looks little more than naive and no one has reason to suspect him because Moloch has no teammates. Third, he's buddying up to me to make me look bad if/when he is lynched. I'm more inclined to believe the first two are in play because Sloonei had no reason to suspect he'd be lynched when he first stuck up for me.

LoRab wrote:I'm of 2 minds with the GMan stuff.

On the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

That being said, the way he phrased it doesn't sound like a way a civie would describe themselves, even with phrasing it differently. What he posted earlier sounds like something that is a baddie trying to describe themselves with a true statement on a technicality (like, if they don't have a power that can be used to harm a civie, they technically aren't a threat). And his explanation doesn't ring so true to me.

There are also roles with secrets, and we don't know how those statements might have an impact on an LD role. He could have been waiting for clarification on how a statement of "I am a civie" would show up. on G Man. Leaning towards a vote in that direction.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this the origination point of the Lie Detection discussion in regards to my "curiously-worded" post? I remember lie detection statements being a big deal on STV when I first got into mafia. My refusal to make a "I am a civvie" statement in my first game ever yielded bad results and I tried to sell out the rest of my teammates for amnesty. That didn't go over well either. I remember lie detecting roles falling out of favor all over my mafia-playing map because it was seen as an annoying requirement and some people didn't like being the LD role because it was boring and people were finding ways to get around a definitive statement.

I've already explained my reasons for the wording of my statement though. I made to denial-based statements and one confirmation-based statement. Again, I didn't think it would turnout to be the issue that it was. I find it curious though that the thread seemed to latch onto this LD topic. I will jot names down in my spreadsheet of anyone who seems passionate one way or the other about this topic.

By the way- good to see you again LoRab!

Sloonei wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Sloonei wrote:The two games i've played with G-man were Economics (where he was town but posted entirely in pictures for the whole game) and Bullets over Broadway (where he was scum and replaced in after Day 2 or 3.......

I hosted G-Man in Guess Who and he tried a thing where he would begin each new post with the next letter of the alphabet.

I really don't have time atm to look at his posts in Bullets over Broadway or the other games he has played in but I am wondering what posting fun he tried to have in the other games he's played. I wonder if he even tries to do something funky with his posts if he is bad or if being on a team and having people to talk to BTS is enough for him to keep a game interesting. I don't see any themes running through his posts in this game, but I could be missing it. It's something to think about.

G-Man, do you do posting themes in each game despite your alighment? If so, can you tell us what you did in BoB when you were mafia?

G-man, you continue to be my hero.
In BoB it was hard to read into his posts at all. He subbed in on Day 2 or 3 for a scum player (gamerguy) who was one of the thread's most popular suspects before he had subbed out. So G-man was a dead man walking from the moment he showed up, and he knew it. I just noticed a marked change (he seems more engaged) this time around than in my previous games with him. I'll start digging through his content later, but for now I do not feel there's enough of it for me to get anywhere.

Who do you think you might vote for today now that i'm off the table?

1) My Guess Who 'thing' was a sad, sad failure because I forgot to stick with it any time I got really excited about writing a quick retort.

2) I'm still in an exploratory phase of coming up with ideas and finding out what works in terms of posting themes. I'd like to do something unique every game but that has not been the case. In Biblical we were behind socks and I threw myself back into the game with no reservations. The technicolor vote lists were just a useful way for me to analyze votes that I wanted to share. I had never done them before.

3) I don't have a theme for this game and that fact disappoints me. I couldn't find a decent avatar, I couldn't come up with a fun theme to pull (though I thought about trying the alphabet thing again), and I'm fumbling all over the place by trying to be more like STV G-Man. He was as friendly as a balrog at times and I'm finding that I just don't have what it takes to drink from that well again.

4) I did not have a theme in BoB due to the circumstances. That's all I can say about that until BoB is over.

5) Sloonei, you need to find a new hero. My track record may be fun but it's not very successful.

Ricochet wrote:I did some catch-up, but, as intense as it was, I'm not getting too much out of the D0 banter. Firstly, it strikes me as the first serious D0 one we've had since Death Note, with that D0 poll generating at least 10 pages or so of elephant talk. In that case, all the banter diffused once the majority decided to go for the regular, benign type of voting - which, in here, would translate to me that if the D1 ax won't fall on G-Man (although it currently seems like a possibility), Golden (which currently seems least likely to happen) or others involved, it will account for not much afterwards. Secondly, given the amount of fishing, rusing, jesting, banter and such, I either feel compelled to take it at face value or be slightly irritated by the "state something - launch debate/controversy over it - pull back by saying it was all a ruse or tongue-in cheek" dynamic. G-Man caught my eye with how, after almost an entire day of banter, policy talk and such, he himself seemed to finally acknowledge that his initial replies to Golden were also jest (second part of this post).

