The Syndicate

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
- Adam Smith

Hedgeowl wrote:Hellooooo new shiny game!!

There is no poll. I do not understand. What am I supposed to do?

Well you can't stop me voting. I have rights!! Just try and stop me!

Lies. You're not a citizen. I'm onto you, Rodrigo!

I'm going to go ahead and warn people that I will probably be uncharacteristically quiet this game. I'm in two mafia games while trying to write a novel and restore freedom to America. So I've got a lot on my plate.

Long Con wrote:I am having a lot of trouble reading the dark blue host colour on the dark grey background.

The game definitely seems geared toward turning the general Civvie population into a bunch of baddie groups. Selfish greed over common good. I would advocate, as keys said, that we all just don't send in search PMs, and win together as Civvies, but for two reasons: a) that would go against boo's intentions for the game, and carve out a good deal of fun for us all, and b) there ain't no way that most people would go along with such a plan anyway.

If we did implement such a plan, then we would want to start lynching the winner of the last dead property auction on the following day, as they would obviously not be going along with the plan. That sounds lame too.

So, what do we lynch people for? Instead of lynching players for suspicion of being a Railroad or a Utility, will we lynch a player we suspect is becoming too powerful and rich?

I'm going to lynch you for asking questions and making me think. :P

Metalmarsh89 wrote: This is an excellent strategy. I agree that not many people would go along with the idea of NOT sending search actions in. Sure it's ideal, but who's gonna prove that you did or didn't search and find a partner?

Prisoner's dilemma. It'll never work. While it's in the group's interest for us all to remain civvies, it's in the individual's interest to try to obtain BTSC.

keys56000000000 wrote:So if Llama is right, what incentives, if any, do we have as civilians to work together? Is it mafia vs civs or mafia vs potential mafia?

I'm not convinced that Llama is right, yet. Llama, what incentive do we have to search for teammates? Once you're in a BTSC set, you're playing against everyone. You're going to have to survive every other player. Seems like when you are in a set, your overall chances of winning drop significantly. Especially those 2-player sets. Is there really any reason why we can't stick together as loose civilians? Even if some civs do search, and find their partners, we'd still have the advantage over them. At least that's how it seems to me at this early juncture.

The individuals have an incentive to acquire BTSC because no one wants to be stuck as the one team that doesn't get it if everyone else does.

I'm going to hang on to my money for now. Complicated game is complicated.

Who we lynching, y'all?

keys56000000000 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I'm going to hang on to my money for now. Complicated game is complicated.

Who we lynching, y'all?
IDK. You got any suspicions, Llama? I see Degobunny is against the union, so he/she must be pro-mafia! Ordinarily I'd call for his/her lynch, but it's early days yet, and while there might be civs looking to turn against us, they're still all civs at the moment, potential hearts and minds to be won over to support the union.

I don't really have any suspicions yet. I don't like the whole "nobody use your night powers" movement, though. I don't like it one bit.

keys56000000000 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
keys56000000000 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I'm going to hang on to my money for now. Complicated game is complicated.

Who we lynching, y'all?
IDK. You got any suspicions, Llama? I see Degobunny is against the union, so he/she must be pro-mafia! Ordinarily I'd call for his/her lynch, but it's early days yet, and while there might be civs looking to turn against us, they're still all civs at the moment, potential hearts and minds to be won over to support the union.
I don't really have any suspicions yet. I don't like the whole "nobody use your night powers" movement, though. I don't like it one bit.
Fair enough. The point I'm trying to make is, if you're looking for your BTSC teammates in order to form a new group, you're playing against the civs. Against me. That makes you a candidate for future lynches.

Shall we vote to lynch each other then? That might be fun.

keys56000000000 wrote: You can lynch me if you want, but I'm a good civilian. I don't want to be in a little team. I want to stick with the herd. It seems clear that your position on the matter is different, therefore you're suspect. Idk what you want me to say to you. Go start a mafia team against me and the rest of us, I won't lynch you? What are you expecting to happen?

I'm not expecting anything. I just asked if you wanted to trade lynch votes.

keys56000000000 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
keys56000000000 wrote: You can lynch me if you want, but I'm a good civilian. I don't want to be in a little team. I want to stick with the herd. It seems clear that your position on the matter is different, therefore you're suspect. Idk what you want me to say to you. Go start a mafia team against me and the rest of us, I won't lynch you? What are you expecting to happen?
I'm not expecting anything. I just asked if you wanted to trade lynch votes.
I'm just trying to take this game seriously, Llama. If that's not appreciated, I'll find something else to do.

