The Syndicate

Hooray for a new game! Feels like I haven't played in years. I voted for the key, because a key has to unlock something and that something might be cool or exciting.

Golden wrote:I voted Green Jade hand because jade green is my favourite shade of my favourite colour.

@bullz - as soon as I read the list more fully, I actually wished I had taken the key. If I hadn't just thought 'first in first served' and had taken a little bit more time to think, that's what I would have taken for sure.

I hesitated for a bit before I chose it actually, partly because I thought someone would swoop in and take it before I could. I'm now just hoping it unlocks something and that the something it unlocks is useful in some way!

Turnip Head wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Oh wait...maybe not since TH didn't read the rules. I guess he will get nothing.

Maybe Boomslang will want to trade his key for my nothing?

Or maybe Bullzeye will just laugh at you for not reading the rules. Then laugh at you again for not even reading who beat you to it properly. In conclusion:

blindfaeth wrote:No, not role outing. It's an educated guess. All I know is whose will I have and that I get a lot of money when they die. Lots of money sounds like a millionaire to me.

Well if I were that person - regardless of the accuracy of your guess - I would certainly feel outed/infodumped against/unfairly treated.

Golden wrote:I disagree strongly with bullz statement.

I can't remember a time when the person lynched on day one didn't feel it was unfair, no matter what the reason. Day one lynches always suck.

Whats the difference between it being unfair because someone has a hunch that their item is a role hint, and it being unfair because someone sees some minutiae in the thread? I don't see one.

I don't like that it is being made some kind of moral issue. It's a host setting - either it's ok or it isn't. (and my eye is squarely on bullz for his comment).

You are obviously unfamiliar with my attitude towards infodumping. Read the fury in my late posts in the Monty Python game, or the comment I made in the thread about how to handle infodumping. I have a fiery, passionate hatred of info in all its forms. Boogs is one of my all time favourite people to play with, I think he's a brilliant person and a great laugh, but I tore him to shreds for outing me and at the time I was literally that angry. Good or bad, I will never be okay with following info to get someone lynched. It just isn't how I play. I don't care about fighting against it here, it doesn't affect me, but knowing how I would feel in the shoes of whoever BF's will is attached to, I will not be following it and I will not have my disapproval silenced by fear of suspicion. I will happily admit my view of infodumping is very strict but that's just me.

Why is your eye not also on Dom for agreeing with me? It's very rare for he and I to agree on anything actually. I've half a mind to check Hell hasn't frozen over.

fingersplints wrote:I'm a little wary of the name on the will anyways. If it is that directly tied into a role it doesn't really seem fair for that player, and I'm not sure the host would do that

This is a good point. I also don't see that we have any particular reason to believe BF as of yet.

Well, I'm certainly on the edge of my seat...

blindfaeth wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Can you tell us why, BF, or are you just talking to Golden?

Linki

Both. I was just curious if he had the same hunch.

Early on, Turnip Head votes for key. Epignosis points out he hadn't read the rules, because he voted for an item someone already claimed.

Next, Elo points out that someone is going to end up with nothing. And then realizes TH will be one of those people, because he didn't read the rules. Next is the suspicious post.

Turnip Head wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Oh wait...maybe not since TH didn't read the rules. I guess he will get nothing.

Maybe Boomslang will want to trade his key for my nothing?

Boomslang? Who is that?

Boomslang is another mafia player who is sometimes around. I don't think I know him at all and as far as I'm aware we aren't similar people so I have no idea why TH confused me for him, but given that he hadn't even read the rules properly I'm not all that surprised he didn't know who took the key before him.

blindfaeth wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Oh wait...maybe not since TH didn't read the rules. I guess he will get nothing.

Maybe Boomslang will want to trade his key for my nothing?

Or maybe Bullzeye will just laugh at you for not reading the rules. Then laugh at you again for not even reading who beat you to it properly. In conclusion:

Bullzeye knows right away. Not that it's hard to figure out. Starts with B, he voted for your item, etc. Easy to put together, right? But why call him boomslang in the first place?

I knew what straight away? You'd have to ask TH why he thought I was Boomslang.

blindfaeth wrote:All I can think of is my very first game on STV mafia. SVS, you were in that game with me. Along with some others, I'm sure. Manu pinpointed a bad guy who wasn't talkative at all for one post, where on the first day, they "accidentally" referred to another player by the incorrect gender. It turns out, they were teammates. The baddie knew their gender, but used it as a subtle distancing tactic.

Nope. None of that is happening. Why would someone even bother to do that? It's so subtle it's basically not there at all. If someone were to propose that to me as a tactic I'd say Nah, no point. Nobody will ever notice.

Next, I say something about my suspicion and ask Golden if he has noticed anything in thread. Guess who wants to know in on the secret? Sounds nervous to me.