So what is it, in the end? Was it all a jest or are we trying to get something out of this eventually? There's no denying civs and mafia can both blend in on such banter occasions (thinking back to my Death Note, we had boo there, charming us with his analysis), but so far I'm not sure of any strong leads. I'm reading MP ok with his principles on the whole policy lynching thing and his inquiry of others. I'm reading Llama as doing regular Llama stuff on D0-D1, which is fishing and openly claiming a baddie read - except for maybe his Sloonei reasoning boiling down to "smileys and adverbs", because "it's reasonable guys", which is an eye-roller imo. For all the talk on "policy lynching" Golden based on his last baddie game: while I'm reading nothing suspicious in his posts so far, I can't help noticing how nobody's bringing Dharma up for the same "policy", considering how much he rekt the civs in Omerta.

So if it boils down to the originators of the whole banter, meaning Golden and G-Man, I think they both had a shaky start. Golden did basically start the whole thing, effectively signaling a meta from the sign-up phases that revenge lynching might be in store for him (including not just G-Man, but also MM and myself as players who might desire that ) and, after a few fluff and banter posts and being away whilst discussing was intensifying, he return to, in reply to MP's query, clear everyone except G-Man of possible charges and keep pressure on him. Others are finding this ok, since they themselves resonate with G-Man being suspicious, but idk, I'd keep this under scrutiny.

Then again, G-Man does indeed look worse in this equation, especially with how he decided at first to go ahead and call his "policy lynching" on Golden intentional and, as I've said, only after a full day to strongly claim it was just as jesting as everything else that's been said on the matter, by everyone else. Plus, in my catch up, other posts of his have also intrigued me, mostly notably this one, where he answers MP that he is not considering a policy lynch on Golden, yet Golden is his "contingency vote" if nothing else arises - which doesn't it sound a bit the same? To be fair, though, I'm reading his later explanations slightly better. There's also his answer to MM's question. If he accidentally claimed Watchmen, it's so interpretable, because the Watchmen go different ways and a lynch would probably have different repercussions for each one as well. Anyone has a take on this? I'm seeing only one instance of a "not posing a threat to civies", from the Watchmen that don't have secrets.

Oh christ I started this post an hour ago.

This was an interesting read. I did get left on the clothesline while everyone else was let off the hook. That's probably because I was so tenacious.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I also don't like how G-man pharsed his "I'm not bad" statement and will also bbe considering voting for him.

I find it interesting that Bass (and others) seem to be hung up on my third statement and completely ignore the two denial-based statements. According to Meat Loaf, two outta three ain't bad but apparently that's not the case in mafia.

Printing off a ream's worth of reports atm, so I have time to read another page. My thought/responses to Page 7:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, I agree that G-Man's phrasing in several posts, including this one, have been odd, as if he can't justify lying outright. However, wouldn't that quickly sink him if he actually is mafia? Would he play it that riskily?

In addition, is it possible that G-Man has rather unconventional and literal phrasing in his typical posting behavior? What do you think?

I feel like there is an additional point to be made that did not occur to me this morning. Perhaps it's the hybrid accountant-communications professional in me that feels there is a difference in this game between the word "civvie" and "Civilian" (with or without the capital C). In general thread-speak, "civvie" or "civ" is a generic term for someone who is not bad. In this game, the term is vague enough to not be helpful (at least in my opinion). To claim that you are a "civ" or "civvie" is not useful to a Lie Detector role.

(To tell the truth, I forgot such a power existed in this game- I've been really bad about knowing the powers in play in every game since I showed up here. Shameful really. I used to include powers on my process of elimination spreadsheet. Now it's just role names.)

Because the Watchmen represent a gray-area faction, they could be civ/civvie now but not later. How would a host rule on a lie-detected statement from Day 1 for a player who switched from potentially winning with the Civilians to now needing at least some of them to die? In the context of when the statement was said, the lie detector test would come back as true but it fails as an indicator of current status.

The role group called Civilians (note the capital C) is specific to a set of players. Saying you are a civ/civvie is not the same as saying you are a Civilian. In this game, I perceive "civ/civvie" to be vague and "Civilian" to be distinct.

Saying you are not a role or part of a faction is easy and always fair game. It's denial-based. Saying you are something is confirmation-based. I honestly wasn't sure if saying "I am a Civilian" would cross a line with Epi, so I wrote what I wrote without asking him if I could be that specific. I did later and it is okay. I am still feeling out the hosts here at The Syndicate. I've encountered nonchalant hosts mostly but I've known a few who are picky beyond belief. I'd rather have players mad at me than hosts because I like hosting and I respect the time and effort that goes into it. I'm pretty cordial to formal when I communicate with hosts.

In the end, perhaps I'm making mountains out of molehills over semantics but at least I'm in good company!

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'll be back later. I have so much to accomplish, so I'm going to try to force myself not to come back until at least the late afternoon or evening. For anyone that has ANY reads whatsoever, that hasn't voiced them yet, I am literally dying to hear them. I'm incredibly intrigued.

I know everyone will play their own way, so I'm not trying to push people to play any way that they aren't comfortable with, but I strongly believe in trying to develop reads through discussion, and like DH, my head will explode if I see a ton of bandwagon votes with hardly any explanation, random votes, self-votes, etc.