We all have our own styles. Of course I appreciate you. I think you're a swell guy.

Degobunny wrote: I just don't see the point for a union when we have no way of keeping track of what everyone's night actions will be. You are expecting blind faith from townies, and that sort blind faith tends to lead lots of townie death. Plus real life unions function like a mafia anyway preying on those who don't want to join the union.

You are my new hero.

The money is very important because if you run out of it, you die.

It doesn't work. Game theory. We've been over this, people. Why isn't Alex here to back me up?

Nash equilibrium? Anyone? C'mon!

FZ. wrote:Nash is right when the players can't communicate and decide on the strategy together...at least if I remember correctly, that is

Communication doesn't really make a difference if there's no way to verify compliance or detect cheating, which there isn't here.

FZ. wrote:llama, are you really against this from a civ point of view, or are you scared?

I am never scared. I am fearless. But even if I was scared, it wouldn't alter the irrefutibility of my logic.

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:Nash is right when the players can't communicate and decide on the strategy together...at least if I remember correctly, that is
Communication doesn't really make a difference if there's no way to verify compliance or detect cheating, which there isn't here.

FZ. wrote:llama, are you really against this from a civ point of view, or are you scared?
I am never scared. I am fearless. But even if I was scared, it wouldn't alter the irrefutibility of my logic.
There is no way to verify, but why should it matter to you if you're a civ who doesn't agree with this strategy? If anyone should care about not following the strategy it's the civs who don't want the other civs to look for their sets. So, the fact you're fighting for this so strongly makes me think you have a sinister agenda

Look, you do what you want. I am using my night power to try to complete my monopoly and I think others would be foolish not to do so as well. The naive one or two people who follow this strategy will be left as a civ team of one or two people without BTSC. That's what's going to happen. I am just telling the truth and not trying to gin up support for a strategy that goes against human nature and leaves the credulous out to dry. I will also be voting for one of the supporters of the strategy, most likely Long Con at this point.

Or maybe I'll vote for MP for not showing up to drop some accountant knowledge on y'all.

LC, if we try to lynch people for trying to get color groups together at this early stage in the game, we are never going to get the railroads and the utilities, who I still perceive as the real enemies.

keys56000000000 wrote:Llama, it's cool that you're invoking Nash equilibrium, I dig it. However, unless you can show me the spreadsheets where you've gone over every potential scenario in the game, just saying "game theory" doesn't actually mean much. You need to have studied this particular game to know its theory.

You don't. You just need to understand that when individual interest trumps group interest and there's no way to detect cheaters, individual interest wins out.

I think it's a very, very, very poorly considered strategy to focus our lynches on trying to prevent Monopolies. The mafia can prevent monopolies just fine using their kills. Lynches are the only way we have to kill off the railroads and utilities.

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
keys56000000000 wrote:Llama, it's cool that you're invoking Nash equilibrium, I dig it. However, unless you can show me the spreadsheets where you've gone over every potential scenario in the game, just saying "game theory" doesn't actually mean much. You need to have studied this particular game to know its theory.
You don't. You just need to understand that when individual interest trumps group interest and there's no way to detect cheaters, individual interest wins out.

I think it's a very, very, very poorly considered strategy to focus our lynches on trying to prevent Monopolies. The mafia can prevent monopolies just fine using their kills. Lynches are the only way we have to kill off the railroads and utilities.
Isn't that what we have in most mafia games?

I don't understand your point.

I am distressed at the direction this thread has gone. I am barely paying attention to this game with all the other stuff I have going on, and it took me exactly two seconds to see why the "civs ignore all the gifts the host has given you" strategy is terrible. I can't believe how easily the flock is being led into bad decisions.

Look, building hotels is the only way we can get money (barring a few chance cards and an occasional pass go.) The Mafia have ample ability to make money and use it to buy property and other goodies, while at the same time depleting our money. If we run out of money, we die. This strategy hands victory to the railroads and utilities. Please think about it for two seconds before posting a reactionary NO U response. You, MM, Long Con, and Keys are working on behalf of the baddies with this sort of talk.

keys56000000000 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
keys56000000000 wrote:Llama, it's cool that you're invoking Nash equilibrium, I dig it. However, unless you can show me the spreadsheets where you've gone over every potential scenario in the game, just saying "game theory" doesn't actually mean much. You need to have studied this particular game to know its theory.
You don't. You just need to understand that when individual interest trumps group interest and there's no way to detect cheaters, individual interest wins out.
I do understand that, but saying "Nash equilibrium" doesn't prove that it's in the civilians best interests to find their partners. Our best move is yet to be established.