Turnip Head wrote:What do you guys see?

In all fairness, you were totally fishing for someone to do just that.

blindfaeth wrote:Coincidence? I think not. Then, guess what? I start talking about what I can gather from my will, which I've stressed is in no way info dumping - AND I've been very careful not to mention whose will it is. Which is when Bullzeye starts posting again.

-snip-

That's odd, what brings you here out of the blue? Sure, you're playing the game, but I feel it's awful convenient you show up right after I mention it. He starts pushing an agenda of discrediting me and spreading doubt about my speculation. Is it because he's worried I know the name of his teammate, the millionaire? That's what I think.

I finished lectures at 5pm. Went to the library for 20 minutes, had a quick dinner, sent some emails, then decided to catch up on mafia. Didn't have much to say about anything else - nothing had really happened. Saw your post, debated a response. I knew that speaking against info would get me heat. I discussed this in my post in the infodumping thread - that nobody dares speak out against infodumps for fear of being seen as bad. Decided I didn't care and would say that I felt it would be unfair regardless of whether or not you're correct. I don't have an agenda against you and I don't care about your credit. I just personally disapprove of your idea and don't care if people decide to label me as bad because of it. My points are true though, there's no reason to believe you're telling the truth or even that you're right, and if you deny that then I will find it odd. I don't think you're bad. I don't have any idea of your alignment. At this point I'm not planning to vote for you today or indeed ever. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're bad.

blindfaeth wrote:Ah, but I was fishing for you or TH to do just that, not just anyone, you see.

Also, I don't care that you personally disagree with my idea. It is the fact that you are pushing the agenda of "this is info dumping!!!!" that has me worried.

Again, I don't know how much more clear I can be. My will is someone else's. It does not tell me their role, only their player name. It tells me that I get a large sum of money upon their death. I put 2 and 2 together with logic. I am not info dumping, because I don't know if this person is that role for sure. But the fact that you're arguing against it makes me think you're scared that I have them pegged correctly.

Linki with the almighty llama.

I admit I have a strict definition of what constitutes infodumping but if you'd had the experiences I've had with it perhaps you'd understand why. I've made like 5 posts on the matter though and will say no more, so I hardly call that pushing an agenda. All I wanted to do was put my opinion across and explain why I would be playing no part in the matter. I don't actually care if you're correct or not, it's irrelevant to my opinion. Again, my saying we have no reason to believe you're telling the truth is simply an accurate statement. We don't. That doesn't make you bad and it doesn't mean I'm saying you are. There is no reason to believe me either, and no reason to believe Dom or Golden, or anybody else. It's day one. Nobody has earned any trust from anyone yet as far as I can see.

Golden wrote: I don't think being hung because of bf's 'info' is any more unfair than any other reason for being hung so early. Honestly, we all feel its unfair when we get hung on day one.

To be honest, a big problem I have with it is that BF could have completely the wrong end of the stick. It's an easy conclusion to come to and I would probably have thought the same but I think he majorly jumped the gun by throwing it out there so readily without considering other possibilities. You throw potential info into a thread and many players will follow it mindlessly. The person the will is tied to could really be any role as far as we know, but given the potential for them to be bad has been raised now if BF names them they will probably be lynched regardless of what they have to say for themselves.

Linki - I certainly can defend against the things you're saying. I find it very easy to do so.

blindfaeth wrote:So why are you so worried about it then? Day one is almost always a civ lynch. Is this not any worse than random?

Am I worried? News to me. You're the one making a big deal out of my opinions. I'm happy to drop this any time, but I always respond to posts directed at me while I'm online. I feel like I'm being rude if I don't.

Golden wrote: linki - bullzeye - I agree that the info could well be wrong. Ultimately I think this is simply a matter of playstyle. Bf and I play similar games as we have influenced each others mafia game a lot. BF just did exactly what I would do, so I find it easy to come from his perspective on this one. I'm not saying it's without risk... and honestly it would suck for the person lynched good or bad. But it's gonna suck to be the person lynched on day one anyway, is all I'm saying.

That's fine, but all I'm saying is in my opinion 'it sucks regardless' doesn't justify voting for someone based on potential info that might indicate that maybe they are bad but also maybe they aren't.

blindfaeth wrote:Well I know the discredit routine and you're doing it. But fortunately, what you say about me majorly jumping the gun is not true. I did consider other options. This why I have not named the person in question. And why I was asking for input /opinion on the idea. You can try to sell that you aren't worried but I'm not being fooled personally. Good luck with tricking everyone else. Gone for a while, cya!

