The Syndicate

Hey gang. I am mentally prepared for thousands of posts, even if I have to make half of them.

I'd be happy to serve as a prefect. Y'all know what you're getting from me in a Mafia game and I pledge to provide my best effort as time permits (time should permit quite a lot right now). There are a bunch of good candidates; I'll wait to see how others feel about the position before endorsing anyone specific. Some people might not have the time or the inclination.

Golden wrote:I rolled a role.

I didn't read the thread yet. I will at some point. Hi and bye!

Focus on the other game, it's shorter anyway. I'm perfectly content to give you that space in this one.

Golden is playing in the champions tournament for those unaware, and it will demand much of his Mafia attention. Let's give him a break here. Please nobody talk about that game here though except in the appropriate spectator area.

We need to make posts immediately so that that isn't the first thing I see when I open this thread.

Why not. I like a good platypus.

"Photo courtesy of Jay Town"

Let that be a signal.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Judge people based on this game, not on how much of a good civ they tend to be.

Do you have judgments to render of people based on this game right now?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:No.

I think the warning is still useful, though.

I dig.

While I don't think it will be practical to form an "informed" perspective of anyone in these 48 hours of Day 0, I have so far withheld my own votes to at least get a first look at people before giving them the keys to my car. In that regard we seem to be in a similar place.

My votes will go to two players who show me that they have the desire and the motivation to work for the greater good. Inspire me, and bring honor to your family.

I might be willing to vote for someone who can tell me what I am supposed to wear on a coffee date. I never learned social attire. Or social anything.

Turnip Head wrote:Jorts

*visits Google*

I guess I'm in good shape then. That's all I own.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Not exactly. We want our bad metas to look like our civ metas, but a lot of us have civ metas not as thorough or pro-active as they can be, so the baddie counterpart to those metas are easier to make. We don't look that good all the time, so when we actually are bad, people don't detect it that easily.

But Jay? Like you said, he is the perfect civ. He is the town leader, the pro-active guy, the king of TL;DRs. And he tries to make his baddie meta look exactly like that (Ive never seen it myself, but he has described it that way). And that makes him a more dangerous baddie than most. Its harder to pull that metaboff successfully, but if he does it, we have a problem.

So I tend to be paranoid and avoid easily trustingnplayers like him. A good parallel to that is Marco from my forum, who plays a similar way.

I certainly try. I've gotten better with experience, but I still seem to draw evil roles less frequently than the mean. I finally got my first real chance to spread my demon wings on The Syndicate recently, and it was a success -- but there are clear differences in my games between alignments that I've not yet fixed. Thankfully for me they seem to go unnoticed though.

Scotty wrote:Linki: JJJ- honestly no wrinkles, but casual is fine. Don't wear the same color shirt as pants, and don't wear a shirt that is smelly or has offensive writing.for a first coffee date, it's all in the confidence and simplicity. Good hygiene is a plus.

One of my votes is covered. The other will go to someone who is overtly town in appearance.

DrWilgy wrote:JJJ, why would you be happy to serve as prefect?

It sounds fun. I trust myself more than I trust other people. I'm confident that I'll maintain as consistent an active presence in this game as I always do.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:JJJ, why would you be happy to serve as prefect?
It sounds fun. I trust myself more than I trust other people. I'm confident that I'll maintain as consistent an active presence in this game as I always do.
I've only played a two maybe 3 games with you in the past but you seemed to hold a lot of sway with people during those games. What's scares me is someone who holds that kind of sway and gets this power ends up being bad. Sorry for putting on my tin foil hat so fast, but this Is mafia.

I understand. I'm not going to put a great deal of energy into campaigning for myself. All I'll do is pledge to give my best effort, and state my appreciation to those who have voted for me.

I am considering however the potential that the paranoia about giving me more power is either rooted in or supported by people who don't want that power in my town hands.

insertnamehere wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am considering however the potential that the paranoia about giving me more power is either rooted in or supported by people who don't want that power in my town hands.
sounds like someone took my earlier post seriously.

Huh

Epignosis wrote:So many unread rules.

12. Votes are not changeable. In addition, you will have two votes to cast in every poll. Submit both votes at the same time, or you will lose your second vote. If you cast more than two votes, none of your votes will be counted. Self-voting is permitted.

Who do you feel is more likely to be civilian than the mean as of right now, DDL?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:No strong civ/bad reads here, but if I had to pick... I guess Glorfindel is giving me a good vibe, like hs is being honest, though that might be because I've lynched him for saying things I disagreed with heavily before, so I'm kind of used to his meta. But I don't know what bad Glorfindel looks like so... yeah.

Also Eloh questioned me and that felt sincere too.

I dunno, to early to say anything strongly.

Is insertnamehere more likely to be civilian than the mean?

Golden wrote:Jay, why did you vote for yourself?

