The Syndicate

I have no read on speedchuck in relation to any of the revealed members of either mafia team. Of the posts quoted by michelle (thank you and good work compiling those, michelle!), the general trend is that speed is expressing skepticism of every case but I don't see him really chomping down on anything, which is not the best look. I understand and appreciate that speed is on a tight schedule, but that does not tell me anything about his alignment. I have no clear sense of where his head is at in this game.

Michelle wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:05 am
speedchuck wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:02 pm I would, right now, vote sig, TH, Mac, and anyone who has appealed to emotion. I would murder the emotion right out of this game.

Has this salad been observed yet? This is salad. I observe it.

Michelle wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:05 am
speedchuck wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:32 pm
Master Radishes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:04 pm Of those names, I’m not sure one in particular stands out. I think Sig’s vote was the most egregious, but his macro play of all those names has been the greenest. At the moment I’m not entirely sure where I’d place a vote (and obviously can’t anyway), but GTH I’d say Sabie. Also not a fan of Mac’s play on this – inconsistent and never landed on the wagon or, conversely, showed progression away from it. Just blew on the sparks a bit.
I dunno, I was suspicious of Sig for a reason I think. Let me look back.

Ah, yes, it was his crappity crap reasons for still wanting to lynch nutella after Jack recanted. He overcompenisated for his position by throwing a bunch of bad reasons in with the good.

I believed more in the cases against Radishes and sig than the case against Mac.

G-Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:55 pm
Sloonei wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:54 pm We have this thread.
Of course we do. Part of that thread is the vote data that I posted. Ignoring it would be unwise.

I do not propose that we ignore it. I’m just saying that it’s an incomplete picture for me.

Based on the content in this thread alone, I like the direction of Michelle’s posts better than speedchuck’s, if that serves as an answer to your question.

We have this thread.

G-Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:40 pm Other behavior to consider:

-Michelle voted for Mac on D3 when it was ‘obvious’ to vote for him. On D2, she voted away from the two lead trains.

-Speed voted for Mac on D2 when voting Mac was less of a sure thing. On D3, he hopped aboard the Sig Express.

Which is more likely- a baddie voting away from a teammate on D2 when they’re not exposed but then soft bussing the day it helps to fit into the crowd, or voting for your teammate on a day when you don’t really have to but then chasing the new hottness that might buy your teammate another day?

Neither scenario is impossible, especially in a game like this one. A teammate could decide in one moment that bussing is a good idea, but then later decide that they can take advantage of the viable counterwagon. Without access to the actual game thread, I can’t really judge these votes.

G-Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:33 pm On Day1, we know that Team Master had it easy. It was Team Anti vs 3P. Day 2 Mac was a suspect but not as glaringly as on Day 3. I suspect that Team Master was more likely to have a member or two voting on the Mac train to stay blended in the crowd.

Unknown Day 2 Radish (Team Anti) Voters:
-Tony
-JJJ
-Sloonei
-Epi
-Juliets
-Colin
-Turnip

Unknown Day 3 Sig (Team Anti) Voters:
-Colin
-Sloonei
-Dom
-Speed
-JJJ
-Juliets

So if we assume that there is a baddie in our midst, then there’s a higher probability of him or her being on Team Master.

My rough vote analysis suggests to me that it’s one of Juliets, JJJ, and Sloonei because of their two-day ‘avoidance’ of Team Master trains.

Thoughts?

I don’t think it’s impossible that there could have been a busser somewhere in the last two days. I’d say it’s unlikely that sig was bussed yesterday, but radishes or mac could have been at any time.

By sheer numbers it’s more likely that we have a mac teammate here than a sig teammate.

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:42 am Someone was saying Sloonei was likely on a mafia team in the main thread a while ago, but I don't remember the details at all.

Nutella, but she always says that. I think Jack was also vocal about it too, and Tony was dropping vague suggestions that I was a suspect. I don’t recall seeing many details about a case against me.

juliets wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:23 am I find the Interactive analyses more helpful than VCA in this game. I'm hoping @JaggedJimmyJay and Sloonei can remember some of what they did as pertains to the people in this group. The only one I remember is that S~V~S had high compatibility with Mac (I remember that one because it was recent and I was seeing S~V~S as town) but that one is no longer relevant.

