The Syndicate

Simon wrote:Victorious again! I handled everything they threw at me.

Congratulations, Simon

Aragorn wrote:Congratulations to the winning factions! I was mostly useless this game, and the late entry didn't help. Once I get uni out of the way, I'll definitely play a game, from the beginning.

Now where IS that emoticon of the little guy tossing stars in the air?

Ricochet wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Oh well, pretty sure half of the clan I was part of got obliterated via lynches alone.

I'm sorry you got eliminated when you did too, Rico But to be fair, what you said wasn't quite true. 3J got eliminated by the Nanman NK, you got eliminated by the Nanman NK, I got eliminated by the Nanman NK, Sloonei got eliminated by the Nanman NK, Golden got eliminated by the Nanman... I think only TheCapsFan and Timmer were duel victims. Looks like it was those bloody Nanman (MacDougall ) that cost Team Shu the game

That was your clan, though, not mine.

True... Still, makes me feel a lot better that the Nanman targeted our team because we were their biggest threats

Ricochet wrote:Oh well, pretty sure half of the clan I was part of got obliterated via lynches alone.

I'm sorry you got eliminated when you did too, Rico But to be fair, what you said wasn't quite true. 3J got eliminated by the Nanman NK, you got eliminated by the Nanman NK, I got eliminated by the Nanman NK, Sloonei got eliminated by the Nanman NK, Golden got eliminated by the Nanman... I think only TheCapsFan and Timmer were duel victims. Looks like it was those bloody Nanman (MacDougall ) that cost Team Shu the game

To Epi, thank you for what (despite at times fairly abominable participation) was a fascinating and thoroughly entertaining game. I am also indebted to you for giving me BTSC with Jay - there is little doubt in my mind that I will be an infinitely better Mafia player in the longer term for the experience Thank you too, to Jay for being such an amazing team member and congratulations on your win!

Congratulations to team Wei, you guys did great!

Whilst I take some satisfaction away from this game for being correct in a number of my judgements, I apologise to all of Team Shu for not having been a better leader for you all throughout this game. I feel humbled to have led a team of such illustrious players like Golden, Jay, Turnip Head and Quin. I'm sorry to TheCapsFan, Sloonei and (especially) Timmer for how things went for us. I would like however to also place on the record my most sincere thanks to my dear friend Aragorn for jumping into the breach so late in the game to take Jan's place

Thanks, Guys - I hope to see you all in Mad Max...

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Is this the longest game in the history of the site already?

No, it just seems that way...

nutella wrote:Noooo
Epi, I've really enjoyed this game a ton, thanks! Good luck friends

It's been a privilege to have played this game with you, my friend

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:This game was worth playing just because of the number of people who are now quoting me in their sigs.

Anyway, thanks for the game Epi!

You're most welcome, my friend You always make the most provocative (and may I add) valid remarks...

Ricochet wrote:Cowards.

Damn straight!

I'm afraid that this EoD has come at a particularly bad time for me as I'm currently hammered at work trying to finalise a project submission in the next couple of hours. I'm going to vote for MacDougall and Sorsha. I'll explain my reasons at the earliest opportunity but I really don't have the time right now - sorry

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Public Service: WHY DDL VOTED FOR BOOMSLANG

(all posts about Booms made by DDL since Day 3)

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Alright I don't have anything to add myself so I'm gonna make a proposition to you all.

Talk about the following people:

Boomslang
Bullzeye
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
Nerolunar
Quin

All those are players with 5 or more posts, which posted on day 2 or later, and yet nobody seems to be talking about them.

Yes I included myself. I fit the above criteria so it's only fair. And it feels awkward when nobody wants me dead, I don't like it. Talk about me more please.

Don't have an opinion on them? Well it's a great time to ISO them. Go.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Not gonna quote stuff unless strictly necessary because the site is too slow.

Boomslang

A lot of talk about game mechanics on Day 0/1. Neutral read. Then votes MM/TH because they "wanted to duel". Somewhat suspicious, since you could have used all the time you discussed duel mechanics to pick a better case. But whatever it's D1.

Shows up on Day 2 again and actually starts playing in more serious way. Goes for both Jan and Sorsha, with some convincing arguments. Votes for Jan/MM "following up on his previous vote on MM". Which one, the one you picked "because he wanted to duel?" What about Sorsha?

This reeks of WIFOM. This guy is in my scum list.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Dom wrote:Boomslang, does a careless player mean an evil player that needs to be kept on the other side of the wall?

I'd say a careless player needs to be carefully vetted until we can figure out what's going on Case in point is Nerolunar. "I guess you could say I am guilty of saying the same thing, which I kind of am Ugh. I am a goddamn hypocrite." I really don't like this defense. If you're calling your own behavior out as shady, you're asking us to trust your civility on nothing but your word. I agree with the punishment of BWT's self-voting, but that's about it.

That's not what I meant. I am a hypocrite because I voted timmer because of reasons(not being able to understand the game and the different arguments being thrown around) I exhibit myself. It wasn't really a "defense" more like an elaboration of my previous vote. I don't think I am acting "shady" - more the opposite by doubting my own point of view about things. If you disagree, let me know. I think you reached a little here with your interpretation.