For anyone who actually is willing to create a Rainbow List (I'm becoming convinced they're a love/hate thing, no in between), I'd be more than happy to check out your rainbow, if you know what I mean.

In the big long response I lost yesterday I had song lyrics pop into my head as soon as I saw this post. Here goes:

"I'd write a list,
I'd write a list for you,
But what good would it do?
'Cuz it is all yellow."

Responses to Page 6 Content:

Russtifinko wrote:Sooooo the game started, and I worked all day.....

You guys do realize you averaged over a post per minute between 9:30am and 10am, right? And I haven't read the last 3 pages yet, but it's gotta be close to that for most of the evening.

MP has already demanded no less than 7 answers to questions from EVERY SINGLE PLAYER....and that was 3 pages ago.

Sheesh.

Back in the day I might have been inclined to cynically match MP's borderline-needy, information-addicted behavior. But I'm older (and hopefully wiser) now an one of the joys of growing "old" is that you reach a point where you just don't give a rip anymore. I'm not playing for the thrill of victory, a flashy array of winner's badges, a sense of intellectual superiority, or even pride. I play for the fun of playing and for the social interaction. The "older" you get the nicer it is to have people to talk to.

Russtifinko wrote:

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

You mean the player whose posts can be read with the deepest voice or the player who writes the low-down meanest posts?

I believe the word you are looking for is fewest.

How did we not have a "reading posts in deep voices" contest in Economics?

Looking at you, DDL.

I'll see if I can work that into my Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3 game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:G-Man, I'll ask you what I asked Llama. Why me? Just curious.

Because you swooped in to defend Golden the Coward to a degree when I kept badgering him and suggesting others vote for him. After Econ, I know I can et a rise out of you and I'd like to think that we've re-established some of the rapport that existed between us back in the old days. Though I must admit, it was so long ago that I forget what our rapport was like back then. Long story short- I didn't think you'd mind it. If you did, then I apologize.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't understand, G-Man. How does your response address Llama's concern? I realize he doesn't say why here, but I am still lost as to why you responded this way. You say you're talking now because you're going to be AWOL tomorrow, but what does that have to do with defending yourself from the assertion that you are mafia?

Had I just said "Nope, Llama, you're wrong about me," you would have asked for more, even though Llama failed to provide any specifics to speak against. You're good at asking damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't questions. It's obvious why Llama may have suspected me. I've got my bossy-pants tone going and I've been more assertive though with more added snark too. My play this game is actually somewhere between early STV-style G-Man and how I played as Balaam in Biblical.

MovingPictures07 wrote:G-Man, again, here you provide an odd and unsatisfactory response.

What does "probably just fishing" mean? Why add the word "probably"? Can you clarify?

I just want to note that I see you already clarified that you were fishing regarding the "100%" statement in your post, but I'm not sure I believe that explanation.

It means that Llama may not even actually suspect me but he probably does on some level. I've seen a few people in my time here mention that they will go after someone early just to see how that player responds to pressure and also to see how other respond to it (supportive to it, neutral to it, defensive to it). There's a remote chance that Llama was just doing it for the sake of doing it. He probably thought my tone was different though, giving him a reasonable impetus to do it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I am starting to believe something is off about Sloonei. What do others who have played with him think?

Wow, your spider sense was tingling this early? I wish I was good at picking up vibes and reading people. I still feel it's overrated (you know, because you were all jumping on me over a choice that I have the right to make and the wording of a few posts) but it looks like it served you well here.

MovingPictures07 wrote:This reminds me.

G-Man, do you have any thoughts on anyone at this time?

At this very point on page 6, no. I did not have any thoughts on anyone. Hopefully I will have some once I'm finished catching up.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Bah, that's right, looks like I missed G-Man before he unplugged. I got so much linkitis, then incorporated linkitised posts... but somehow didn't realize that I probably won't get responses from him for a while. Oh well.

If I do address you and ask a question, don't feel pressured. Just answer whenever you get a chance. My vote is still very up in the air for Day 1.

Night, fellow mafia players!

This made me chuckle. In time, you will start to demand answers to your questions. Mp peed all over my face once, so I know the drill. When you do answer his questions, he analyzes them like he's crunching numbers. It's like calculating financial ratios- if your answer doesn't fall into the sweet spot, it spurs on a new line of questioning. But fear not, new players- MP's bark is worse than his bite. Just watch out for his pee; it isn't pleasant. :P

Sloonei wrote:In response to MP's points toward me (my laptop is old and terrible and doing this thing where it takes a half hour just to start up, and I don't feel like waiting for that just so I can format a post more easily, so this is a messy phoned-in attempt at a post), I have so far only played with a G-man that is completely light and playful in all his posts (due to those reasons I mentioned earlier), so when I came in to the thread on Day 0 and saw him being perhaps the most active person in leading the discussion, regardless of how serious he says it was at the time, it was a very noticeable change in style for him. It is too minor a point to earn him a townie label just yet, but it was the strongest read I got in any direction after 3 pages of activity. "Sincere" was probably not the right word. "Active" or "aggressive"' would have been more accurate. I will hold off on commenting on the actual content of his posts until there's more of it.