It is better for the individual to have BTSC than not to have BSTC.
It is better for the individual to be able to build hotels and make money, than not to be able to do that.
It is better for the individual not to be one of a handful who did not bother to try to find their teammates, facing a series of LMS teams in addition to baddies.

To me, it is abundantly clear that civvies who neglect to find their partners are acting against their own interests.

I have one final thing to say on the subject and I'll stop. To any civvies considering not finding your teammates: don't forget about money. Without a team, you cannot generate reliable income streams. Your money will slowly be drained away from you and, if the mafia doesn't kill you, you will go bankrupt and you will die. Factor that into your decision on whether to use your night power.

keys56000000000 wrote:Llama, I'd be lying if I said I didn't think you were making a good case, but the mafia also has the NK. Civs are doomed regardless, we're all racing against the clock to lynch the bad guys.

Sadly, this is kind of true.

At minimum, if we have a perfect lynch record, we will lose six people to NKs plus whoever manages to run out their money by then. The odds are certainly not in our favor.

Long Con wrote:Ok, Llama, I'll sit back and see how it goes. I think it's inevitable that people who bid on properties will be killed, and I'd like someone to convince me that that's not the case.

Maybe if we all agree to be cool and NOT go after players who try to acquire more property? Is that something that can be? What does everyone think?

I'll take a stab at convincing you.
1. Civvies have more of an incentive to acquire property to complete their sets than baddies.
2. People who spend money on property are more likely to go bankrupt and die anyway
3. Even if someone completes a set, they are less of a thread than the mafia, because they cannot actively kill.
4. Opportunity cost. Every time we lynch someone who is trying to complete their set, we COULD have lynched a baddie instead.

Therefore, I think it's a mistake to lynch people JUST because they acquire property.

That being said, the baddies will read this, and will probably have more money than us, so they may try to buy up the property to avoid suspicion. All I'm advocating is cases that do not DEPEND on the fact that someone bought property.

keys56000000000 wrote: I don't think anyone was accusing anyone of actually cheating. There was a conversation about nobody finding their partners, and someone pointed out that people will "cheat" and still try to find them. Niot that that actual dispicable cheating is or was or will occur.

Good point. I want to be clear on this. When I used the word "cheat" I meant "covertly defect from the no searching strategy." In other words, saying "Yes, I agree not to search for my partners" but then secretly doing it anyway. I in no way was trying to imply that anyone would be cheating with respect to the rules of Boo's game or the rules of the Syndicate.

keys56000000000 wrote:
juliets wrote:Wouldn't people still be posting because it's in everyone's interest to try and find and lynch the baddies?
Once you're in a team, you are the baddies.

No you're not. You don't have a kill.

I can't help but be a little $u$piciou$ of the people voting for Epigno$i$. Fell$ like an ea$y lynch train, if you know what I mean.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Look, building hotels is the only way we can get money (barring a few chance cards and an occasional pass go.) The Mafia have ample ability to make money and use it to buy property and other goodies, while at the same time depleting our money. If we run out of money, we die. This strategy hands victory to the railroads and utilities. Please think about it for two seconds before posting a reactionary NO U response. You, MM, Long Con, and Keys are working on behalf of the baddies with this sort of talk.
llama, if you win an auction and gain a property card, we can't just assume your role is of the same colour. There's a chance you are trying to prevent another particular player from getting the property, sure. There's also a chance you're a baddie and are collecting sets yourself. I'm using your name as an example.

I don't disagree with any of that.

The game will be mighty atypical (and doubly fun!) without the utilization of that crucial character.

Parker ought to be happy. I won't be able to utter my favorite battle cry.

Turnip Head wrote:Are you officially joining the challenge llama? I'll put a starter bet of $10 on ya

Oh, I'm joining all right.

I am voting for Long Con, being an early proponent of the tactic that I think will hurt the town, and I don't believe him.

juliets wrote:Black Rock, speaking of hunting down baddies, do you have any suspicions at this point?

