The Syndicate

sig wrote:First!

To be lynched?

sig wrote:It wouldn't be a new record so no thank you, if you can lynch my day 0 then go ahead otherwise I'd prefer not to get lynched until mid game.

@hosts - can we lynch sig day zero?

Looks like you are in the clear sig.

I know I say this and then people still sus me anyway but...

I'm GOING to be quieter this game.

I have a plan for the very few games I can sign up for in the coming months. Arkham was not on that plan. I just started a new role at work, and have heaps of other stuff going on in real life, so I need to be very careful with my time.

S~V~S wrote:Eighth

SVS and I have an 8 bond.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Eighth

God I have missed playing mafia with you and everyone else. Also on that note I know the games that I signed up for in the past I didn't participate or subbed out its because I got into a serious relationship and couldn't figure out how to balance the two. Me and my lady friend have moved into together so it should make balancing the two a lot easier. So my hat goes off to anyone who has a significant other and plays mafia because it's extremely hard if your significant other is like mine and doesn't like cell phones or laptops out while we are hanging out. Lol

It really is. The key is negotiation. Good luck bass! And congrats, I'm happy for you!

@Hosts - what happens if both crime families try to buy off the same cop?

Bass's idea sounds sensible enough, but I'd also point out that everyone from the Asylum appears to be independent. So, it might not help us find the crime families (who seem more analagous to mafia).

But a lot of those independents don't seem exactly friendly.

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:@Hosts - what happens if both crime families try to buy off the same cop?

Bass's idea sounds sensible enough, but I'd also point out that everyone from the Asylum appears to be independent. So, it might not help us find the crime families (who seem more analagous to mafia).

But a lot of those independents don't seem exactly friendly.

Independents whom most civvies need dead to win

They do? It doesn't look to me like ANY civilians need the independents dead, to me. Whereas the town definitely needs the crime families dead.

This is literally the first think I noticed when I got my role card, so right back at you.

Enrique wrote:10 / 13 civvies have an independent assigned to them that they have to kill. So uhh yeah I would expect you to notice that from your role card.

Yeah, but that is different from needing 'the independents' dead. We all need the crime families dead whereas, for instance, only one of us needs any given independent dead. Out of 16, including Wayne Manor.

But it looks pretty decently in Wayne Manor's interests to take them out.

@sig - I'd be up for Fish Mooney's, that sounds like a good idea.

On the other hand, the idea of heading to Arkham right after the breakout still might be a good one despite the fact they aren't the mafia.

Enrique wrote:@Hosts I take it the game ends when two out of the three main competing factions (GCPD + the mafias) are dead? Or do all independent-related conflicts need to be resolved as well? (Joker vs Batman, Gordon, Falcone and Maroni for example)

linki:

@Golden: Every independent is assigned to a civvie. It makes sense that if we want the civives to win, we'd go after them. And yes, Wayne Manor should probably be counted as civvies as well, so that's 13/16 civs with an indie hunt in their best interests.
(linki2: Okay, so now it's a better option)

@sig:

I'd think the hospital could help players if they get poisoned or something like that.

I doubt anybody's starting the game poisoned, so maybe leave that for later.

No, I don't think it means 'an indy hunt' is the best approach. If there are 9 indies someone doesn't need dead, the chances of them finding their one by hunting indies seems very slim. The town needs 6 out of 6 baddies dead and most of them need 1 out of 10 independents dead. That's a very different strike rate.

Enrique wrote:Okay, Golden. I'm glad you're coming out as bad so early in the game.

No u.

The civilians win if the baddies are dead. That's what matters to me. If Cop 1# was to be recruited tonight, for example, there is absolutely no need for Cop #1's independent counterpart to be lynched by the town. If cop #4 dies, there is no need to lynch cop #4s independent counterpart. We would create huge inefficiency by trying to take out EVERY independent. Each person who needs to take out one should focus on figuring out who they are and getting rid of them.

I'm absolutely sure some independents will go along the way, and there are probably good reasons to actively hunt them for certain reasons, but the baddies should be our primary focus, not the independents.