Also I never expressed my suspicion of you while you were in BoB, I only mentioned it after Epi had subbed in for you. I can't find any of the posts (i made a lot of them in that game), but my point was essentially that I felt like your response to the fake truce banter on Day 0 felt a bit too preemptively defensive. Your behavior here reminded me vaguely of that.

That's a very odd post by Sloonei B. Jones right there. My tone is markedly different but that made him think I was more likely civvie? I'm starting to see where things went wrong for him. That's surprising for a player as sharp as he is. We all make mistakes I guess. Just look at how Dragon stepped in it during Guess Who.

Good morning. Sorry for missing the vote. Work was a nightmare yesterday. (For the record, I worked up to 7:00 last night, came home to mow the lawn while I still had light, ate a quick dinner, and went back to the office until 11:00.) I suspect my day today will be pretty busy as well but I will try to participate. Right now, though, I'm in catch-up mode. I'm going to go back to the point I started at yesterday before losing my huge response post (I believe that's page 6). I've got a busy day tomorrow (a day out with the wife and kid) but I will try to participate as much as possible, seeing as I am a tempting lynch candidate given the Day 1 results.

Sloonei! Wow, dude. Color me surprised. Not sure where the thread switched from me to you but I will look for that. Pretty ballsy to come out defending a fumbling player who's dangling like prime rib in the lion's den. Glad you're dead though because that's a huge statistical and tactical advantage to we civs.

Now for re-reading and responding...

I just closed the wrong tab and lost everything.

We need a smiley with tears streaming down its face for such an occasion as this. My eyes are literally watering up right now.

Long story short- I usually try to be very intentional about the words I use. This post:

G-Man wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:I've got about 10 more minutes before I unplug for the night. Any questions?

Are you a member of mafia?

I am not a member of the mafia.
I am not Moloch.
My role does not pose a threat to the civvies.

...was worded as such because I wasn't sure if declaring myself a Civilian was in bounds with our host. I thought that, since there is a distinction between Civilians and Watchmen (even though they potentially share a common interest), Epi might not want me to claim to be a Civilian because it comes too close to roleclaiming by way of seriously limiting the number of roles that I could be. Since you guys are all but checking me for polyps over it, I have cleared it with Epi and I can now tell you that:

I am a Civilian.


So much for checking in quick. Now that I've lost an hour of productivity at work I have to go. At this rate, I cannot even guarantee that I'll make it back to vote. I'm not going to vote now because I have nothing on anyone and I don't really want to dig myself into an even deeper hole, if that is really the common perception of me. I'm not giving the opportunists any ammunition to use against me.

If you guys end up lynching me, let these be my dying words:

I'm sorry I let you down.

In briefly during lunch. Please ask your questions now. I'm going to pick up from my last post and respond to any questions in one long post of replies.

Golden wrote:

G-Man wrote:Golden- any questions for me before I head off for the night?

I just wanted to know how, on a practical level, you were going to unplug.

But no, not particularly. I think you have answered any concerns I have as well as you could have.

"Unplugging" means turning off the computer and curling up on the couch to read the dictionary while my wife watches reruns of Castle. Around 10 we'll turn on the news and have a little snack. By 10:30 my wife will probably head up to bed and I will keep reading. Around 11:30 I'll wake up after falling asleep while reading and head up to bed.

Fair enough.

Golden- any questions for me before I head off for the night?

Cookie wrote:After catching up on the thread, I have a few small things to say:

4) How do I vote not to lynch someone? On the site I use, we vote "no lynch." Is there an alternative name for it here or do I just not vote?

On this site you have to vote for someone because we have the P-Score. It's a way to track and rate players based on participation. If you miss too many votes, your P-Score will be docked and you might not be allowed into a future game if the host of said game requires a higher P-Score than what you have. Someone more acquainted with the P-Scores take over from here because it's still newish to me as well.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:I've got about 10 more minutes before I unplug for the night. Any questions?

Are you a member of mafia?

I am not a member of the mafia.
I am not Moloch.
My role does not pose a threat to the civvies.

I've got about 10 more minutes before I unplug for the night. Any questions?

So it begins...

LoRab wrote:You Can't Do That On Television was a great show!! I can't remember if G Man is younger or older than I am, though.

I'm 31.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:G-Man, I've seen you talking about having Golden as a back-up vote, and also talking about how you were joking about lynching him.

Questions:

1) Is Golden your back-up vote right now? If you had to vote now, would you vote for him?
2) Do you think the reason you gave in your first interaction with Golden is a reason for lynching him? And if not, then what is the reason?

1) If I had to vote now, then sure. I'd vote for Golden just for kicks and giggles. If literally nothing of interest happens on Day 1 and there are no inactive players, or you guys decide to steamroll me, then sure, I'd vote for him for the lulz.

2) If you're referring to this...