But you still made the vote, and you still say that you didn't make it for good reasons. If we can't trust you to make informed, useful votes, how can we trust that you're working the best interests of the town?

In retrospect, no, my vote was poorly made. I know that, but nobody makes completely rational and utilitarian choices all the time, whether it is town or not. I am in no way proud of my scumhunting abilities(again, see transistor) and I have never been. I suck, I really do. But I also try to improve, especially as a civilian because thats the alignment I am worst at.

I value transparency more than anything, and being able to question or criticise my own previous line of thoughts is what ultimately will help me improve and learn from my mistakes. I don't want to cruise along faking false confidence just for the sake of appearing linear or composed.

With that said, lynch me if you want. I trust the dice.

This post makes me feel better about Nero. He is playing the game in a way similar to how I like to play myself.

And the post in the quote makes me feel worse about Boomslang. It looks like he is imposing standards to Nero that are not necessarily alignment indicative. I'd love if every player was as rational and informed as possible, but the real world doesn't work that way and I think Booms's view comes across as too naive.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

Well, if you're not sure what it says, what do you think it says? Or is this one of those baddie "let's plant a seed without actually taking sides and hope it grows into a mighty lynching tree" moves?

Why is it that you always seem to appear only when people mention you?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:No.

If meta reads and tunneling on the same inactives since d1 are not good enough for you, then we have to disagree.

Your omgus has annoyed me enough already though. And your tunneling. You have been on a campaign to discredit every opinion of mine since I've first suspected you. That's very disingenuous.

*Votes Boomslang and Mac*

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Boomslang you are giving a number of reasons you think I'm bad but failing to explain why thy mean anything.

Why is it bad that I suspect Mac for meta and activity. What is it bad that I'm tunneling on him and you? Why is it bad that I made the same vote as Mac back on day 1?

You can't just list everything I have done in the game, yell "BAD!" and expect to be taken seriously. You need to do more.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Well I voted Boomslang first back in day 2 so there is that.

His response has been to systematically call every post of mine suspicious since then.

The next post is the Mac one.

I feel kinda conflicted about Booms myself. Yes, there was (what I interpreted) his over-reaction to my previous references to him. There was his interactions with MP and MP declaring him one of his two "TOP civilian reads". The thing is, as I skim his ISO, I do see a tone that I feel is quite genuine that makes me think twice about supporting any push for him to duel.

DFaraday wrote:I won't be on again before the day ends, so I'll give some quick thoughts:

Boomslang is reading pretty genuine to me. DDL less so, but I'm not feeling terribly bad about him either.

Scotty, Golden, and Nero (when he's around) are coming across civ to me.

I am still suspicious of Glorfindel, but I want to pursue the Caps case this time.

I do think Nutella has been blendy and rather too agreeable all game, so I need to review her posts.

I noticed that votes for Russ seem to fluctuate wildly from day to day, which gives me pause in regards to Russ voters.

I really wish you were around more, DF - I find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions (your suspicions of me excluded - obviously) and I'd really Iike to hear more of your opinions.

Scotty wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Scotty wrote:I don't have lots of time today, but I'm just gonna put these statements out there:
-LoRab looks good this game.

Hey, Scotty! Can you please elaborate on this statement?

Of course, friend!
LoRab looks good and smells great this game.

O perfect Prefect! Please indulge me with a personal interpretation or definition of the word 'good' in the context of your evaluation of LoRab. Working on the presumption that she is not a member of a Mafia team, share has displayed an obstinance and and an unwillingness for logical, reasoned analysis for the last two Day phases. I don't know about you but that's not the kind of Townie I want to have my back when things get tight this game...

Hey, Scotty! My perfect Prefect! Still thinking over your response to my question this morning?

Sloonei wrote:I'll start with what has been my biggest question in the game: Nutella. I've been reading her as a strong townie based off of her tone and the volume of her content, but I've admittedly not done a thorough investigation of her. I've also seen a few people express very vague suspicion of her ("I think she's lying", "She seems off", etc.). Does anyone have a more substantial case to offer against Nutella? If there's reason to suspect her, I'd like to know about it.

Likewise, I consider one of my strongest Town reads right now. She's really given me no reason to doubt her at any stage and her posts read as very genuine to me. I am puzzled at the whole MP/Nutella exchange though.

Day 2:
MP state he wants to lynch Nutella and launches into an attack on her opinion piece on MM, Bubbles and Dom. Votes for Nutella (and timmer).

Day 3:

MovingPictures07 wrote:- I feel better about nutella and Mac after their responses to me. Thanks for those, guys. I don't have any other concerns at this time.

Day 4:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I want to duel this time. And I should have stuck with my evaluation of Nutella from before; she is giving me bad vibes and I think she's latching onto easy targets again today. Not letting her off the hook.

I want to take her down. Nutella vs MP!!!

If anyone can cast any light on that simply bizarre progression, I'd be keen to hear it. I think it might say more about poor MP's state of mind this game than anything else...