Seriously not discrediting you. You would need to have credit to begin with for that and as I've already said, in my opinion nobody (including me) has any yet because it's the very beginning of the game. I gave my input. You just don't like that I disagree with you and am not willing to change my point of view. I don't care if you think I'm worried, I don't care if you think I'm trying to trick people. You've tried to make me out to be bad and I've defended myself against that. That isn't me being worried that's me playing this game. I think you jumped the gun in the sense that I think you'd have been wiser to keep your theory to yourself for a day or two and see how things play out. I'm not going to say anything more on the matter of the info because I genuinely do not care. Well... I do, I care that a civ might get lynched. But if that does happen it won't be on my hands.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:That's fine, but all I'm saying is in my opinion 'it sucks regardless' doesn't justify voting for someone based on potential info that might indicate that maybe they are bad but also maybe they aren't.

Fair enough. I do think we need a fairly clear majority in favour and who agree to vote the way bf says before he should reveal the name anyway. At this stage, it doesn't look like that will happen, so bf is probably safest to keep the info to himself.

The funny thing is, the person whose name BF has might be fully in favour of lynching this hypothetical baddie until BF says it's him. I would laugh so hard if that were the case. I'm not going to talk about it any more anyway, I'm tired of the topic tbh.

Mongoose wrote:I didn't realize RM had been KIA :/

Y'all be careful revealing your items' secrets and powers. It might be something to slowly dole out instead of give up on the first date.

I don't see there being any possible downside to revealing all our secrets right now. It's not like there's a baddie team out to kill us all and looking for who might be a threat to them or anything.




(No sarcasm tags because people should be able to figure it out for themselves)

blindfaeth wrote:Dom, I was not suspicious of you because I was taking my first suspicion and overlapping it with who was worried about my item. Which turned out to be them both IMO.

Seriously, point out where I'm "worried" as opposed to just addressing comments aimed at me. I'm not worried. I don't care about your suspicion of me, it's based on nothing. Just because you say I'm worried doesn't make it true.

blindfaeth wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:No, not role outing. It's an educated guess. All I know is whose will I have and that I get a lot of money when they die. Lots of money sounds like a millionaire to me.

Well if I were that person - regardless of the accuracy of your guess - I would certainly feel outed/infodumped against/unfairly treated.

I start talking about my item. You post this after almost 18 hours of silence to start spreading doubt about how bad an idea this is. Oh and by the way, I didn't address you, you posted your opinion of your own Accord.

Next points coming, on phone and can't properly quote.

Am I not allowed to post my own opinion of my own accord now? If you must know, my 18 hours of silence were as follows: Sleeping, attending a callout, going back to sleep because I'd lost 2 hours, waking up, having breakfast, going to the library, going to lectures, going back to the library because my life is just that exciting, eating. It's not like I was hiding from the game or anything. People go about their lives and then come back to mafia when they have the time. Just so happened I came at an opportune time to express my opinion that I don't think it's a great move. Should I have kept quiet because I didn't agree? When you posted, surely you wanted people's opinions? Are dissenting opinions not allowed?


Linki - ugh. Yes I was bad in the Python game. Never said I wasn't so don't imply that I did. As a matter of fact I clearly said that he outed me. I was furious. I was prepared to NK him day 1 for the rest of eternity. It ruined the game for me to the point that I don't even care that I won, I may as well have lost because all the work I put in was for nothing. That's one of many reasons why I hate infodumping. In my opinion, revealing what you think someone's role is based on info only you are privy to is infodumping. I am firmly against infodumping in all forms and will not be scared into changing my view just because some people might make me out to be bad for not wanting to follow it. Me having been bad in Python does not justify in any way Boogs' outing me. Nor does Dom having been bad in the games he got outed in justify the actions of the people who outed him.

That post wasn't in response to you, no. It was in response to someone calling me suspicious because of my response to you. Don't pretend it came out of nowhere.

Also not in response to me. So you're lying. Anyway, this is basically saying "don't listen to bf because I don't want him to identify my teammate. You have no reason to believe him, let me say this to discourage you from believing him!"

So are you saying there is a valid reason to trust you? Please, point it out. I'd hate to have missed this obvious piece of evidence. Good of you to cherry pick all the quotes that aren't related to our conversation where you accused me of being worried about you. I'm still not.

blindfaeth wrote:

bea wrote:SVS raises a good point about BF seeming to buddy up to Golden. She even went to the trouble of pulling quotes so you know she means business. I can see where she's coming from too. I'm not sure it's suspicious yet, but BF - man -there are others playing!! Mafia besties are the best for sure! What do you think of everyone else?