G-Man wrote:

Golden wrote:I just want to warn you all that I'm pretty sure G-Man wants to kill me and I find this highly suspect.

His ass would be better served helping me make a lot of rainbow lists.

Wow, you're not even going to be subtle and sneaky with me this time? Perhaps that's because you have reason to be afraid this game. Taking a joke from pre-game and trying to use it to cast shade on me looks pretty cheap and bad. Golden the Coward indeed.

I intend to keep my rainbow lists to myself from now on, unless they point to an obvious baddie. Sticking my neck out got me killed in Biblical and Guess Who, so maybe I should revert to cryptic and mysterious. That served me well enough in Economics.

...then I would say it's a valid reason to vote for him if he was actually being serious. I assume he's kidding, which is why I went all tongue-in-cheek over-the-top on him. I've been having fun by pushing buttons all day. I'd have to look back but I'm willing to bet that I haven't made any accusations or suppositions that weren't at least partly in jest.

thellama73 wrote:Interesting discussion. I'll just add that I famously like lynching non-participants and it famously gets me killed. Do I learn though?

No. No, I don't.

I remember when that was the norm, honestly. Random votes quickly became taboo and we moved onto the next easiest thing to do on Day 1. I don't recall how successful it was as a go-to strategy but I see no harm in it, as inactive civvies are easily used by baddies. Inactive baddies can be useful too because sometimes their baddie teammates try to lead the pack against that player for cred. I feel like those instances were usually obvious.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:for instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

IF they say something obviously fishy that can lead to a reasonable lynch.

But on D1, that's incredibly rare, and most votes as based on BS.

And if I am to cast a BS vote, knowing full well I'm probably taking down an innocent civilian, I'd rather have that likely civilian be someone who has a lower chance of helping town winning the game.

It's not about giving good players a free pass. It's about not playing russian roulette with players who are more likely to be good assets. Once we get to D2, when actual data is available and better cases can be made, nobody is getting a free pass.

See, I agree with just about everything you said there.

Unfortunately it means that we develop a kind of caste system, which bothers me. What's to say this won't be [insert name here]'s game to break through and show how awesome they can be after Day 3 or 4? But no, based on past history we label said player as a liability and lynch them when they barely have to to contribute anything but a chuckle and a smiley face. Meanwhile we let [awesome history player] coast based on the amount of awesome they've displayed in the past. We're obviously much more egalitarian around these parts compared to some mafia forums that shall remain nameless but we're not truly egalitarian. I've completely lost sight of where this post was going, so...

Golden wrote:I'm completely in agreement with llama. If the day one poll was closing now, I'd vote for G-Man.

If there is anyone who overreacted in this game, it's not MP. It was the first post G-Man made towards me.

I feel like he has already been talking himself into a corner. Even if it was not ME he was talking about, the stance that "I would sooner lynch a super-civilian than give a super-baddie a free pass" is ridiculous, and is not something that I have seen anything remotely like from G-Man in the other games I've played with him, especially biblical, where in our chat we both talked about the virtues of there being several people alive and talking lots (such as llama and rico) even though we weren't 100% sure that they were good. I think this position only exists now because he wants to be able to justify his vote in this game. I do not believe civilian G-Man thinks it's a better idea to lynch contributors than non-contributors.

1) I was matching the ridiculousness of your first post with my first post.

2) The viewpoint I expressed is to be taken on its own and is not to be combined with any other traits or characteristics. For some reason this game has me drawing from the fenced off well of STV G-Man style. Back then I could be about as friendly as a balrog at times. Not sure why I went there but it feels oddly refreshing.

3) Civilian G-Man certainly prefers contributing players to non-contributing players. Early on it is necessary to take a utilitarian stance and thin the herd. I think the problem is that you're not keeping my stance on eliminating "good players" separate from the contributor v. non-contributor argument. I think we're more in agreement on things than you realize. For instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

thellama73 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

I think it is a bood and unexpected assertion by thellama to suggest that G-man is bad. Why does the llama think this?

He's probably just fishing. I refuse to believe anyone can spot a baddie with 100% certainty on 1, let alone a Day 0. I have yet to meet anyone that good, if they even exist.

Where did I say 100% certainty, Captain Straw Man? I just said I think you are bad. It's a vibe I'm getting from you based on what I know of you from past games and contrasting with other players who have a similar style to you. You've been vocal today, but not as productive as DDL and Golden, who I think of as playing somewhat similarly to you. As I said, vague, undefined, but a hunch nevertheless. WHich is why I wanted other people's thoughts.

You didn't say 100% certainty. That was me fishing. I always try to be a little different every game to avoid being predictable. It's good for the brain. You should also know that my productivity isn't very good early on in games by now.

Sloonei wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

I think it is a bood and unexpected assertion by thellama to suggest that G-man is bad. Why does the llama think this?

He's probably just fishing. I refuse to believe anyone can spot a baddie with 100% certainty on 1, let alone a Day 0. I have yet to meet anyone that good, if they even exist.