I didn’t uncover many points about the players in our thread. I don’t think G-man or speedchuck came up at all in the section of Mac’s ISO that I got to. I leaned favorably on you and Jay, and had that lone point about michelle as well.

Michelle wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:52 am
Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:10 pm G-man is the player in our midst who I've had the most substantial reason to suspect, but I started to cool on that as yesterday wore on. Without the luxury of the other thread, I can't review his posts for interactions with sabie/radishes/sig right now. If G-man is mafia, I link him directly to Radishes (and the other two by extension), which would make him the Anti-Monitor, which means he begins each day with -2 votes. A player beginning each day with a handicap like that might play differently. Votes are less worrisome, but heavy suspicion is a problem. Does anyone have any thoughts about G-man's viability as that role? I... don't know what that those thoughts would look like in a thread environment where there's no access to past days.
You suspect him and you are voting me? How this works? Asking from curiosity..
Because the cyan tolds me you don't have on GMan a better read than for me.
And between a possible wolf in your eyes who is active and really playing you choose to vote an inactive who didn't have influential posts on the game but helped to lynch 2 wolves. Do I look like the happy busser im any of these teams?

Hello, I never said I suspect you. I said I don’t have a read on you. My vote right now is not determined by suspicion, but by the player I’d like to sort the most.

G-man has not been much more active than you, if at all. What is your read on him, if you have one?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:47 am
Sloonei wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:46 am
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:43 am It's neat to be dreaming! After hosting the game twice and never getting to participate, this is excellent.
i'm amused that we're in this together.
we should complain about everything

I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ISO WHEN I LOST ACCESS TO THE MAIN THREAD, LITERALLY A BROKEN AND UNWINNABLE GAME

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:42 am I have no idea what mechanical wrinkles LC and BR have installed for their version of Inception. There's already one key difference: we are in a new thread and presumably new dream level, but we have a poll. None of the private voting hoopla that everyone found so enjoyable is in effect -- and those mechanics were necessary to facilitate the "kicks". Without that, it's possible there's a real lynch at work here. Who knows. I suggest we proceed with that assumption, or more generally just lynch a suspect the way we would any ordinary lynch. In the real game people goofed around in the lower levels to their detriment out of uncertainty.

I completely forgot that private voting was a thing. That does change things. Either way, I see no benefit in approaching this day as anything other than a regular game of mafia, but with a reduced pool.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:43 am It's neat to be dreaming! After hosting the game twice and never getting to participate, this is excellent.

i'm amused that we're in this together.

Architect - Each night, you will switch two players, so that each is hit by the player targeting the other. *secrets*

Alright cool. I'll speculate that this role's *secrets* triggered the current phase. Sig is on the way out, and this role (the character, at least) is borrowed from Inception Mafia. In that game the mafia team wanted to achieve inception by having one of their members survive a lynch at Limbo, the bottom dream level. If that is the case here, SVS may have swung a giant baguette straight into the nutsack of that plan by revealing sig. Our thread feels too large to be "limbo" but also too small to be a direct split along the same lines that original Inception followed. Sig is not here. His teammate might be.

Long Con wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:42 pm Welcome to Inception Mafia! Some of you have fallen asleep, perchance to dream, some are deeper still, and others will insist that they are still awake! If this is indeed a dream, then it is a shared one... and your decisions could be lethal!

I might be willing to interpret the underlined text as implying that there are three threads right now. Ours is called "A Dream Within a Dream", which might suggest that we are at the bottom. Idk. That might just be a generic tagline too. The bottom level was called Limbo in the original game.

Is SVS essentially a stump now?

i also need to get back to work on school junk. let's all bail.

G-Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:27 pm
Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:26 pm
G-Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:24 pm Okay then. Let’s make a pact to lynch me in the abscess of figuring anything out. I feel like there isn’t an obvious suspect among us.

I did manage to take a screenshot of a post Michelle made, color-coding the first three lynches. I can try to recreate that here. That might help us.

The roles listed suggest SVS and nutella 2 were civ and sig bad, so I will start there.
I'm against any plan that suggests we shouldn't scum hunt.

