The Syndicate

I am here, I promise!

MM is just mad that I got him lynched Day 1 in Wedding Mafia with no evidence.

I believe in starting at the beginning, so I choose position 1.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One day when I have nothing else to do I am going to do a lengthy study on adverb usage in mafia and prove once and for all that it's always meaningless.

I think if you divide your research by quantity and quality you will find that one is meaningless, and the other is not.

I caught a baddie with the adverb theory in Watchmen. Just sayin'.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One day when I have nothing else to do I am going to do a lengthy study on adverb usage in mafia and prove once and for all that it's always meaningless.

I think if you divide your research by quantity and quality you will find that one is meaningless, and the other is not.

I caught a baddie with the adverb theory in Watchmen. Just sayin'.

Disagree, Sloonei was caught for other reasons as well, and he generally uses adverbs in his speech, but if you want to claim that's why you found him as a single reason, go for it.

Well, to be more precise, I caught him because he massively overreacted to me accusing him of using adverbs. But the theory is still ultimately responsible.

Now I kind of want to see the Hunger in action. Sounds fun.

S~V~S wrote:That was a serious question; I have problems telling sometimes, which is why i am such a fan of the sarcasm font.

The sarcasm font is a color, not a font. We need a pedantic font.

TinyBubbles wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:POST. hi everyone

POST. I see you voted. Any reason you chose the one you did?

not really, it's just the first number so why not start at the beginning
since we are going to cycle through all 5 positions anyway
and I like the number 1 :P

That was my reasoning, copycat. Are you bad?

DharmaHelper wrote:Llama associates copycats with being bad. Llama is a copycat. Llama is bad.

Where did I say I associated copycats with being bad?

TinyBubbles wrote: yes, i'm evil. badder than you could ever suspect! better lynch me now, doo eet.
actually i thought the position 1 also had many protector - ish options, compared to some of the other positions.

Okay, I'm voting for you on Day 1 then.

TB: If you thought position 1 was better for those reasons, why didn't you intially say so? Did you make up those reasons in hindsight after being challenged?

SVS: so only site admins can make up meanings for colors? How elitist. :P

reywaS wrote:Is it though?

Depends on the goal. If the goal is to get to the end, it's probably better to start at the end.

G-Man wrote:Only five pages? I'm disappointed in you guys. I expected this thread to be up to seven pages at least. I expect the page count to be at least 15 by the time I check in over breakfast tomorrow.

Now to check out those role/position breakdowns...

What, no insane posting gimmick that makes it impossible to understand you? You must be bad...

reywaS wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

reywaS wrote:Is it though?

Depends on the goal. If the goal is to get to the end, it's probably better to start at the end.

not necessarily. Starting as close to the end as possible would be the easiest way to go I think.

I like the way you think, Sawyer-man.

Day 0 and this is already a really fun game. I'm excited to see how all these interesting role powers work. Especially mine.

I also can't wait to kill TinyBubbles. Day 1, please!

S~V~S wrote:MM that yellow is impossible to see in light color scheme, especially on phone. Could you please eliminate it from the repertoire?

Thanks

As a fellow user of the light color scheme, I also object to impossible to read colors.

And I want to lynch TinyBubbles.

Black Rock wrote:Hello my busy bees, has everyone checked in yet?

Yes. Start day 1.

I don't know what anyone is talking about. I require a lynch poll.

I haven't really thought about which team I want to be recruited onto, but the Sorcerers don't get along with anybody and love chaos, so that sounds about right.

Black Rock wrote:You guys are going to scare my new recruits

Good! They should be scared.

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I haven't really thought about which team I want to be recruited onto, but the Sorcerers don't get along with anybody and love chaos, so that sounds about right.

So in other words, you want to be recruited by mafia.

aaaaayyy

But now that I've said that, they will be unlikely to recruit me. :wifom:

DharmaHelper wrote:Tim Drake was the third Robin

Eartha Kitt was the third Catwoman.

Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?

Can we talk about whether we should lynch you?

What about - if the person who you vote for is lynched, should the lynch pardon be used?

If you like.

I think the latter question depends on who is ultimately the lynchee.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?

How about if we should lynch you for already deciding who you're voting for with little explanation?

Also, I completely forgot who you said you're voting for so yeah there's that...

Would you like an explanation? I would be happy to provide one.

linki Golden: I don't think the lynch save should be used on the person I will be voting for, because I think that person is bad.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?

How about if we should lynch you for already deciding who you're voting for with little explanation?

Also, I completely forgot who you said you're voting for so yeah there's that...

Would you like an explanation? I would be happy to provide one.

linki Golden: I don't think the lynch save should be used on the person I will be voting for, because I think that person is bad.

Well Golden's post reminded me it was Bubbles. So yeah, either an explanation or a link back to your reason why would suffice for now.

I asked Bubbles if she was bad, and she said she was. Why would she lie about that?

Here is the relevant post.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Here is the relevant post.

So you think she's bad because she said she's bad? That seems reaching to me.

You've gotten awfully cynical. I prefer to take people at their word.

I'm half joking, but only half. Some players, newer players especially, are uncomfortable flat out lying to direct questions, and so they dodge them or make a joke instead. It sounds stupid, but sometimes it works.

S~V~S wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:POST. hi everyone

POST. Hi Tinybubbles. Did you finally get a mafia role this time around?

hi MM i'm afraid not. i think i'm going for a mafia record here lol

She also said this ^^

So you are preferring to take her at her word for one post but not another?

That just proves that one of those two posts is a lie. Do you really trust a liar not to be bad?

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Okay, then you weren't being serious at all about voting for her so soon?

I never intended to vote early in the day. That is foolish when so much is yet to emerge. But I was serious about her being my top suspect at the moment.

S~V~S wrote:Ah geez, nothing like coming into the thread in the morning and finding every other post begins with a quote from me. I realize I'm not the focus but still, not something I want to see

You don't like being the center of attention? Could it be that you have something to hide?

S~V~S wrote: Still looking for grasping straws, I see. Give up on Tiny Bubbles?

Nope. Just probing leads as they appear.

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

I've explained this a bunch of times. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept. How people answer that question matters. No, I obviously don't think people are just going to admit to being bad, but answering with sarcasm or a joke, or changing the subject indicate a level of uneasiness with the question. It is the mark of dishonesty. Is it foolproof? Of course not. But it is telling, and shouldn't be ignored.

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

I've explained this a bunch of times. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept. How people answer that question matters. No, I obviously don't think people are just going to admit to being bad, but answering with sarcasm or a joke, or changing the subject indicate a level of uneasiness with the question. It is the mark of dishonesty. Is it foolproof? Of course not. But it is telling, and shouldn't be ignored.

Some people have different opinions. I don't know why that's such a difficult concept.

I don't mind that they have different opinions. I just don't want them to keep misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) my reasoning.

TinyBubbles wrote:oh come on, i was only kidding about being bad, i thought it was obvious. if thats a reason to lynch me then this game makes no sense at all!

See, this is what I mean. Of course you were kidding. You're right, it was obvious. My point is, why would you make that joke instead of just answering the question honestly? Maybe there's no reason, but maybe there is, and that is what I'm investigating.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

You know I will! I haven't voted DP on Day 1 in a long time, even though it used to be a time honored tradition with me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

Bea's post is astute. Leaving wiggle room is a baddie hallmark.

Ricochet wrote: My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

This is a misrepresentation of my record. I called you bad in the first two games we played together, if I recall, because I thought you were bad in those games. I haven't really gone after you since, but you're holding on to a grudge from your first game here. That's not good strategy.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

This is a misrepresentation of my record. I called you bad in the first two games we played together, if I recall, because I thought you were bad in those games. I haven't really gone after you since, but you're holding on to a grudge from your first game here. That's not good strategy.