There is no doubt he's fishing, and I don't think he or anyone else would suggest that this suspicion is being stated with 100% certainty. But there is probably a reason why he chose your name out of the pack, and I'd like to to know what that is.

I'm curious to find out more specifics as to what drew him to me today as well. As someone who doesn't pick up on vibes or read people very well, I suppose I have come to view vibes and reads as grossly overrated.

Sloonei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

I think it is a bood and unexpected assertion by thellama to suggest that G-man is bad. Why does the llama think this?

He's probably just fishing. I refuse to believe anyone can spot a baddie with 100% certainty on 1, let alone a Day 0. I have yet to meet anyone that good, if they even exist.

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

Nope. I'm just getting my talking in now, because I'm going to be AWOL pretty much all day tomorrow. I was hoping we'd jump right into Day 1 but no. Alack, alack, alack!

Scotty wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

Things that start with G:
Guilty-Man
Greedy-Man
Ghastly-Man
Gestapo-Man
Glib-Man
Good-Man


I'd wager one of those is right.

Also, he hasn't posted many pictures this game. Like 1 or so. Isn't he known for pictures? Or am I just getting bad info?

I fixed your list for you. Also, you've been getting some bad information. I posted in nothing but pictures, memes, videos, and links during Economics Mafia to shake things up a bit. That is not a behavior that I plan to repeat for a full game any time soon.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Scotty wrote:Ugh, massive hangover. If anyone asks, don't mix tequila with cider.

I'm not keen to gleaning much of anything from Day 0 discussions. I mean, I'd never heard of Day 0 before online mafia. Which has me questioning why MP is being so tantalizingly nit-picky.

DharmaHelper wrote:My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

I'm confused.
-You're wary of self-voting or random voting
-You're wary of people justifying random voting by saying that early voting doesn't matter, and then voting randomly
-but if they can't make up their minds, no biggie
-but if people justify random voting, self voting, or weak-reasoning voting, and ultimately look for "somewhere to go", then it's ok.

I literally can't wrap my head around the logic of this paragraph. And I am a great wrapper, especially around Christmas time.

I don't think you understood what I was saying..

What I said was this:

I do not like random voting. I do not like self-voting, I do not like votes on Day 1 that reflect near-zero effort. These types of votes will not get a pass from me at all. If someone has genuinely exhausted their options, I won't consider that as suspicious as "Meh I'm just gonna vote for Tom because his name ends in M for Mafia lol" or "Randomized, got Tom", or "Tom didn't post, voting Tom,"

In other words, the level of effort put into the vote will reflect how suspicious I find the vote.

Well at least you've admitted that it's subjective.

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Personally, I have a "policy no-lynch". Which is, I avoid lynching on d1 people I know are really good at the game, unless I have a strong reason to.

I like this policy.

I don't. Good players won't usually give you a good reason to vote them on Day 1. If they did, they probably wouldn't be on you 'good players' list. Giving a pass to "good players" is bad. While I realize that you're are not saying that you wouldn't put pressure on or look closely at a "good player" Day 1, you are in a way creating a class of people who are worthy of a free pass. You better believe they take advantage of that charity every time they can.

In writing, there's a phrase: "murder your darlings." Don't be afraid to apply that here. Heaven knows the baddies do it all the time.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

I think you can add Silk Spectre and The Comedian to the civvie side of the equation. Neither of their win conditions suggest any harm to the civvies. Regardless, we're always more likely to lynch civvie than a baddie whether we use randomization or our best effort to deduce the identity of a baddie. Using strict probability, the odds are always stacked against us.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:I'd much rather mistakenly lynch a super-civ player than accidentally give a super-baddie player a free pass.

Debatable. But if we assume a D1 lynch is a blind one (like it almost always is), the former is more likely to happen than the later. In this game, for example, the probability is 75%, excluding indies.

Your number doesn't make sense. And why exclude the indie role?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Fortunately for G-Man, there does not appear to be an insanifier.

One can hope there is one hiding in the secrets.

DharmaHelper wrote:My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

Fair enough but keep this in mind: one player's hunch is another player's "arbitrary, barely relevant reason." You set up a slippery slope of interpretational ambiguity. I'd like to think the days of true randomization are over. Even if I were desperate enough to resort to a randomizer, I can guarantee you that not all players names go into the hat. I have not actually used a randomizer in a long, long time though. It usually boils down to my often-faulty process of elimination based on what few vibes I actually pick up on.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Just to explain: policy lynching = lynching someone without actually thinking they are mafia, because you think they can be detrimental to the game in some way. An inactive player, a player who refuses to contribute, or a player who has a tendency of lieing even when civilian can be good targets. Or, in a game that allows claims, a player who claims an useless role like survivor or miller.

Of course policy, lynches become harder to justify as the game progresses. Heck, justifying them on d1 is already controversial.

DharmaHelper wrote: 2. I'm always wary of comments like DDL's that try and put the fear of God into civs, but I don't really see it as him being serious (or at least to the degree that I find G-Man's comments).

Fear of God? What?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

Comments like that, intended to make civs nervous about how good of a mafia player Golden is (and painting a target on his back as a result).