I'd also like to make another observation. By my calculation, we should have 29 players left active at this point. If you take out those players that appear to have disappeared into the ether and those who only drop in to vote and then disappear, we're looking at an active player base of about a little over half that That's really a disappointing result considering all the work that Epi has put into this game and what amazing potential it had. I really expected better

nutella wrote:Glorfindel -- nice summary, will be handy to refer to for MP's interactions. Given the variety of his exchanges with JJJ it still seems to me like they could have been teammates, but you could also be right that they weren't. Inconclusive. I'm rather inclined to disagree with you about Dom though, I think MP's defense of him was so incredibly strong that I would be amazed if they were teammates because that would be the least subtle save attempt ever. But hey, anything is possible and maybe MP was just that confident.

Hey, Nutella! Thank you for the compliment on my MP ISO - I really appreciate that. Just on a technicality - I didn't necessarily accuse Dom of being MP's team mate, I was simply curious about what looked like 'a complete 180' in a very short period of time in terms of MP's opinion of Dom.

Scotty wrote:I don't have lots of time today, but I'm just gonna put these statements out there:
-LoRab looks good this game.

Hey, Scotty! Can you please elaborate on this statement?

Scotty wrote:I don't have lots of time today, but I'm just gonna put these statements out there:

-I don't buy TH's rebuttal after being silenced, nor do I understand why we dropped that case entirely. He can be very articulate when he wants to be, and comments like he has made such as [paraphrasing] 'I play this way because I'm trying to play a specific game' is raising my alarms. I may or may not be voting for him this phase.

Trust me, Scotty - you won't be voting for him...

Scotty wrote:I don't have lots of time today, but I'm just gonna put these statements out there:
-I think killing Soneji, who has made no appearance this game, is a VERY odd choice. I think there are several people in this game that would kill an inactive to increase the challenge. Because that must be what that is, right? A challenge? There is no other rational explanation for Soneji dying last night. That only helps the civs. Whoooo would do that as bad?

Indeed it WAS an odd choice, Scotty but as I pointed out in my post last night, Soneji was second last on MP's list of inactives that he posted earlier in the game (the last person on that list was S-V-S who was the Yellow Turban's first NK victim). It's starting to look like one of those psycho serial killer movies...

Quin wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Thanks, Guys I haven't been all that successful with my previous games on this site (as you probably know) and I'm told that to be better, I need to try harder to create discussion and analyse things more so that's what I'm trying to do. Your encouragement means a lot so thank you

OK, so with reference to your request Quin, I've quoted the post that I referred to below. I apologise if I misrepresented what you said in any way but reading back, I think I interpreted it correctly?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Quin wrote:As far as Day 1 goes, I still do think that MP has come across as the most suspicious to me, so I'll vote there. I'm also going to vote Bubbles, because she's just one of (a few) who haven't checked in yet.

and now I'm off to bed.

You're probably going to be further confounded by this, but I like that you stuck to your guns on this and actually voted for me. Here, have a bump on the rainbow list to slightly darker but still not remotely dark green.

As for your question about MP's team mates, I think I need to be less tired to answer that... If I can get back to you in morning, if that's OK (we are in the same timezone after all)? Likewise, of all the people that hadn't checked in, why did you nominate Bubbles (she's so nice...) and what's your opinion of her replacement?

Ah, that post was from Day 1, not two. I think its a miscommunication.

If I recall, I was hard pressed to put two votes down on Day 1, so I took a page out of scottys book and voted an inactive. The idea of just not voting a second person didn't actually occur to me.

Sloonei replaced bubbles, no? I like his input and it seems sincere. In the morning I could give you something more solid to go off.

Nah, not a miscommunication, my friend. Your post WAS indeed from Day 1 but MP's response to it was made Day 2. My apologies - I didn't mean to misrepresent that.

Thanks, Guys I haven't been all that successful with my previous games on this site (as you probably know) and I'm told that to be better, I need to try harder to create discussion and analyse things more so that's what I'm trying to do. Your encouragement means a lot so thank you

OK, so with reference to your request Quin, I've quoted the post that I referred to below. I apologise if I misrepresented what you said in any way but reading back, I think I interpreted it correctly?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Quin wrote:As far as Day 1 goes, I still do think that MP has come across as the most suspicious to me, so I'll vote there. I'm also going to vote Bubbles, because she's just one of (a few) who haven't checked in yet.

and now I'm off to bed.

You're probably going to be further confounded by this, but I like that you stuck to your guns on this and actually voted for me. Here, have a bump on the rainbow list to slightly darker but still not remotely dark green.

As for your question about MP's team mates, I think I need to be less tired to answer that... If I can get back to you in morning, if that's OK (we are in the same timezone after all)? Likewise, of all the people that hadn't checked in, why did you nominate Bubbles (she's so nice...) and what's your opinion of her replacement?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:This MP thing was the weirdest lynch I've ever seen in this site.

Am I the only one who thinks this may have benefitted the YTs in some way? With abilities and such? Otherwise I can't see why MP would betray his temataes like that. Unless he was really the only active member so he called it quits.