A general remark. I don't believe him about anything. I don't believe that Long Con would like a civvie victory.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:Epig,

Why did you bid so much? Where were you expecting to get more money from for the other stuff?
I'm eccentric.

I plan to get rich by people landing on my property.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I have a theory.

The more money he will bet on a power, the more likely another player will check him tonight in the hope that they can partner up with the equal color, being that it would be convenient to have that power on your team. Meaning that the money might return back to him in the future. It might be a gamble, but that'll be the name of the game.
I hadn't thought of that.
Yeah, that was a good theory he came up with

How is what you did going to help you to get people to land on your property? I'm sorry if I'm missing something. I'm too tired

If you have the right property, the people will come to you. Give the people what they want, and great riches will accrue to you.

juliets wrote: Metalmarsh - why did you vote Long Con?

He didn't.

Mongoose wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why don't we bold any bid we make to make it clear?

$100 on the extra die if the bid from TH earlier will count (for 60 + 25, being unbolded and not an exact amount).

Linki: Why don't you like the the little game Mongoose? You are ruining the fun where other people are even bidding on Epi, llama, and me.
It's just kinda hard to read. Why stop there? Why not substitute the cent sign for C? or the Euro for E? The British pound sign for L? The possibilities are endless.

Next thing you know, the lack the of the nineteenth letter will be under attack.

Hahahahaha!
In your face, Made!

What a great result.

Black Rock wrote:Should I be keeping a SS?

Nah, don't bother.

I'm liking the sparks between LoRab ad Epig. Too bad he's married.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
keys56000000000 wrote:So if Llama is right, what incentives, if any, do we have as civilians to work together? Is it mafia vs civs or mafia vs potential mafia?

I'm not convinced that Llama is right, yet. Llama, what incentive do we have to search for teammates? Once you're in a BTSC set, you're playing against everyone. You're going to have to survive every other player. Seems like when you are in a set, your overall chances of winning drop significantly. Especially those 2-player sets. Is there really any reason why we can't stick together as loose civilians? Even if some civs do search, and find their partners, we'd still have the advantage over them. At least that's how it seems to me at this early juncture.
I've signed up for a game where I get a chance to search for BTSC and increase my own power if I succeed. I'm going to take advantage of that opportunity and have fun with it.

Gaining BTSC helps you increase your rent by building houses and hotels, and gaining insight on a partner's knowledge. Otherwise, at some point, you're going to be losing more money than you gain and go bankrupt.

Consider the fact that Penn RR made $150 this turn and Electric company has made ~$350 (I forget the number) in two turns. What has Vermont Ave gotten? $36 I believe.

Obvious incentives are obvious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:All of that to say I am here now and so psyched about this game!

*votes MP^

Guys come on. Long Con isn't a baddie. I think if anyone can read him, I can. I know I voted for him yesterday, but his gameplay since then has not been baddie like in the slightest.

Also, Lorab's argument amounts to:
"If you disagree with me, you think I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I must be stupid. Therefore, disagreeing with me is tantamount to calling me stupid."

That way, madness lies. We have to be able to disagree with each other, or else mafia has no point. Lighten up.

zeek wrote: @Llama - Agreed. Mafia is all about disagreements, but this thing seems to have blown up out of nothing. If you're reading LC as good, what are your thoughts on TH? Kinda feeling like it might be civ-on-civ.

My instinct is to distrust TH, but the more I think about it, the more I agree that it is probably civ-on-civ. This is how these games always work. Two gung ho civs go after each other and both end up getting lynched, which doesn't help anybody.

Long Con wrote:Llama's trust surprises me.

I am a very surprising man. It's what makes me so dangerous.

I think I will place my vote on Lorab for now, for asserting that we can't disagree without implying the other person is stupid.

LoRab wrote: Is this why you voted for me without posting about it?

No, it's why I voted for you with posting about it.

LoRab wrote: linki: I don't kill tonight. Because I don't have a kill. Because I'm not bad.

Rats. We almost caught her ought there. She's a sharp one.

$25 on Atlantic.

Epignosis wrote:I don't play Mafia to make people feel good.

You make me feel good.

Do I want Atlantic Ave.? Or do I want to force other people to pay more for Atlantic Ave.? Or do I have an as yet unrevealed ulterior motive?

$50 on Atlantic

Search found 176 matches