I'd much rather mistakenly lynch a super-civ player than accidentally give a super-baddie player a free pass.

DharmaHelper wrote:"Policy" lynching sounds like the new "Randomizer gave me..." and I just want to point out to everyone how bullshit that is. If anybody cops out with their vote, get ready for a shitstorm.

Do you think it is "bullshit" for someone to have a contingency plan for their vote on Day 1 in the event that they don't see anyone clearly standing out as bad?

In each of the games I started in here so far, we have lynched a civvie on Day 1, so it seems evident to me that mafia communities have gotten no better at rooting out the baddies early on in games. As someone who is a terrible people-reader, many of my early votes are either blind guesses or have weak reasoning. I fully intend to have several fallback contingencies in place for my Day 1 vote. Given this, I would like you to expound upon just what you mean by "copping out with a vote." That way I can hold you to the same standard and watch for you letting people off the hook for such a violation. It will also help me know in advance when I might need to break out my umbrella.

MovingPictures07 wrote:So what I want to discuss and know from everyone is:

1) Do you think that G-Man intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
2) Do you think that DDL intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
3) Do you think that Llama intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?

4) Do you consequently think that I overreacted and that your answer to questions 1) through 3) were all No?

5) Do you find G-Man, DDL, or Llama suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?
6) Do you find me suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?

I am not casting suspicion on any of them, nor am I issuing my own opinions on the matter. Let that be known clear. I just want to know what everyone is thinking.

Of course, I hope others will make observations of behavior that they want to discuss as they come in here and catch up, but I want to leave this on the table while I go do some work, so at least there is some more potential for discussion than there would be otherwise, and we're not left with a situation where everyone else just checks in and we're scrambling on Day 1 to cram good discussion into 24 hours or less. I have no intent for this to dominate the discussion, by any means, but to merely push it and get everyone talking.

1) No. Golden is simply now my de facto fallback vote in case I don't see anything vote-worthy on Day 1.
2) Ignorance.
3) Apathy
4)I'll give you two guesses and the first one doesn't count.
5-a) Yes- he's basically admitting he wants to panty-raid a comic book character. That's just...
5-b) Yes, but that probably has more to do with prior games than this one. His demeanor has a lot of swagger to it and the only swagger I like is in Old Spice soap.
5-c) Yes, but doesn't everybody?
6) See 5-c
7) Your mom.

thellama73 wrote:

G-Man wrote: Sorry MP, you may be have multiple accounting degrees but I have a degree in accounting AND a degree in communications (I'm good with words but apparently formatting them on this site is hit or miss for me ). I simply cannot team up with someone who fails to differentiate between lowest, least, and fewer.

I have a degree in Economics, Film Scoring, and Russian & Eastern European Studies. I plan to vote accordingly.

Your mustache makes much more sense to me now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.

Yeah, he's like the hyperactive Chihuahua of mafia.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.

I agree. I have been poking MP a lot today to see how he reacts. He hasn't seemed fishy to me. He seems like normal, hyper-engaged civ MP.

So have I. It's been fun. But I haven't been doing it to fish for reactions. I've been messing with him for sport.

timmer wrote:I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I will be largely skipping Day 0 banter. It just never does anything for me!

And to whoever said that Rorschach "seems badass"? That's an understatement.

Spoiler: show

I haven't been involved with enough Day 0's yet to determine if they matter much for anything. That clip though! Now I know not to watch that movie with my wife. She's not into comic book movies in general but I'd never hear the end of it for making her watch that degree of cold-hearted violence.

Let's try that again:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

This is the first game I play where I'm actually free of Epi (as a player at least) and you're gonna spoil it?

It's a dangerous job but someone's got to do it.

Canucklehead wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

RYM seems to bring in folks from all over the world, so I figured it was just a case of someone not being exposed to this particular American songwriter.

Dude. Alanis is from Winnipeg.

Did someone slip something in your maple syrup this morning Canuck? She's from Ottawa but now lives in LA.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't play mafia to have my grammar corrected, so if you want to vote me for such a reason, then I clearly will cast the in your direction, good sir.

So I've noticed. It's okay though. You've got an accounting degree. We all know that accountants are better with numbers than they are with words.

Accountants unite.

Sorry MP, you may be have multiple accounting degrees but I have a degree in accounting AND a degree in communications (I'm good with words but apparently formatting them on this site is hit or miss for me ). I simply cannot team up with someone who fails to differentiate between lowest, least, and fewer.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Besides, G-Man, we all know I wouldn't be able to resist any opportunity to dogpee on you, or anyone else, for that matter. :P

Yes, well at least this time I will know that you cannot help yourself. That will save me a PM or two to the host this game. Also, now I know just to ignore you when you go on a rant.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote: I don't watch the show but very nice! I promise not to policy lynch you Day 1.

Cool. wake me up when d1

Yeah, I'm going to hibernate now too. I've got payroll to process and A/P to pick through.