That said, we could see what happens if we try to lynch G-man by a tally of 3-2.
Ok, but there’s six of us. How do you plan on getting that sixth vote elsewhere? Trust?

3 people vote for you
2 people vote for someone else
1 person dicks around

"suggests" makes it seem like i'm accusing g-man of trying to stifle activity. That's not what I meant. But vote-parking could stunt the hunt and I don't want that.

G-Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:24 pm Okay then. Let’s make a pact to lynch me in the abscess of figuring anything out. I feel like there isn’t an obvious suspect among us.

I did manage to take a screenshot of a post Michelle made, color-coding the first three lynches. I can try to recreate that here. That might help us.

The roles listed suggest SVS and nutella 2 were civ and sig bad, so I will start there.

I'm against any plan that suggests we shouldn't scum hunt.

That said, we could see what happens if we try to lynch G-man by a tally of 3-2.

juliets wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:18 pm
Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:10 pm G-man is the player in our midst who I've had the most substantial reason to suspect, but I started to cool on that as yesterday wore on. Without the luxury of the other thread, I can't review his posts for interactions with sabie/radishes/sig right now. If G-man is mafia, I link him directly to Radishes (and the other two by extension), which would make him the Anti-Monitor, which means he begins each day with -2 votes. A player beginning each day with a handicap like that might play differently. Votes are less worrisome, but heavy suspicion is a problem. Does anyone have any thoughts about G-man's viability as that role? I... don't know what that those thoughts would look like in a thread environment where there's no access to past days.
Yeah Sloonei I was pinged by some stuff in his long post and it seemed like Jay pointed out some things there that he might remember. I know one thing had to do with you and then another thing had to do with me and S~V~S who he thought were bad for the same reason. I think that's how it went. His posts though during yesterday led me to believe he was good. Saying to mislynch him because that would draw scum in maybe? Maybe you can refresh me on that part G-Man.

lots of linki

I forgot about G-man's pledge to collect votes. That might actually be a point in favor of him being the anti-monitor. A player with -2 votes doesn't need to worry about gathering a little momentum, especially if doing so distracts attention away from his partner. But that also risks exposing himself if the wagon takes off and he survives when he shouldn't have.

G-Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:16 pm
juliets wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:08 pm So sig was bad lolol! So much for those people hating on the sig voters. I hate losing S~V~S and nutella. Glad S~V~S was Pariah and can continue to post as she likes.

One thing that might be good for us is we are a sub-layer. In the Inception game the sub-layers "lynched" people but they weren't really dead. They just got bumped up to the main level. The main level lynches were real. I don't want to count on that being the case though.

linki
One hope I have is that there is a way to bump all of us out of this place without dying. Did death in every level take you deeper in Inception (the movie) until death in the subconscious wakes you up? Which direction will we move? There’s no guarantee that death takes us up and out. What happens to the main thread as people re-enter, I wonder? Will bad things happen if we lynch baddies on this level and they end up controlling the top level?

Death in lower levels = kicked back to the top
Death at the top level = death

Idk if we have a top or a bottom here. This group seems smaller relative to the first split in the actual Inception game.

G-Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:10 pm Okay, so I have no read on speedchuck or Michelle. Juliets pinged me during my skimming early on but got lost in the Mac vs the World shuffle. Jay started the game seeming off to me (vibes only, really). Sloonei, it felt like you were trying early on to set me up by suggesting that you had higher expectations of my gameplay. I’ve caught Golden and S~V~S as baddies doing that before and I trust my gut on that now. There are lame cases and then there are lame cases dressed up to look like legit cases. You fit the latter early on, but you too have slipped into gray territory after Day 3.

I do not think this is what I was accusing you of. My feeling about your early gameplay was that you seemed to not be taking advantage of the time you were spending in the thread. There were a couple of instances where you popped in and said things which suggested you intended to produce content but never followed through.

juliets wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:08 pm So sig was bad lolol! So much for those people hating on the sig voters. I hate losing S~V~S and nutella. Glad S~V~S was Pariah and can continue to post as she likes.