Can you please explain what you meant by that DDL? How do you think MP betrayed his team mates? I don't think he necessarily really expected to be a candidate to duel. He was Strategist class after all and given they make up such a small proportion of the populace of this game (i.e. 18% at the start of this game) that four-sided die of his meant his odds were never going to be particularly good. Also, Soneji died last night at the hands of the Yellow Turbans so there's still at least one running around

No one else seems all that interested so - looking at MP's ISO:

Day 0:
0.1 He votes for TheCapsFan and 3J for Prefect after TheCapsFan votes for him.
0.2 He makes (for the first time a reference to the players who are yet to check in)
0.3 Makes a light-hearted throw away line at Dom's campaign for Prefect
0.4 Responds to a remark by 3J about his voting for himself for Prefect
0.5 Remarks that my selection process for voting Scotty and 3J for prefect is not logical and admits that neither is anyone else's approach and also asks DDL for opinions of suspicious Day 0 activity.

0.6 Questions 3J's response to 0.4
0.7 Thinly veiled accusation to 3J of lack of transparency on Day 0 reads and then appears to accept 3J's explanation
0.8 Queries Quin on why he is not interested in his (MP's) interactions with 3J after he (Quin) expressed curiosity at the dialogue between TH and 3J.
0.9 Quin responds to MP saying that he already "agreed with his sentiments" to which MP responds to Quin with

Day 1:
1.1 Invites general discussion around the game's duel mechanic
1.2 Despite critisizing 3J for making early GTH reads in 0.7, MP throws out his own list of 'tentative' Town reads (Boomslang, DDL, 3J, Quin and Turnip Head).
1.3 MP makes his second reference to players that had not checked in - naming (Buubles, DisgruntledPorcupine, LoRab, Rabbit, Soneji and S-V-S)
1.4 Quin objects to MP saying that he hadn't sufficient posts to have earnt a Town read.
1.5 Gets aggro at Mac for criticising his Town reads and then attempts a justification on them in response to 3J's request.
1.5.1 Praises Boomslang for his Day 1 activity and engagement (consisting of opinions around strategy for selecting players to duel).
1.5.2 Gives credit to DDL for a couple of posts (of which the links don't work for me).
1.5.3 Says that he tried to get a feel for 3J and found his response 'genuine' and that hadn't seen anything 'questionable' or 'alarming' in terms of 3J's contributions.
1.5.4 Briefly says that he likes Quin's questioning of TH (refer 0.8) and
1.5.5 Nominates three of TH's posts that demonstrate 'critical thinking'.

1.6 In a response to Bass claims to have suspected 3J but then exhonerated him based on his responses.
1.7 Gets upset at MacDougall for his accusations based on his lack of activity.
1.8 The reconciliation.

Day 2:
2.1 In response to a post by DDL where he suggests that MP is angrier than normal and considers whether it was alignment indicative, 3J summarises MP RL dilemmas and states that he's "fine with MP right now."
2.2 Apologises for his behaviour
2.3 Questions Nerolunar as to whether he followed up his suspicions on MP over his GTH reads with a vote (he didn't).
2.4 3J claims MP as his top Town read based on his interpretation of MP's RL circumstances. Quin agrees and accuses MP of buddying to which MP responds with a request for an explanation.
2.5 MacDougall accuses MP of buddying up to his GTH reads and suggests (I think) that MP's behaviour was manipulative. MP responds with a reasonably calm rebuttal claiming to doubt Mac's sincerity.

2.6 In response to a post by Sig expressing interest in his accusation at Mac, MP replies with a battery of questions as to what Sig means.
2.7 Quin states he'll vote for MP (He actually voted MM and Dom) to which MP indicates confirms his 'Town cred' slightly more.
2.8 Queries why Dom, MM and Russ are attracting votes.
2.9 Claims not to understand Sorsha's suggested approach of voting for Prefects
2.10 Makes some comments to 3J about the case against Russ.

2.11 'Digs' 3J's case on Russ and dismisses the case on MM based on his WIFOM with Wilgy.
2.12 Notices that Dom is "throwing around a lot of suspicion (DF, 3J, Bass) ... But doing so in a fairly assertive manner... On the basis of little, dubious or non existent content" but claims that behaviour is not in itself inherently suspicious for Dom.
2.13 Not five minutes later, MP blows up at timmer for making random votes on Russ and Dom and wants a CFD where he wants to vote for timmer (and continues to pursue timmer until he is removed at EoD 3).
2.14 MP challenges DF on his suspicions of Dom and proceeds with a fairly strenuous defence of Dom.
2.15 Starts an active campaign against Nutella

2.16 At the end of the Day he makes a post nominating Dom and Boomslang as his 'TOP civilian reads'

My observations:
People have made some suggestions so far this Day phase to the effect that 3J may have been one of MP's partners in crime. I personally don't support that view. I believe (again, perhaps naively) that MPs behaviour was genuine and came from a place of frustration. I think from reading the tone of their interactions, 3J was cutting MP some slack as a consequence of his circumstances and in 3J's case at least, he fell for the opportunity that MP took to buddy up to him.

I think MP may have included at least one of his team mates on that list however and I didn't get the same vibe of sincerity from all of them as I did with 3J.

If you look at MP's list of absent players (refer: 1.3 above) do you notice anything unusual? It appears to me (so far) to be the list of the Yellow Turban's NKs in reverse order. Where else have you seen those two names together?