Well that didn't work right. *kicks computer*

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't play mafia to have my grammar corrected, so if you want to vote me for such a reason, then I clearly will cast the in your direction, good sir.

So I've noticed. It's okay though. You've got an accounting degree. We all know that accountants are better with numbers than they are with words.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: What do you mean by "I don't support policy lynches"? Can you elaborate?

A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

Fewest! Fewest, man. The proper word in that sentence is fewest!

I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

Spoiler: show

I don't watch the show but very nice! I promise not to policy lynch you Day 1.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

It's a dangerous job but someone's got to do it.

This is the first game I play where I'm actually free of Epi (as a player at least) and you're gonna spoil it?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: What do you mean by "I don't support policy lynches"? Can you elaborate?

A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

Fewest! Fewest, man. The proper word in that sentence is fewest!

I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

You mean the player whose posts can be read with the deepest voice or the player who writes the low-down meanest posts?

I believe the word you are looking for is fewest.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Scotty wrote:
linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

If it wasn't for Golden, the civilians wouldn't have won Biblical or Roger Rabbit, so... I can provide counterexamples for practically every example.

Is anyone here seriously considering a policy lynch option for Day 1? I just don't think it's wise.

Hey- Golden had a LOT of help behind the scenes. Never forget that. He was right and I was wrong about the final baddie but my lists helped serve up at least two baddies- one of which I handed to Golden on a silver platter from beyond the grave. I'd like to think that he would have had a much harder time winning that game without my help.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I will not stand for a closed-minded town on Day 1.

Then take a seat.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

RYM seems to bring in folks from all over the world, so I figured it was just a case of someone not being exposed to this particular American songwriter.

She's actually Canadian. Maybe it's the ignorant American in me that assumes she was just as unavoidable in all other English-speaking parts of the world and Europe as she was here in North America for what felt like forever. It was just two years but how many other 90s artists were able to milk a single album for two years? Six singles from one album is an impressive feat. The early to mid-90s were such a great time for music. Then the boy bands and pop princess had to come and ruin everything. Creed shares some of the blame too.

Fun fact: Alanis Morissette was on You Can't Do That on Television. That aired on Nickelodeon back before Nickelodeon sucked. There probably aren't too many people younger than me that remember that show because I only ever watched reruns of it!

As for the Day 0 poll, here's my thought process:

I have never seen the Watchmen movie nor read the comic books. That leaves me with no knowledge of any of the poll options or how they might be worth investigating.

What I do know is that Malin Akerman is in the Watchmen movie as Silver Spectre. Malin Akerman has that ridiculously gorgeous Swedish thing going on. I'll break from my usual even-keeled line of thought and say something that's probably sexist: I wouldn't mind searching through the contents of Silver Spectre's bedroom apartment.

Golden wrote:I just want to warn you all that I'm pretty sure G-Man wants to kill me and I find this highly suspect.

His ass would be better served helping me make a lot of rainbow lists.

Wow, you're not even going to be subtle and sneaky with me this time? Perhaps that's because you have reason to be afraid this game. Taking a joke from pre-game and trying to use it to cast shade on me looks pretty cheap and bad. Golden the Coward indeed.

I intend to keep my rainbow lists to myself from now on, unless they point to an obvious baddie. Sticking my neck out got me killed in Biblical and Guess Who, so maybe I should revert to cryptic and mysterious. That served me well enough in Economics.

espers wrote:hey guys. looking forward to playing with y'all. particularly Golden and Metalmarsh whose talents i recently saw firsthand.

Then you obviously know that he can be a devious, crafty wretch and is worthy of being lynched on Day 1.

Scotty wrote:

espers wrote:hey guys. looking forward to playing with y'all. particularly Golden and Metalmarsh whose talents i recently saw firsthand.

Hello random pirate penguin!

linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?

I was only kidding around in pre-game but since Golden chose to bring that into the game to stir crap up against me, I may be inclined to follow this course of action.

Golden wrote:

Scotty wrote:Same question to you, Golden.

Depends who you ask.

If you ask G-Man, MM, or ricochet, they will probably say yes.

If you ask me, I will say I do not think that would be a good idea for the town. So it's lucky you did ask me!

They are just mad because I've fooled them twice as mafia on this site. But I hope they don't forget that my two other wins here (and recent one at RYM) my civ skills were also pretty helpful.

"Fooled" is hardly the case. The manipulative rat fink played me like a sucker in Guess Who by using my vote analysis against me to provide himself some darn good cover. His cunning and guile were apparent in Economics only at the end of the game. But he was really just lucky in that game because he subbed back into a cushy spot. He also proved himself a coward in that game- never forget! Both of these sins wash away all the good feelings built up during Biblical when we were the dynamic duo of Goldie-Lot and Ass Man. In retrospect, he was probably just using me to do all the vote analysis work for him after I died.

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

Golden wrote:I thought I was Mooby.

I can get behind that. Let's do a little word association, shall we?

Mooby ==> Golden Calf ==> Fattened Calf ==> Sacrifice

Thanks for nominating yourself for the Day 1 lynch!