You're kidding right? I'm like one of the highest posters. I've talked about others tons. Summary:

1. No reason to distrust Golden. Clarification for Dom, doesn't mean I trust him
2. Bullz - on my bad list
3. Epi - on my worse list
4. TH - suspicious of, but recent posts have made me reconsider
5. SVS - misguided

You've talked about like seven people altogether, one of them only in the context of defending your friendship and most others in relation to your potential info. I mean, let's face it, I'm only on your bad list for disagreeing with you. You asked for people's opinions on something (or invited them by sharing an idea in a public forum) and then anyone who said no became your suspect list. Is there anyone you suspect for any reason that doesn't revolve around your will?

blindfaeth wrote: In short, it is the fact that you disagree with giving the thread info, since the baddies will likely end up with the majority of items, COMBINED with the agenda you're pushing, and the manner in which you're doing it. I read SVS' and Elo's posts as genuine, personally. Feel free to disagree, I listen to my gut. And I all I hear you spouting over and over again are lies.

I always disagree with giving the thread info. I always will. I will never follow info. This has nothing to do with you or your will, this is a strongly held personal view that won't bow to peer pressure. There are like three roles that can steal items, none of them are baddies. They're just as likely to end up with things as the baddies are. In fact, if a civ steals an item from someone and then the baddies later kill that person, the baddies don't get any items because the person didn't have any. When people are lynched, their items go to their voters. So it's a bit of a simplification to say baddies will end up with most of the items. Several roles will likely end up with stockpiles of items. Not just the baddies.

When you take great care to say you don't explicitly trust Golden, you just don't distrust him, that's fine. When I say there's no reason to trust you yet or believe you're telling the truth, that's pushing an agenda? Have I ever actually said you're a baddie or we should lynch you? No. Wanna know why? Because I don't think you're a baddie. I don't trust you either - and there's nothing wrong with saying that. It's not an attempt to discredit you. My opposition to the idea of info is not connected to you or your role. It's connected to nearly five years of mafia experience and the belief that info straight up ruins games.

All I initially said was that I would feel bad if I were the person in your will, because if you name that person now they have no defence and will probably die regardless of who they are. Golden didn't like that, so I elaborated because I know he doesn't know me very well. Then you come in saying I'm worried and trying to discredit you and that I have some kind of agenda. If you didn't keep talking about me I'd stop talking about you. In fact, I might anyway. This conversation is just going round in circles. It's boring. I'm bored. If you have something more interesting to talk about, let me know. Til then I'll do my own thing.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Yes, I'm pissed off, BF, and I swear it's not a crazy ploy of any kind. If people were going to vote for me by the end of this Day because of my two posts, then by all means. If people weren't going to, then by all means. I'm not trying to save myself or affect any of that. I don't have any suspects. I just want to see who has the balls to actually vote for me on Day 1 for something so absurdly WIFOM that it's ridiculous.

THAT'S one of the few key reasons civilians don't win on this site. It's the tunnel vision and willingness to construe events that could have any plausible number of explanations and use it to crusade against someone for mafia behavior. I know it because I've done this people all the time.

Does anyone seriously believe that the only explanation for my two posts is the fact that someone in my BTSC told me to go back in and place a vote?

Personally I don't believe it's even a reasonable explanation, let alone the only one.

I am having a horrible day today. Expect to see me in the morning but probably not before. Not in the mood. Just thought I'd show my face so you know I haven't disappeared.

Perhaps taking some time to myself last night wasn't the best idea, I've clearly missed some stuff! Will catch up in a bit and be back

S~V~S wrote: Now, re this "us" thing of Doms. That is an astonishingly quibbly question, lol. I am not sure why bad Dom would pose it, especially to Juliets on Day One. I understood what she meant right off the bat, and when i first read that question it raised my brow a bit. Again, not sure why bad Dom would ask it. Then not sure why civ Dom would ask it, either.

Kinda reminded me of the Pokemon game where he decided I was his prime suspect because I'd asked a question (I think about the NK?) that I'd have already known the answer to if I was bad. We were both civs. Sometimes I think Dom has... interesting reasons to question/suspect people (I usually only think this when it's me, tbf) but he's not unique in that way. I'm still feeling pretty okay about him right now.

S~V~S wrote:I don't love self voting either, like LC says (if he did not say it in this game, he said it in another) it's an easy way to set yourself up for no accountability when you ARE a baddie. And I can understand that. When I first started playing, like many people, my civvie game was very distinct from my baddie game. Most people in that situation try to make their baddie game more like their civvie game. I did the opposite. I took a lot of lynches in civvie games, but it set me up for the old "but she acts like this bad or good" chestnut for quite a while until the aggression started creeping back into my civvie game, and more hosts started running one Mafia games. Hosts, y u do that?

I don't usually mind or care about self-voting, especially on day one, but we do have a baddie who gains power from votes (do we even know what that means?). It might be something worth bearing in mind. Not everyone who self-votes can be that baddie, but it's still a possibility for someone.