And if your approach to my basic and fairly straightforward logic of 6 out of 6 as opposed to 1 out of 10' is simply to call me bad without addressing the point, then I'm not sure why I should feel good about you. I think trying to focus the thread very squarely on independent hunting is exactly what the baddies would want to do.

DrWilgy wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Eighth

God I have missed playing mafia with you and everyone else. Also on that note I know the games that I signed up for in the past I didn't participate or subbed out its because I got into a serious relationship and couldn't figure out how to balance the two. Me and my lady friend have moved into together so it should make balancing the two a lot easier. So my hat goes off to anyone who has a significant other and plays mafia because it's extremely hard if your significant other is like mine and doesn't like cell phones or laptops out while we are hanging out. Lol

Well Golden! That's a nice big glass of WIFOM, mind if I have a sip? Why did you wait until we were in game to let us know about this? You could've mentioned it in the pre game lobby... Er... Maybe you did. Didn't really check but I'm assuming you didn't based upon your posts. Also... Are we hinting at rolls already Golden? *sings* ~Epi's gonna kill you!~

I'd like to go GCPD.

I've been mentioning it in every game for about the last three months, but it bears repetition.

And I haven't hinted at a role, but I've certainly hinted that I'm town.

Enrique wrote:To be clear, I am not arguing against prioritizing scum-hunt over indie-hunt (I currently have no intention of voting AA). But we are going to have to do both. The bigger picture here is that with no indies dead, only three civvies win. They matter a lot. I also really want to get an answer from the host re: when the game ends, because that would suck ass if we killed the two mafia families before anybody else and no one won as a result lol.

linki:

I think trying to focus the thread very squarely on independent hunting is exactly what the baddies would want to do.

Totally called this misrepresentation. I love how bad you are already. I'm reading your role card post added to your reluctance to go after independents as a huuge early slip. Even if you were one of the three other GCPD roles, surely you'd understand that the rest of the team can't win as easily.

What possible baddie motivation is there to be reluctant to go after independents? Please - make a rational case out of that for me.

The rest of the team CAN win as easily, and I've explained this to you over and over. How many people will usually be alive at game end, about 6 on average? I think the chances of a civilian cop being alive at the end when the cops win, and his independent counterpart also being alive to be slim. Heck, if I did or have rolled a cop I would be saying exactly what I'm saying now. It would be my job to find the one person I need to kill, and lynching my way through ten independents to get there would just be selfish. Killing a baddie is in the interests of everyone. Killing an independent is in the interests of one person. It's really straightforward.

You are fighting and pushing to chase independents. Why?
You ignore my logical points. Why?
You think that as a baddie I'm going to come out swinging against going after independents? WHY? Like I just pointed out, the baddies couldn't be happier if everyone goes chasing independents.
You ignore the others who have taken my points and agree with me. Why?

Is it because I nailed you in Star Wars, and you feel threatened?

C'mon, rationalise where you think my headspace is at for any of that to be true, Enrique. Convince me that your stuff about me is in any way genuine. Because right now all I see is someone making bad arguments to try and pin a motive on me that makes no sense, and I don't know why that would be your response instead of just actually recognising I have a point. You seem completely locked into your idea, and unwilling to budge from it, and its like you are trying to push a logical point of your own to make it seem genuine but your logical point just makes no sense. Each one of those cops, if they eliminate the baddies, can win with NINE of the independents alive.

By the way, I still think I'll probably vote Arkham. The leads are hot now. But I'm telling you that I will be pushing in this game VERY hard to stay focussed on the BADDIES. The independents are no loss, but they are exactly who the baddies want us to lynch while they clean us up.

And yeah, because doubling down on flawed ideas and not listening to reason is often a baddie tell.

linki @ Matt - why am I being strange? I seem to always get called strange these days.

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:@sig - I'd be up for Fish Mooney's, that sounds like a good idea.

On the other hand, the idea of heading to Arkham right after the breakout still might be a good one despite the fact they aren't the mafia.

Why is this a good idea, Golden? If they are independents and not baddies, why do you agree with the majority here in that we should pursue them? Or am I misinterpreting you? I'm actually asking, why do you think this is a good idea?