I'm concerned by MP's relationship with Dom this game. I find it odd that MP started off casting doubt on him (refer 2.12 above) and so swiftly turns apparently making him a catalyst for his campaign against timmer and then ended defending Dom so adamantly.

Golden wrote:@Glorfindel... I don't think so.

MP would never miss PMs, so I'd say that MP being in that team means your theory is more likely to be incorrect no matter how sporadic his thread contributions might appear. But - question... is it possible they only get one kill every two nights?

Interesting. Thank you for answering that for me Golden. And no. The relevant Yellow Turban role thingy says specifically that they have a NK each night. The fact that when they use it, they kill inactives like S-V-S and Soneji seems strange (to me at least...)

LoRab wrote:

nutella wrote:Also, lack of precedence does not mean lack of probability. There's probably a fancy logical fallacy term for that but idgaf. Just because you've never seen an inactive mafia team before doesn't mean it couldn't happen, especially considering the Yellow Turban team only consists of three players, and this game has WAY more than three inactive players. They only killed once, and it was on SVS, an inactive player -- perhaps if nobody in the team had been paying attention they wouldn't know SVS hadn't been participating and just picked her to get rid of. Idk, I just think Glorfindel's lines of thinking are not entirely unreasonable

Possible, yes. Probable, no? I mean, really, you've played many games. You've played many large games. Have you ever, in your entire mafia history, seen that happen?

In the past 8 years, I can't even count how many games I've played. Several dozen. I can't be far off from 100 games, but I don't keep track any more. My point is that I have never seen that happen. Ever. And I've been in really big games. And I've seen proportionally small mafias. I have never seen an entire no show team. So, no, it doesn't seem like the more likely or evvey very likely possibility.

Please, tell me, my friend - given the FACT that MP qualifies as a suitably qualified player to be part of a Mafia team, given the FACT that his participation this game could generously be described as sporadic, given the FACT that approximately 40% of eligible players did not vote last Day phase and some appear to have disappeared off the planet altogether - would you say that the likelihood of an absent Mafia team (at least on Night 1) might be MORE likely?

Intriguing...

OK, this is not a situation that I think I've ever been in before and I absolutely hate it. If I were to vote for the people I wanted, it would not make any difference to the end result so I am faced with having to vote for self-preservation (as no matter who I vote for, no one has a better chance of being Town than I. Looks like Bass_The_ Clever and MP. Sorry, Guys

DFaraday wrote:I reviewed TheCapsFan, and while he hasn't contributed much, hasn't said anything suspicious in my eyes, so I stuck with Lorab and Glorfindel (which I feel a little bad about since he suggested that he thinks I'm civ).

That's fine, DF - you're forgiven Doesn't make me change my mind about you one little bit.

Dom wrote:Really? Is it because you are, a baiddie!?

Is it all that weird? You're a baddie ! We're building a wall.

But that's the thing you see, my friend - I'm not. So what other conclusion can I logically draw from this

Dom wrote:Nutella
DFaraday
boomslang


glorfindel







turnip head

I find it quite bizarre Dom that your reads of your best choices for Mafia align so closely with my strongest Town reads

Boomslang wrote:My own fantasy football draft is coming up in a bit here, so I should vote as well. I continue to like nutella's defenses, and I think voting that way is wrong. I think I'm going to put a vote on DDL and see where that leads. The host post, combined with his manipulative observations about TH and me, give me enough suspicious to take him seriously. For the other vote... let's go with Caps, who has slipped back under the radar today. Perhaps he doesn't feel as confident about his duel chances now, for whatever reason.

Glorfindel wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

Well, if you're not sure what it says, what do you think it says? Or is this one of those baddie "let's plant a seed without actually taking sides and hope it grows into a mighty lynching tree" moves?

My friend, I am not accusing you. All I've done here is made a measured, non-accusatory observation based on YOUR actions - as is my job in this game (or so I am continually being told). Your defensive reaction above is not helping. I said I didn't know what conclusion to draw from your actions so instead of your thinly veiled OMGUS, maybe you care to indulge me by explaining your actions? Thank you.

I explained my actions in the thread. I voted MM for prefect because he got me into the game, and I voted for him to duel because he requested to do so and it was Day 1. The two votes were made with different levels of information. If he had actually been elected prefect, I may not have voted him to duel.

And don't play innocent with me. You know as well as I do that every post in a game of mafia has a purpose. "Personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts" suggests, however slyly, that my own actions weren't entirely forthright. My "defensive reaction" is trying to get you to admit that purpose in your post.

Thank you, my friend for answering my enquiry. I was aware that you'd said that you voted for MM for Prefect because he'd invited you into the game but I must've missed the bit where you explained your vote for him on Day 1. I'm sorry that you feel there was any malice in my asking that question of you - irrespective of how you interpreted my question, there was not.

Boomslang wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

Well, if you're not sure what it says, what do you think it says? Or is this one of those baddie "let's plant a seed without actually taking sides and hope it grows into a mighty lynching tree" moves?