S~V~S wrote:This is a Llama game. Want to hear a helluva lot more from Mongoose. Quiet Mongoose is scary Mongoose. Other than the self vote, I want to hear more from MM~ is he posting content, or snappy comebacks & jokes? Who does Bullz suspect? I don't recall anything BWT has said, like at all.

Good question! Hopefully I'll let you know somewhere in the course of this post. Am catching up and quoting/responding to things as I go.

rabbit8 wrote: Because my other thought would be BF. Who does not consider all roles when they get info. Baddies with an agenda, or....................civvies who are too gung ho to actually think before they post. So this one is, meh.

Good point. It's why I don't currently think BF is bad. I just think he's a 'gung ho' misguided civ who has a different way of thinking to many of our community. Doesn't make him bad, but looking at the poll I'm one of only a few who think that way.

Zomberella12 wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Oh well, if people are interested in lynching me I suppose I'll share what I know. At least if I die, SVS won't be able to lie to you about whose will it is. It is Zomberellas will. The reason I did not come after her in the thread as many of you suggested is because she was literally absent for so long. Which I think is oddly convenient, but whatever. Final thoughts, I think dom is bad, he's only analytical like this when he has a team. I think epi and bills are bad. Think SVS is misguided. Good luck

Well, I think BF ruined my role. Thanks, for that. Civvie or not, you blew it!

Does anyone else think if Zomb were actually the baddie BF is so sure she is, her team would've coached her a better response than this?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Epig said it before, it was convenient for BF that the "name" on the will was someone who hadn't been around to discuss or defend herself. BF pointed it out as baddie behavior, but I feel like we already know why Zomba wasn't around, and it speaks nothing of alignment. And on that note, I didn't post at all until about the same time Zomba did, and nobody's pointing fingers at me for it.

I would find it more believable that the player's role name would be listed on the will rather than the player name.

Linki: Hi Bullzeye.

Hi! You make some good points here. A quite quiet person might be expected to not actually show up and defend themselves in the time it would take for them to be bandwagoned after being "outed". I also don't think being quiet is baddie behaviour anyway. In fact, when I'm bad I feel more compelled to post. As a solo civvie I'm only letting myself down if I don't post but when I have teammates of any alignment I feel like I'd be letting everyone down by not being around. Also agree re: the player's role name. I don't see Llama giving away the name of a baddie for free.

S~V~S wrote:What would be interesting is if she really was the Millionaire. Then by mentioning her name, BF would be getting her votes, but her lynch is far from a done deal. He did not mention her name until he had several votes. So if she is that role, BF would actually be helping her get some votes, which her role could use if she is not lynched. And if she was lynched, he would get tons of cred.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, right?

There is also the fact that if they were both working together, there are enough anti-infodump people to ensure that she'd probably be safe for a few days to gather just a small number of votes - not enough to kill her but enough to charge up a baddie's power. I dunno though. I don't think I actually believe that's what has happened at all, just throwing stuff out there.

Dom wrote: I mean we're entering a world with many glasses of wine that are just sitting there to be drunk.

Sounds like a fun world to live in!

Dom wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Don't be sorry, please pile on the votes, I would rather die than talk to walls

Why is everyone who disagrees with you a wall?
Why won't you provide evidence for your "suspicion" of me?

If it's anything like his "evidence" against me, I wouldn't worry. I still don't think BF is bad. He's not helpful, but that doesn't make him bad.

Not sure who to actually vote for. I can see how MM or any self-voter could be bad but they can't all be and there's not much else to go on in that debate. I do think it's odd how Liz voted for Zomb without comment and seemingly without considering the range of alternative explanations but I don't feel strongly enough about that. I will spend some time considering where to put my vote, but I'm aware of how little time is actually left.

Linki - agree with TH, giving up doesn't help anyone at all.

A lot of people are way too quiet for my liking in this game... I think I'll random between the most silent and give them a vote to wake them up.

Did as I said I would, got *Canuck*. Not an actual suspicion, and I'm aware of what I said earlier. Just a case of having nobody I want to vote for and wanting to encourage quiet people to actually get involved.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also, I know being lynched sucks. Is it just me, or are people getting extremely testy lately when suspicion gets thrown their way?

This game is my only experience of mafia in the past 6 months, but yeah it seems that way. When I first started playing though it seemed much the same.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:A lot of people are way too quiet for my liking in this game... I think I'll random between the most silent and give them a vote to wake them up.

Why?

Because I've got nothing better to do with my life. Didn't find anyone suspicious enough to vote for, didn't want to miss the vote, decided to see if I could make someone pay attention to the game instead.

Essentially, if I'm going to have to throw away my vote, I'd rather it not be for someone who is actually putting in a lot of effort.