Also, what do you mean "Baddie aligned"? The only baddie aligned people in this game so far are the two baddie recruiters, so you are in fact accusing me of being a recruiter.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Irrational does not equate to suspicious.

Civilians act irrationally all the time. I find his statements mostly irrational, but they're typical Llama that I've seen for years now. He's trying his best to start discussion on Day 1, and I think he firmly believes he has a better chance at catching someone using his line of thinking (that someone who is lying is uncomfortable with a direct yes/no question) than he does at randomizing or any other method or current lead, so I believe he is being sincere. I have no reason to believe he is anything right now other than just plain old Llama.

Wrong. All actions are by definition rational, in the sense that they are designed to move the actor from a place of lesser satisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, based on the subjective preferences of the actor. Whether or not they succeed is not relevant.

Ludwig von Mises wrote: The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.

Now, regarding low posters: My feeling is that they are less likely to be recruited, and therefore more likely to remain unaligned. Not ideal choices for lynches, especially later in the game. On Day 1, however, they are just as likely to be a recruiter as anyone else, so if we're going to go after them, we should do it sooner rather than later.

MovingPictures07 wrote: I wouldn't disagree.

However, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) Do you feel BWT's post is typical behavior for him regardless of alignment?
2) Do you think that a recruiter would have incentive to make the post that BWT made?

1) BWT is always somewhat of a fence-sitter, so it pings me less than it would coming from another player. Still worth watching though.
2) Maybe.A recruiter is apt to be nervous early on and afraid of being discovered. Unlike in traditional mafia, he doesn't yet have a team to bail him out if he gets into trouble. I would expect this to result in more unforced errors than normal.

I stand corrected on the recruits, by the way. I need to read the host posts more carefully.

I feel that this thread is not the right place to discuss personal grudges, and I will not be engaging further with the conversation. We have a MoD for a reason.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Just an FYI, for anyone who cares: I'll likely be gone for most of the rest of Day 1, and may miss EoD since I'll be out. I'll definitely continue to contribute as much as I can though, but it'll likely be in a somewhat restricted block of two, three times max before the Day ends. May have to vote somewhat early tomorrow.

Really need to get more stuff done now, so I'll be back likely sometime this evening, then again tomorrow morning/afternoon Central.

At least there are 35 other player so your absence will be less crucial.

I'm getting on a plane to South Carolina this afternoon as well, and ill not return until Tuesday. I will try to keep up and vote, but don't expect much from me in the way of participation until I get back.

Black Rock wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I stand corrected on the recruits, by the way. I need to read the host posts more carefully.

I promise you all host posts are worth a read... even this one

I'm sorry, what?

unfurl wrote: A lot times, most of the time, people don’t get my sense of humour, and could get me in trouble and I fine with it, I play the way I choose too

Gee, I wonder what that's like.

I'm digging your energy, JJJ. You will not get my vote today.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Do you suppose liars who are bad prefer to do their lying in such a way that it begs for anyone paying attention to see an obvious discrepancy and hurl an accusation?

It's possible, if they are nervous or not paying close attention themselves. Like I said to MP, I expect more unforced errors early this game due to a lack of team support. My case against TinyBubbles has more to do with her unconscious anxiety rather than her deliberate intentions.

I would probably pick people who I view as solid and dependable, not likely to flake out on me, but also not the people who attract the most thread attention.

Looking at MP's list again, I could see someone recruiting Spacedaisy early. She is rarely lynched, reliable, well-liked, and flies under the radar. An ideal first recruit.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Looking at MP's list again, I could see someone recruiting Spacedaisy early. She is rarely lynched, reliable, well-liked, and flies under the radar. An ideal first recruit.

True. Not a bad idea to put on the backburner.

Do you think MP would try to recruit Spacedaisy?

I don't know, it's a bit on the nose. I kind of doubt she would be his first choice.