My friend, I am not accusing you. All I've done here is made a measured, non-accusatory observation based on YOUR actions - as is my job in this game (or so I am continually being told). Your defensive reaction above is not helping. I said I didn't know what conclusion to draw from your actions so instead of your thinly veiled OMGUS, maybe you care to indulge me by explaining your actions? Thank you.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

You weren't the first to notice it:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 59#p296459

Well actually, I did read that post and it really didn't draw the correlation (and inconsistency to my way of thinking) linking Boomslang's vote for MM's Prefecture on Day 0 and subsequent duel nomination on Day 1 that I pointed out in my post above nor the comparison to the Wilgy/MM case. Again, my apologies if I got that wrong.

Also...

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Glorfindel is always nicer than a puppy.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Glorfindel is illogical as fuck and I've caught myself lynching him for that when he was just being a clueless townie.

Your post makes sense but I'm not sure if it's possible to read Glorf by evaluating his posts as nonsensical. He is nonsensical by default.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Glorf is kind of obnoxious...

Remind me to never come to you looking for a character reference, my friend

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

nutella wrote:Actually Glorfindel, I'd like your opinion on something. Considering Lorab hadn't even been aware that the game had started at the time of the YTs' first missed kill, and considering her outright despisal of your hypothesis, do you think she could be one of them? (I personally don't really think so but it would be pretty funny if so)

Nor do I, my friend but anything is possible I suppose.

@Sorsha: I'm not sure if you've answered this or not (please forgive me if I missed it) But Day 2, these were two consecutive posts you made:

Sorsha wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'm here

Hi Sorsha! What's going on? Do you have any suspects? What do you think of Dom, MM, and Russ?

Have only been skimming. Looks like Dom is mostly getting votes for the trump schtick, mm for some connection to wilgy and I have no idea what Russ did to be suspicious. My own suspicion is inh but it could probably be more of an annoyance than suspicion. Lobbying for prefect and promising to be active and then bailing.
I don't really find Dom suspicious I could be ok with a mm vote, Russ I don't know yet.

Sorsha wrote:Voted for myself and inh

I'm wondering if you can cast any light on why the change of heart on MM? He was the only one taking heat that you considered worthy of your vote at the time MP questioned you. I acknowledge your reasoning for the INH vote but are you really saying that in the space of three hours you concluded that you were a better choice than MM?

Golden wrote:It especially doesn't seem likely in an epi hosted game, who I think would reroll if he rolled a list that included a team likely to be inactive. I think epi would make sure he had at least one player he could rely on to be active before accepting the randomised list.

However, one idea I could see as a bit more possible is that some of the baddies in the yellow turbans are amongst those who have been nked early.

Glorfindel looks townie to me. Very townie. Enough to vote in his defence.

Thank you for your support Golden, I certainly appreciate that.

With respect to your other comments, our only NKs so far have been 3J, S-V-S and Ricochet as far as I can recall. Am I correct in understanding that you are proposing that at least one of them may have been a Yellow Turban?

nutella wrote:I am of course aware of all of those posts. None of them, however, except for that one that was already brought up, actually advocate for the lynching of low posters. He repeatedly discusses the odds of one of the teams being inactive, which I guess you could say implies that he thinks it would be a good idea to go after inactives, but only once does he say it outright, and he never really follows up on it. I guess you and I interpreted his posts differently, but to me, advocating for lynching low posters is a very different thing from stating observations about mechanics and numbers in the game.

THANK YOU! A voice of reason at last...

I think this distraction has gone on long enough and derailed this game for too long. If you think any of what you have accused me of LoRab justifies your vote on me, go right ahead. I'm moving on from this - I'm not going to contribute to this distraction any longer and intend to focus my efforts on removing Mafia.

Turnip Head wrote:Where are you looking to vote for today's duel, Glorfy?

I'll be getting back to you on that later TH. I've been out most of the day and am hoping to spend some time this evening looking through things. I still have bad vibes on Sorsha. I have some things I need to look back on before I commit to anything though.

LoRab wrote:Uh, about 20% of the players are mafia (not even considering dangerous indies). And, even if one team is 8%, given that any team member can send in a group pm (according to the posted rules) I just don't think it likely that no one from the team showed up. You have never seen ithappen. I have never seen it happen. Ihave trouble understanding why you came to the conclusion that that was the most likely possiblity (other than blocks, protections, etc).

And not sure how that team's choice of targets makes it more likely that they are inactive. can you explain what you mean by that?

And you have definitely advocated for/supported the idea of lynching low playing players. Several times. I don't particularly want to go through all of your posts and link every time you've supported that idea, but I'm happy to if you really are going to deny that you've done so.

Let me get this straight - Day 1 our duel contenders were decided on a vote of only 50% of players who signed up for this game and you're discounting the possibility of the absence of a Mafia team consisting of a mere 8% of the populace of this game? Under the circumstances, I think to a degree, that in itself may be a little naive. Clearly, as been pointed out - other forces (like protection, role blocking, etc) may have been at work that Night phase but in the case of TWO Mafia teams in a game this size? I'm not so sure. And as for your accusation that I have "advocated for/supported the idea of lynching low playing players" - knock yourself out!

LoRab wrote:

Diao Chan wrote:你好朋友
誰今天我們殺

So, uh, are we going to talk about this?