I think I'm suited for the task and I got sick of all the anti-me paranoia. I'm not really seeing much to instill confidence about other people anyway. Perhaps I'm arrogant, but oh well. I also expected to be gone through the deadline, but apparently me and sleep don't mix right now.

I am insufferable.

I swear y'all should go to 100 posts per page. I'm not even into page 3! Obviously the thread is the same length, but it feels less overwhelming to me when I look down at the page clickers.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:Jay, why did you vote for yourself?
I think I'm suited for the task and I got sick of all the anti-me paranoia. I'm not really seeing much to instill confidence about other people anyway. Perhaps I'm arrogant, but oh well. I also expected to be gone through the deadline, but apparently me and sleep don't mix right now.
Jay, I have a question for you.

Here you noted you got sick of anti-you paranoia. Did you think any player's paranoia was specifically either or both: (I) particularly illogical or unwarranted; (II) suspicious at face value?

I) I would say it is illogical yes, but still understandable. It comes with the territory when I play the way I play.

II) I've been considering this though Day 0. The prevailing narrative has been that I am a civilian asset and a dangerous baddie, so it might not be worth the risk of putting power in my hands. What hasn't been acknowledged is that this works both ways -- baddies can have the same ulterior motive to resist me receiving power as a townie that I could have as a baddie myself pursuing that power. I've decided though that I don't think it's suspicious. Those who promoted this perspective the most (DDL, Bass, and Scotty perhaps among others) did so in such a way that it appears more like genuine paranoia than an underhanded tactic to weaken my influence. If someone out there is a bad guy trying to acquire power, I think it's more likely he/she/they'd be among the people making a show of their candidacy (banners, Trump impersonations, etc).

MovingPictures07 wrote:Yellow: Should I take this to mean you believe these players are more likely civilian than not at this point, even if barely, or is it completely alignment indicative?

I would lean civilian on them right now. I am trying to eliminate/significantly reduce total neutrality in my Mafia play, because I think it's useless -- so they'd be town reads GTH.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Orange: Does this mean you find anyone doing this to be suspicious at this time, even if barely?

"Suspicious" is a stronger word than I'd use for it, but their conduct makes me less inclined to support their prefect candidacy rather than more. I think the baddies will have a stronger motive than the average townie to get at least one of their number among the three prefects, so I'd theorize they're more likely to promote themselves however they must. It's a guess.

Turnip Head wrote:I think you bring up a good point though, Sock. Jay, why are you sick of anti-you paranoia on Day 0?

It's annoying to be at the center of consistent illogical paranoia even when it's understandable.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I agree that total neutrality is useless, but I feel I'd have to force myself to see something that isn't there to declare anyone a GTH read worth anything, so while I find your civilian leanings intriguing and worth discussion, I disagree there.

I do think that the mafia will have motive to get one of their number among the three prefects, but having hosted many times, I know baddie teams usually are disorganized, especially this early in the game. So I'm not inclined to throw suspicion at anyone trying really hard to become a prefect, because I can justify that it could be coming from a civilian really wanting to help out their team as well.

I think the better question now is: Why did you not share these thoughts until I pressed you for them, if you really hold GTH reads on players based on their Day 0 activity, even if slightly? Wouldn't it be prudent for a civilian JJJ to bring this up earlier in the Day 0 period as a matter of formal discussion, rather than to passively say "I'm sick of anti-me paranoia"? I'd argue that the way you approached this was anti-conducive to starting conversation regarding reads and opinions among the thread, which is what a civilian should strive to do.

I'm actively trying not to blow this thread up in Day 0. I don't want this massive player list to be filled with lurkers, and nothing inspires people to not bother with a game thread than one that gets away from them before the game even actually starts. I know this is atypical of my usual shtick, but it's what I've decided to do in this game. I am not going out of my way to say things and promote discussion, at least not yet. I'll do that when there's a proper lynch poll.

Turnip Head wrote:@Jay I didn't get the impression that there was any serious, actionable paranoia about you, though. Did you? And would you not want to process that paranoia into your reads of players?

I don't think it was "serious" either. But it was still annoying. I do want to process that paranoia into my reads -- I just talked about that with MP.

If it's unclear, this is specifically what I have found "annoying":

"We should be wary of supporting JJJ for prefect, if he's bad it could be a disaster.

On the other hand, I like this guy's cute picture." *vote*

MovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?

In the immediate presence I don't think we should worry much about this when making our selections, but it might become more important as the game progresses and we develop a better understanding of players' potential dueling strength.

The two "baddie" factions appear to be the Yellow Turbans and the Nanman. Their dueling prowess is as follows:

Yellow Turbans:
1 leader - d6
2 strategists - d4
(all secrets)

Nanman:
1 leader - d6
4 warriors - d8

Purely from a dueling perspective, the Nanman appear significantly more potent. We'll need to keep that in mind as we proceed. Indeed, it might even be worth considering combining a town read with a baddie read in our voting pattern to try to arrange a winnable duel. That might even amount to people volunteering themselves to enter a duel if there is a consensus suspect present. I hope enough people are able to withhold their votes long enough for those discussions to develop.