Golden wrote:

bea wrote:Golden - I know you are getting the drfunk bea you've missed so much -but isn't what I'm saying logical? Maybe? Just maybe? it wasn't the best move for BF to make. Maybe- just maybe - he should have kept his info to himself - instead of painting a target on someone (zombra ) who has a 50/50 chance of being a civ. As well as anyone who would inherit his will post his demise. If BF is a civ - he's painted a target on two other potential civs. On Day 1. How is that logical "civ" game play?

Your perspective absolutely is logical, bea. Which is why I hoped bf would survive, and some unknown civvie would steal the will from him. But I don't think two opposing points of view can't both be logical. I think bfs move was risky, but I also think it was logical.

Anyway, now that he is a proven civ, I guess that's easy for me to say! So, I'll just move on from my defence of bfs move and say... Once again I think some unknown civ should steal the will from svs tonight, so that there is no longer a target associated with the will (other than on zombra...)

It's pretty clear bf played it wrong in hindsight, but at the time I would have done the same, I think.

Does the will really matter any more at this point? Unless BF lied about what it said, we already know everything about it, right?

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

bea wrote:Golden - I know you are getting the drfunk bea you've missed so much -but isn't what I'm saying logical? Maybe? Just maybe? it wasn't the best move for BF to make. Maybe- just maybe - he should have kept his info to himself - instead of painting a target on someone (zombra ) who has a 50/50 chance of being a civ. As well as anyone who would inherit his will post his demise. If BF is a civ - he's painted a target on two other potential civs. On Day 1. How is that logical "civ" game play?

Your perspective absolutely is logical, bea. Which is why I hoped bf would survive, and some unknown civvie would steal the will from him. But I don't think two opposing points of view can't both be logical. I think bfs move was risky, but I also think it was logical.

Anyway, now that he is a proven civ, I guess that's easy for me to say! So, I'll just move on from my defence of bfs move and say... Once again I think some unknown civ should steal the will from svs tonight, so that there is no longer a target associated with the will (other than on zombra...)

It's pretty clear bf played it wrong in hindsight, but at the time I would have done the same, I think.

Does the will really matter any more at this point? Unless BF lied about what it said, we already know everything about it, right?

The will gives that person all of Zomba's items upon her death, no?

I suppose so. But don't baddies get your items when they kill you anyway? I feel like that point came up a few times in BF's posts.

Zombarella wrote:

Zombarella wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:How many degrees are in a triangle?

180

Unless it's not Euclidian geometry. In spherical geometry a triangle can have more than 180 degrees - like 90, 90, 45. In taxicab geometry a triangle looks like a step pyramid and have hundreds and hundreds of degrees.

...And in Fairy Land a triangle can have all the degrees its heart desires, as long as it believes in the power of friendship!


Right?

juliets wrote:Yeah, poor BR. RIPIYWG BR. i had no read on you yet.

There's no IYWG about it, is there? As far as I can see there's only the baddies that have a kill...

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Another note I should add, TH accused LC of voting for me on Day 1 instead of blindfaeth, even though blindfaeth was the "obvious" lynch choice at the time, and we should be wary of voting the millionaire. blindfaeth was leading the lynch 5-1 at the time. Yet TH voted for you, when you had zero votes, even though blindfaeth was the "obvious" lynch choice. blindfaeth was leading the lynch 7-3 at the time.

Being wary of voting the millionaire is all well and good, but if we're too wary of it we'll never lynch him.

Turnip Head wrote: LC said he was suspicious of BF. I was not suspicious of him. Why would I vote for someone I'm not suspicious of? And why wouldn't LC vote for someone he was suspicious of?

I didn't interpret Zomba's post as giving up. I interpreted it as "Great, now I'm screwed". And that's a reaction that I can see a player having with any role - civ, bad, whatever. Someone coming at you on Day 1 acting like they know something sucks no matter what your role is. And if we are to believe SVS's reading of the will, blindfaeth knew nothing about Zombarella's role.

Agree with your interpretation of Zomb. As I said earlier, if she was bad I think her team would've helped work out something for her to say that looked better than what she did. I think SVS is right in her reading, looking back over BF it makes sense. He himself said he became more convinced because of his opposition - suggesting that he knew it wasn't concrete to begin with.

LizKeen wrote:Mr. Fung, do you know if the ivory, jade and amber would be dangerous if they were in the hands of the wrong team?

What do you mean by the 'wrong' team? There's only one team that wants them and they seem fairly unthreatening.

LizKeen wrote:Is there usually this much requoting in Syndicate games? I'm really wondering if it's a mafia tactic just to be a massive distraction. If so then you're doing well.

Is this a serious comment? People quote each other for easy reference to things they've said...

LizKeen wrote:I'm going back and re-reading (a task I dread) everyone bf was suspicious of so he won't have died in vain. The mafia would have most definitely wanted him so and I'd say there's at least one if not more of you in those 8 votes. Black Rock is off the hook obviously and I'm giving Zomb the benefit of the doubt now so that at least narrows it down to 6 for me.