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.

I am not mocking you, my friend and yes, you're right - You are reasonably high on my town list at the moment - if I come across as sarcastic, I apologise. I do happen to believe you are misguided in the conclusions you're drawing here.

You are not coming off as sarcastic, but you were coming off as a little frustrated and maybe a bit flustered there. And this is something that I am programmed to find suspicious, unfortunately. I can't go against my programming.
Why do you think I'm town?

Frustrated, perhaps. Every game I play here, despite how hard I try I inevitably end up being falsely accused for reasons that range from the spurious to the ridiculous (and if you don't believe me, go back and read Matt's Two-Face accusation of me - it's typical). I understand that you may find my reaction in this regard suspicious but as you say, you're not familiar with my play style and I'll admit I'm probably somewhat 'unique'

Why do I think you're Town? I didn't say this previously but I was disappointed to lose 3J from this game. His posts were (as usual) masterpieces of analysis and interrogation and that's what I want to try to emulate. Consequently, I have little doubt that he was Town. When he got eliminated, I thought we'd lost that but then we got you and Ricochet that have kept the conversations going (clearly not a Mafia agenda). I see some logic to some of your conclusions (clearly not at least one...) and you are clearly an asset to us. I find some of your conclusions aligning to those I've reached so obviously that helps to.

Every game everyone plays many people get falsely suspected. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be much of a game.

And I would like clarification. Your theory upon seeing no kill after the first night was that 2 entire mafia teams did not show up at all on night 1--not a single member--to send in the team's kill? Can you explain why you thought that was the most plausible explanation?

Also, have you ever seen that happen? Where no one from 2 different mafia teams showed up, on night 1? I'm pretty sure I haven't. So, if it happens regularly in games I'm not playing in, or on other sites, then please enlighten me.

And now that we know that this wasn't the case for at least 1 of the mafia teams, since we've lynched 2 people on those teams, why are you still actively advocating for the lynching of low posters?

Allow me to explain my friend - I'll admit (as I've already done on a number of occasions) that the assumption to which I jumped was a little rash and naive.

Whilst I have never witnessed an absent Mafia team miss their NK, I have likewise never played a game of 37 players where a single Mafia team (one of multiple) make up as little as 8% of the game populace with the extraordinary level of absence and lack of contribution that we've seen this game. Then, there's the fact that one team (on the only time they've had an NK attributed to them) took out a player who'd indicated they would be absent for a substantial period of time and only had two posts...

I also am of the opinion that you are misrepresenting my posts. You claim I'm 'advocating' the lynching of low posters when the ONLY statement I've made in that regard is:

Glorfindel wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:I'm not usually a proponent of lynching low posters but in a circumstance where we have TWO teams with NK ability (one of which has BTSC and still can't get their shit together) and there is no NK, I think I'll be looking at the low/non posters a lot more seriously this game

I can't speak for you or for anyone else but that is hardly what I'd call 'advocating' their lynching and to pursue this matter further, I don't recall having given that as a reason for any of the votes that I've submitted since I made that statement (above)

Sloonei wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.

I am not mocking you, my friend and yes, you're right - You are reasonably high on my town list at the moment - if I come across as sarcastic, I apologise. I do happen to believe you are misguided in the conclusions you're drawing here.

You are not coming off as sarcastic, but you were coming off as a little frustrated and maybe a bit flustered there. And this is something that I am programmed to find suspicious, unfortunately. I can't go against my programming.
Why do you think I'm town?

Frustrated, perhaps. Every game I play here, despite how hard I try I inevitably end up being falsely accused for reasons that range from the spurious to the ridiculous (and if you don't believe me, go back and read Matt's Two-Face accusation of me - it's typical). I understand that you may find my reaction in this regard suspicious but as you say, you're not familiar with my play style and I'll admit I'm probably somewhat 'unique'

Why do I think you're Town? I didn't say this previously but I was disappointed to lose 3J from this game. His posts were (as usual) masterpieces of analysis and interrogation and that's what I want to try to emulate. Consequently, I have little doubt that he was Town. When he got eliminated, I thought we'd lost that but then we got you and Ricochet that have kept the conversations going (clearly not a Mafia agenda). I see some logic to some of your conclusions (clearly not at least one...) and you are clearly an asset to us. I find some of your conclusions aligning to those I've reached so obviously that helps to.

Sloonei wrote:I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.

I am not mocking you, my friend and yes, you're right - You are reasonably high on my town list at the moment - if I come across as sarcastic, I apologise. I do happen to believe you are misguided in the conclusions you're drawing here.

Sloonei wrote:The whole timmer wagon was the reason I looked at Glorfindel in the first place. Not that I resisted at all, but in hindsight I can't not see timmer as a potential low-hanging fruit, so anyone who advocated for his lynch becomes more suspicious. I followed up on a few players, Glorfindel came out looking the least good in my eyes.

For the record, I had no reason to suspect timmer before I made that observation and yes, I allowed that interpretation of events to influence how I voted and I said as much. If you are genuinely looking for Mafia, I'd recommend you consider those players that voted for timmer WITHOUT any justification...