One thing that might be good for us is we are a sub-layer. In the Inception game the sub-layers "lynched" people but they weren't really dead. They just got bumped up to the main level. The main level lynches were real. I don't want to count on that being the case though.

linki

oh jeez i didn't notice nutella also died. butts. That looks more like a serial killer than a vigilante.

G-man is the player in our midst who I've had the most substantial reason to suspect, but I started to cool on that as yesterday wore on. Without the luxury of the other thread, I can't review his posts for interactions with sabie/radishes/sig right now. If G-man is mafia, I link him directly to Radishes (and the other two by extension), which would make him the Anti-Monitor, which means he begins each day with -2 votes. A player beginning each day with a handicap like that might play differently. Votes are less worrisome, but heavy suspicion is a problem. Does anyone have any thoughts about G-man's viability as that role? I... don't know what that those thoughts would look like in a thread environment where there's no access to past days.

[VOTE: michelle] aubergine

Because I lack a read on her.

Jay and I hosted Inception Mafia. The mechanic there was that roughly half the players split into a new thread (dream level) each day, down to four levels/threads. Players on the lower levels were kicked back up to the top upon lynch/nightkill, rather than dying outright. Players at the top could actually die.

The mafia team got to choose which of their members went to each level, but civilians were randomized with exceptions. We tried to ensure that there was always at least one anti-town player submerging onto each level.

Given that there are only 6 players here and like... 18? 19? Players left in the game total, I'm not really sure what the exact mechanic is here. Maybe there are three threads of equal size. I would guess that at least one player at each level is bad.

I was in the middle of ISOing Mac when the thread disappeared. Here's what I had:

Spoiler: show

I guess I'll start looking at Mac now. This will probably get split up into multiple posts because Mac's ISO is long and I don't want this to take my entire evening. Ghost protocol relieves the pressure of nighttime hunting.

Spoiler: show

First post of note has him endorsing Radish's early SVS ping. How cute. SVS is the noteworthy name here, of course. This post alone tells me nothing, but the development of this read may.

Spoiler: show

Sig calls on Mac (and Epi) to comment on baddie-gate. Mac and sig are not partners and if I'm wrong about that I will eat every shoe I own.

Spoiler: show

Posts like this are a big part of the reason why I struggle to read Mac historically. So much of his content is indiscriminate jabs like this one, directed at Epi/Radishes. It is difficult to judge the sincerity or the direction of posts like this, especially when they come in high volume. We know that Radishes was bad, but not with Mac. He seems to be accusing Epi of bussing his partner on Day 1.

Spoiler: show

A fairly subdued response to a generic Day 1 Jay prod. I really don't know how to read Mac. Is this him trying to appease a Big Scary Civilian, or is this a subtle distancing act between two seasoned partners? I'll lean toward the former simply because I'm inclined to read Jay favorable outside of this.

Pointless banter in response to Epi. Okay

Spoiler: show

Mac appears to begin the Jack/nutella hoopla with an unfavorable view of Mr. Ofhearts2005 (I think? He's comparing him to hitler and that's usually bad, right?). That would eventually change. At the outset I'll say that my recollection of this episode suggests that these two are not teammates. I'll see if I still feel that way at the end.

Spoiler: show

A less ambiguous anti-Jack stance. He then makes a couple pro-nutella1.0 posts and a few more anti-Jack posts. Skipping those. This whole thing again demonstrates mac's propensity for indiscriminate jabs. Here's another one directed at Dom.

MacDougall wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:39 pm Btw Jack is always right about Nutella. It's canon. So either he's town and she's wolf or he's wolf and she's wolf, or he's wolf and she's town. But one of them is always a wolf so we should lynch Nutella.

Mac "Do a 180" Dougall is now anti-nutella and tentatively pro-jack. This post establishes a sharp dichotomy between the two which seems unnecessary if Jack is Mac's partner and they're unsure of nutella's alignment. This is compounded by Mac's earlier treatment of Jack, which looked like an earnest attempt to shade/suspect him. Good look for Jack.

Spoiler: show

Hurls out the suggestion that nutella1.0, Jay, and Radishes constitute 3/4 of a team. This may have been an earnest read. Jay is the only member of this list still occupying the same living body and this doesn't tell me enough about him/Mac to make a judgment call.