Will be interested in what you see here.

Canucklehead wrote:Is anyone feeling leery about Dom? He's got that BUTTY/snappy quality to his posts this game that reminds me of Film Directors. He was a bad baddie then, and It pinged me in that game, too, but he assured me (and I gullibly beleived him) that it was b/c of real life busyness and mafia exhaustion.....
But now that I'm seeing it again, I'm feeling cautious about it. I seem to remember Dom being one of the funnier/jokier players of the old crew....so maybe I just don't know how to rea new Dom? I dunno, but is like to hear others' thoughts before I dig too hard into Dom as a suspect.

Hasn't seemed too unusual to me, I do agree he's a bit snappy but I think perhaps nerves were touched on day one with the info debate. Interesting if Golden really is silenced, as someone (Liz?) pointed out. Done to frame Dom? Or because of something else entirely?

I think the TH/LC/MM debate is interesting and worth keeping an eye on.

Long Con wrote:I think it would be cool for Ichabod to steal the Will from S~V~S to see if she was telling the truth about the way it reads. If she is, then BF was making some strange assumptions about the wealth of Zombarella. If she's not, then she's Zomba's teammate, who made sure she got the Will by voting first, in order to assuage the public opinion on her teammate.

If Ichabod steals the Will, then a team of five people will be able to better judge S~V~S' position here.

I think he probably wouldn't - his team need to get specific items to win. Doubt they care about the rest of us and our debate over the will.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DFaraday wrote:Epi is certainly taking an interesting approach to defending himself. I was thinking of voting MM, but Epi's behavior is giving me pause.

Linki MP: I didn't read into it. I thought Mongoose was joking and Liz seemed to think she meant it.

For the record, Epig's reactions are a result of the item I hold (a bottle), not necessarily true.

Interesting...

I see you explained this later on. Why Epig though? Was that the only curse you could grant? The fact you can admit it makes me wonder if you can explain the thinking behind it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:I didn't expect to find all these votes for Metalmarsh this morning. I was worried I would have to find someone else to vote for even though I was most suspicious of him, but I think enough people have voted for MM that it's safe for me to vote him. I think he's bad this game.

But here's the problem here, I am not bad.

Anyway, I've changed my mind. I've decided that I will still attempt to prove to the rest of you that TH is bad. I hope at least one person will read it.

I haven't voted yet and am capable of reading things people write. I must warn you that I may vote for you anyway though.

Canucklehead wrote:I don't think MM is bad. I don't think SVS is bad, either, but I am not great at reading her.

I'm uncertain about TH. I think the way he has glommed onto the LC/MM theory as if it were infalliable is not a good sign, but I'm unsure if he's just a civ who's fixated on an idea and the baddies are hopping onto his train, or if he's a baddie leading the train. :hmm:

I think I said already that I've found the debate between that group interesting. I think at least one person among the TH/LC/MM/Epi group is probably bad.


Hours of linki I've already read...

S~V~S wrote:I would imagine the Celestials are playing for the civs , though, Bullz. They can't win with the baddies unless one or more of them are dead. The civvies would be a better deal for them.

And that's cool, BR. Based on their posts and votes would you feel the same? Can you at least see why someone without your unique perspective might think one or both of them could be bad?

Tbh, I had read them as pretty much an extension of the civs and was prepared to take my usual pro-neutral stance against anyone who suggested going after them. Still, if I were one, I'd be looking for the Treasures as my first priority and not worrying about whether you or BF gave the more accurate description of the will.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Anyway, Turnip Head.

I am convinced that he is on a team with Epignosis, and perhaps Dom as well.

Let's begin with the Day 1 reactions, especially those regarding blindfaeth. Everyone surely remembers when blindfaeth came forward early, saying that he has an item that could help him learn who the millionaire is.

He did? News to me! He must have kept pretty quiet about that one.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
This question just seems out of the blue. Why does TH care about Dom's item, but not about anyone else's item? This smells of distancing, and a calculated form of distancing at that. blindfaeth had just accused TH about worrying about the safety of the millionaire, so TH immediately changes the subject. If he is a baddie, then what better way then to call upon a teammate. TH never followed up on the question

I think this is a bit of a stretch.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Epignosis and TH immediately respond with a "Well that's interesting". But curiously, neither of them ever followed up on it, just left it at that. I believe that this was a set-up for themselves. If the lynch were to sway Zomba's direction, they are in perfect position to pile their votes on. But the lynch didn't sway that direction, so they were in a position to back right off of that suspicion. This is one of many examples of TH and Epignosis being on the same page, and I will address that in a bit.

Okay this is actually reasonable and worth remembering.