Sloonei wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you

Sloonei wrote:I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.

Indeed you did, my friend. It was addressed (rather obvious;y to every other player in this game) not to me. I expressed an opinion to explain what I thought was (in a game this size) the rather odd occurrence of there being no NK Night 1. Others expressed their views and I accept the validity of them. As I said earlier, I may very well have been naive in my assumption but from my perspective, in a game of 38 players, I should think that equally, the odds of both NKs being negated through role blocks, etc would be pretty long. Again, it's just an opinion.

It certainly is an opinion, but I can't dismiss the point entirely on the fact of your opinion. So much of this game is built around forming opinions of things, and my opinion is that this particular opinion you expressed gives the impression of something dishonest. It is not unreasonable to entertain the thought that all potential scum killers could have simply neglected their duties, but to jump to that conclusion as strongly and as swiftly as you did seems like quite a leap. It seems like you were trying to work a specific angle or spread an agenda, or avoid something else.

Please elaborate my friend on precisely what "specific angle" I was working or what agenda I was trying to spread or what it was I was intending to avoid by making the comment that I did. For what it's worth, given the number of absent and semi absent players in this game, I don't know that it is necessarily that long a bow to draw. In any case, if you consider that sufficient grounds to suspect me, it looks like the Mafia teams will have an easy ride of it this game.

I've been keeping my own maps of the EoD voting results that (I think) are a little more reader friendly than Ricochet's version which I'm happy to post but I'm not sure they will post properly... Let me test it and see if it works...



OK, it appears not. If anyone thinks it's worthwhile and has a clue how I can post it so it shows in it's entirety, I'm all ears...

Sloonei wrote:Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you

Sloonei wrote:I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.

Indeed you did, my friend. It was addressed (rather obvious;y to every other player in this game) not to me. I expressed an opinion to explain what I thought was (in a game this size) the rather odd occurrence of there being no NK Night 1. Others expressed their views and I accept the validity of them. As I said earlier, I may very well have been naive in my assumption but from my perspective, in a game of 38 players, I should think that equally, the odds of both NKs being negated through role blocks, etc would be pretty long. Again, it's just an opinion.

LoRab wrote:So after that lynch, this post from Glorf I'm reading in a different light:

Glorfindel wrote:I don't know if anyone has made this observation yet but I'll go ahead anyway - If someone has, please accept my most sincere apologies.

I was going back looking at MM's votes during his somewhat limited time with us and would like to make the following observations:

Day 1: MM's votes for Day 1 were on: Dr Wilgy (21) and Turnip Head (22). I obviously don't know MM as well as most of you but is it really THAT likely that he would've voted for TWO of his Nanman team mates on Day 1 From an outsider's perspective, I should think it somewhat unlikely - which on balance is a better look for TH. I'm happy to reconsider this if anyone would like to offer an alternate opinion.

Day 2: MM was the last to cast his votes for Dom (54) and Russtifinko (55). Prior to placing his votes, Russ was 'runner-up' wagon on 7 votes. The next highest wagon was timmer on 6 votes. So assuming MM's vote was a 'hail Mary' self preservation vote, wouldn't it have been more logical for him to have voted the next highest wagons (Russ and timmer) than to place his vote on Dom? Admittedly, timmer's last vote (6) was made immediately before MM's (by Nutella) but I wonder what conclusions could be drawn from that? The vote for Dom was on a slow burn from the beginning of the Day phase (starting on vote (5) and followed by votes (9), (13), (23) and (43). In comparison, timmer's vote was meteoric - picking up 6 votes in a matter of hours (votes (26), (31), (33), (41), (48) and (53). If self preservation were his goal, I'd have thought MM would've voted timmer before Dom

It looks like a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors to get people to turn away from TH and towards Russ. I know this post was influential in m own thinking about Timmer. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't the push of a baddie to get a lynch train going at the top of the hill so that it could speed up on its own.

More suspish of TH now. Starting to be suspish of Glorf.

Can someone summarize why people are suspicious of Sorsha?

LoRab, for the record, I made an observation based on the facts as I saw them before me and placed my vote on an interpretaion on those facts. I take responsibility for that. If you (or anyone else) regards me as suspicious for actually trying to contribute in this game, so be it. I'm still learning a lot about playing these games and even I would feel less suspicious of someone genuinely trying to contribute than what I've seen so far this game from some other players.

Sloonei wrote:I have looked into the Turnip thing and I do not understand where the suspicion is coming from. Who wants to explain it to me?

I'm in the same boat on TH. It seems the case revolves around the assumption that MM nominated TWO of his team mates in his Day 1 lynch votes (a fact which, despite not knowing him well, I'm struggling a little to grasp) and the fact that he hasn't answered Scotty's question despite (as I understand it) he hasn't been around this Day phase and some general feeling of disquiet about his posts. I can't say that I've observed anything that disturbing in his behaviour that leads me to suspect him right now.

My votes this Day phase will almost certainly be for Sorsha (again) and timmer as a consequence of the MM Day 2 vote.

Dunny wrote:hey guys, sorry a lot of shit happened and I've been in hospital. Will do my best to try and catch up

I hope you're OK, my friend