However, the above post does call to mind a big point that I had initially dismissed as not serious enough to merit attention: the direct copy&pasting of Jay's Day 1 reads list has been a running joke in this game. This began with Mac doing it shortly after Jay posted the initial, authentic list. It looked like a playfully antagonistic move on Mac's part (the epitome of the

emoji) and Jay's response was appreciative of the humor. It looks like a casual and spontaneous interaction between two players with a long history together, but I don't get the sense that any part of it was staged or stiff in the way that two teammates might be at this stage in a game. Good look for Jay.

Sign up for my joke analysis workshop if you found the above paragraph as riveting as I did.

Spoiler: show

Throws some... juice-fire? on Epi's prod of nutella1.0. Okay. This is twice that Epi has been incidentally present in Mac's posts. The first time Mac was linking Epi to Radishes. This time he's supporting a prod. I get nothing out of either instance.

Spoiler: show

Jack is largely responsible for Mac's vote on nutella1.0. This suggests to me that Mac bought Jack's case at the time. It's possible that they're teammates. It's possible they're not. I still lean in jack's favor based on the genesis of this read.

Spoiler: show

Mac assumes some responsibility for this nutella vote. Okay.

juliets and jack are not teammates per Mac. Okay. This does not constitute a read of either of them in terms of alignment, but it exists.

Another Dom jab. Okay.

Spoiler: show

Calls on Turnip Head to instruct the thread on a "Dom/Nutella worldview." Context would indicate that TH was jointly suspicious of those two at the time and Mac wanted to lend support to that. Confirmed. Good look for Dom, in that I don't think Macdougall would go to this length to call on another player to shade his own partner. Null look for TH. I could say that this prod might be unnecessary if they share BTSC but I'm not really inspired by that.

Spoiler: show

Almost elucidates on the Dom suspicion, but this is so weak that I struggle to believe it. In struggling to believe it, I have to question whether that is because Mac and Dom are partners and this case is bullshit distancing. I recall an emotional slant to Mac and Dom's exchanges which would suggest otherwise, but I won't rule it out just yet. -1 point for Dom after having received a +1 before.
Dom exchange continues and I still feel the same way: there's nothing in here so far that can't be done by teammates distancing from one another, but I don't have to read it that way.

Spoiler: show

Mac calls on Michelle (along with Dom) to support his read on nutella. Michelle ain't got no clue what he's talking about and Mac spells it out for her. This feels like a genuine miscommunication that might not exist if they're teammates who can coordinate a move like this, but I may be overestimating the coordination between this hypothetical pairing. My inclination is to lean in favor of Michelle here.

Spoiler: show

A generic prod for juliets. Okay.

More empty Dom stuff

Spoiler: show

A wild and baseless accusation hurled at Tony. Okay.

Spoiler: show

If Dom and Mac partners they really leaned into the distancing dance. Not impossible, but not a convincing argument on its own either.

Spoiler: show

I can't tell if this post is directed more at Dizzy or Ted. Both, I guess. Mac denounces the read on SVS while at the same time expressing confusion about it. This feels like shade if we assume Dizzy was town. I'd be hesitant to lump ted into that shade as well, but mac may have been going for a "two birds with one stone" accusation here, which might be a good look for Ted. SVS is the third name that's present in all of this. It could be read as an indirect defense of her. Idk. I'm reminded again how terrible I am at reading Mac and I'm kinda clutching to Dizzy's alignment for direction here. Slightly pro Ted, slighty anti SVS for the sake of giving a read.

Spoiler: show

Mac responds to a question from juliets. Idk what that question was. I recall Jay's point about juliets, which I am inclined to agree with (the sheer volume of content she devoted to Mac is unnecessary if they're partners). I probably shouldn't let his results influence mine, but that's the first thing on my mind when I look at this post. And anyway, the way Mac is responding to the unspecified question here looks like he's genuinely trying to articulate his thoughts in a way that matters to him, as though he doesn't want to say the wrong thing in response to juliets. So I'll call that a good look for her all on my own. Yeah, independent research.

The Syndicate

Search found 79 matches

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

Re: Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]