I was reading through your entire post (I'll take those smash coins now please) and there were a few things I would've commented on but they would all have been basically the same comment. I think some of your points are okay, but others come off like a bit of a stretch - as if you decided to suspect TH then went to look for reasons why.

At this point a vote for anyone other than MM is essentially pointless. I have already mentioned that he is in a category of people I think holds at least one baddie, so I shall *vote MM* and see what happens. How he flips may influence my opinion of quite a few players.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:At this point a vote for anyone other than MM is essentially pointless. I have already mentioned that he is in a category of people I think holds at least one baddie, so I shall *vote MM* and see what happens. How he flips may influence my opinion of quite a few players.

How does one hold a baddie?

However they want you to. Though I think SVS' post right after this answers the question appropriately. Hug them and maybe they will see the error of their ways.


It is the category that holds baddies. Or "includes", if you prefer.

Dom wrote:Bass-- do you have any idea why MP made contradictory statements and didn't answer my questions? Any explanation would be nice.

Why would he have an explanation?

I voted for Clark Street pretty much randomly.

Epignosis wrote:I'm afraid Golden scooped me on some things I wanted to say. Benefit of the waking hour, I suppose. If any of this is redundant, oh well.

LizKeen wrote:Is there usually this much requoting in Syndicate games? I'm really wondering if it's a mafia tactic just to be a massive distraction. If so then you're doing well.

The Legend of Zelda was an active game: With all the quoting and "requoting" present in it, I don't understand how LizKeen could consider this a Mafia tactic "in Syndicate games." This is a self-defeating thing to say: If there usually is this much requoting in Syndicate games (and a cursory glance at past games, including the one LizKeen was actually in, shows this to be the case), then how can anyone label it a mafia tactic? How many Mafia are there in this game? Surely there are more than five people making extensive use of the quote feature.

I brought up this post aaaages ago and got no response, so hopefully she replies to you. I'd still like to know why she asked that question...

I have a ridiculous amount of stuff going on right now and people are dragging me into drama I don't want to be involved in, so mafia and fun in general apparently has to take a backseat for a bit. Hopefully I'll be around later or tomorrow but oh my god some people. Sheesh.

I'm back, gonna catch up. I'm going to Wales this weekend but after that it's the Easter break so I've got a month off and should be more active from then on!

S~V~S wrote: She said a lot of things I think more experienced players would have told her not to say. The No U start, and the low poster finish are things a bad team would have told her was a mistake. I think this is her first non-BTS game.

I've been thinking along these lines ever since the "BF ruined my role!" post. I think a baddie team would be better at helping a new-ish player react to a potential info reveal.

fingersplints wrote:I could be down with a vomps vote too. I don't think MM had any information that TH was bad, and I don't know why Vomps would say it seemed like he did. plus he is admitting to not bothering to read. I don't agree with zombas low posting = not reading (like say in the case of bwt) but this one is clear
Problem is with that vote we may get a baddie but chances are he is probably just a dangerous uninterested civvie

Didn't he just say that he thought MM made a good case? I didn't think he was saying MM had info. He said "hard evidence" but that could just mean evidence from the thread. I don't think TH is bad, so I don't agree with his vote, but Vomp doesn't seem any different to usual. I don't understand why there's suddenly a thing about him.

juliets wrote:Who are you thinking about voting Bullz?

Haven't decided yet. I'm currently in the library trying to juggle three things at once. Might revisit the group I said probably holds at least one baddie in a bit.

Bumped into an old mate and lost track of time!! I don't think Zomb or Vomp are bad. I don't know where that leaves me though.

So I said the other day I think at least one of the group that included MM/TH/LC/Epi was bad. Given TH's silence, I'm less inclined to vote him. So basically I guess I think one of LC or Epi is bad and with 10 minutes to vote I've not got the time to read them both properly. In the debate between the two, I feel like LC is coming off better. So I'm gonna put my completely inconsequential vote on Epig, and give both a proper read through tomorrow.

Well. Save attempt, anyone?

S~V~S wrote:Also, how is Zomba being bad mean that Vomps might not also be bad?

14 people voted for one or the other. I would be very surprised to find out that Vomp was also bad. I'm still not even sure how he got 7 votes.

fingersplints wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Home now. Knackered! Gonna catch up here and have a chilled out night of pizza and WrestleMania 31. Uni work will keep til tomorrow - speaking of which, it's the Easter break so for the next three weeks I can hopefully be more active.

If you haven't already don't forget to change your time settings.
yay for being still light out

Haha it was just about still light when I started my catch-up! :P Thanks for the reminder!

I think you have raised some really good points regarding Sophie. I think I may put a vote there this evening, definitely wouldn't feel comfortable voting DP just because he allegedly has an item when there are many non-baddie ways he could've got it.