The Yellow Turbans don't have the strength in their dice, but all three of them have *secrets* which I am sure are meant to make up the difference somehow.

EBWOP

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:In the immediate present

Host:

If you're able to say, what is the result of a tied roll in a duel?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:My opinion is that we should just lynch the people we want to see dead the most. But in case of endgame situations, putting a warrior on the battlefield against a strategist just to get the strategist killed sounds like a smart move. I mean, look at those odds. Of course, that's assuming we know who are the warrior and the strategist.

It's difficult to say. I think people would have to volunteer themselves for a duel, but that could also approach the realm of infodumping. It's also a risk to expose those people to night kills. It may be better to just pit suspect against suspect. We'll learn more as we go I'd imagine.

I have a bad feeling the "UTR" crew will be more than half of the player roster. :P

I'm willing to state an early town read on Boomslang. I understand people's doubts about his strategic mindset right now, and those doubts are probably valid -- but Boomslang came upon this idea quite similarly to me and I appreciate the synergy of our mindsets. The best course of action is probably to just keep it simple and pit suspects against each other, but I don't think Boom has an ulterior motive in his proposal.

Hi Mac.

MacDougall wrote:Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

U shook mate?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I'd like to see the inspirations for these reads, just briefly.

I'll let MP talk before I freak out. I do think a lot of people are often too chicken town read each other early in a game.

Russtifinko wrote:Agreed, JJJ.

Hey, I REALLY like the idea of the "whoever does ____ first, gets my votes" posts. They prevent people from finding excuses to give votes to baddie teammates. So I'm gonna do one too, and would suggest others do the same (even though it's an itsy bit late for a few).

The first two people to post pictures or emojis of platypi earn my votes.

DDL brought this post up and I think his concerns were valid. Russ, it appears here that you are attributing a meaningful strategy to what I would perceive to be typically arbitrary Day 0 behavior. This method removes the responsibility from your votes and increases the likelihood that they will be given to people who are in deliberate pursuit of power for whatever motive. Indeed, the two respondents to your platypi request were INH and I -- both eventual prefects.

I'd like for you to talk about this, please.

Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.
Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?

Yes, absolutely. The former option is obvious and easy, the latter is not.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I mean I agree one is easy and one isn't but I feel like a good mafia player would push for the civ against mafia option.

"Good" is a relative term. I know which side I'd be taking if I was a bad guy and it's not that one. To make that proposal (Boomslang's proposal) draws attention to oneself, because it is atypical and it places a civilian read at risk. This at face value sounds problematic, even if there is a perfectly valid rationale for the idea under the surface.

The single most frequent signal that a player is bad is that they aren't thinking critically -- they are taking the surface-most interpretation of posts and basing all of their reads on that. They think in fewer levels of complexity than townies, not because they're dumber but because they already know more about the game than townies know.

If I'm bad in this game, I'm quite content to suggest we pit suspects against each other knowing full well that town's ability to actually determine who should be called "suspects" is inherently flawed. I'd also be confident that there wouldn't be a townie out there telling everyone their initial perspective might be backwards like I'm doing now.

Quin wrote:Where do I place then, JJJ? You missed me.

Quin wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.
I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.
And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.
Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.
That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

I think your response to Boomslang fails to acknowledge the point he is making. I'd be less inclined to call you "suspicious" for it though since you're shoving it in my face right now.

I have a much easier time getting town reads early in a game than scum reads.

Your explanation works for me, MP. I agree with your perspective on each of the five except Turnip Head. With TH I actually have the opposite perspective -- I don't see critical thinking, I see him poking at easy points to contend with.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Yeah I dont get it either. If anything you look slightly suspicious to me.

Why?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Catching up. MP looks angrier than his hsual self. Wonder if that is alignme t indicative.

I don't think so. I see a progression that nets frustration:

1. Encounter minor pings, question players about them, decide they seem fine.

2. Put reads in the thread.

3. Immediately get crap from multiple people for putting reads in the thread (but but but it's SO EARLY)

4. Eyerolls for days

5. Respond to annoying accusations with visible evidence of being annoyed.

I'm fine with MP right now.

MacDougall wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have a much easier time getting town reads early in a game than scum reads.
Well I guess I'm wrong about that being a normal thing. Maybe just a me thing.

You use your Day 1 scum finding powers and I'll use my Day 1 town finding powers and with our powers combined GG.

MacDougall wrote:Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

Dunny wrote:Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?

No, it is the same type of response. The difference isn't in the response, but in that Quin took that response and mashed it against my face saying "what about me? Huh?". I appreciate that behavior even if I don't like the post.

Search found 179 matches