If there are actually useful hints there, they won't be there for long.

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:@Hosts - what happens if both crime families try to buy off the same cop?

Bass's idea sounds sensible enough, but I'd also point out that everyone from the Asylum appears to be independent. So, it might not help us find the crime families (who seem more analagous to mafia).

But a lot of those independents don't seem exactly friendly.

Independents whom most civvies need dead to win

They do? It doesn't look to me like ANY civilians need the independents dead, to me. Whereas the town definitely needs the crime families dead.

This is literally the first think I noticed when I got my role card, so right back at you.

This post, juliets. It can be interpreted as "we don't need ALL independents [correction: baddies] dead," but look at that last bit. This is literally the first thing I noticed when I got my role card. That's not how it works. All but three civvie roles NEED to kill indies to even win the game. No matter if they can win with the other nine, the fact is that civvies can't win without indie hunting, and he even proposes just hunting the baddies and leaving the rest to luck. What kind of role card even suggests that? Well, there are three civvie options. And fifteen baddie ones.

This is so incredibly misleading and twiwtsy.

Enrique, this is the last time I'll say this. There are literally NO civilian roles for whom independent chasing is the best move. Except the dirty cops who get recruited.

The civilian cops need 6 out of 6 baddies dead and 1 out of 10 independents dead. The other three need 6 out of 6 baddies dead and 0 out of 10 independents dead.

On the other hand, the independents don't have any stake in killing the baddies (Except one or two discrete instances like the joker) so how do you get 'there are fifteen baddie roles that need to baddie hunt'.... That makes no sense at all. Plus, you still fail to address my point that going after independents is exactly what the baddies WOULD be doing.

And you say '15 baddie ones' which just goes to prove that you are still painting the independents as mafia when they are not.

I'll tell you how many role cards suggest chasing the baddies before the indys.

13 civilian ones.
And NOONE else.
Thats it.

Turnip Head wrote:Preliminary reports indicate that Golden is GCPD or independent. Civ Golden loves to argue like it's his day job or something.

If this is anything like X-men (I didn't play Star Wars so I forget how it worked) this poll is simply deciding the order of the locations we visit. There's no grid so I doubt it's a full fledged map like World Reborn.

It is my day job you...

Oh.

Enrique wrote:I don't buy it, Golden. You're acting like I'm trying to sideline the Mafia when that is simply not true.

Lets see how this started, Enrique...

Golden wrote:@Hosts - what happens if both crime families try to buy off the same cop?

Bass's idea sounds sensible enough, but I'd also point out that everyone from the Asylum appears to be independent. So, it might not help us find the crime families (who seem more analagous to mafia).

But a lot of those independents don't seem exactly friendly.

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:@Hosts - what happens if both crime families try to buy off the same cop?

Bass's idea sounds sensible enough, but I'd also point out that everyone from the Asylum appears to be independent. So, it might not help us find the crime families (who seem more analagous to mafia).

But a lot of those independents don't seem exactly friendly.

Independents whom most civvies need dead to win

You immediately shut down and sussed me for both 1) saying Arkham seemed like a sensible idea but 2) pointing out ACCURATELY that the town don't need the independents dead.

So, it isn't true that you are trying to 'sideline the mafia'? Then why is your reaction to my suggestion that we merely think about other options immediately suspicious? This whole thing is about you rejecting the possibility outright that ANYWHERE other than Arkham should be considered and that the fact I would even consider them is suspicious.

Oh, and answer this Enrique? How many of the civilians can win with the joker alive? Is your answer 12?
How many can win with the penguin alive. Answer still 12?
How many can win with Ra's alive. 12 again?

Funny, then, that your response is 'independents whom most civvies need dead to win' because this is outright not true. Most civvies do not need any independent dead to win. 12 out of 13, Enrique.

@TH, yes it does - I see Wayne Manor more as an independent faction, since they don't actually need the mafia dead to win, specifically. Crime families are mafia, GCPD is town. The rest are all independent. That's how I see it.

S~V~S wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:@Hosts - what happens if both crime families try to buy off the same cop?

Bass's idea sounds sensible enough, but I'd also point out that everyone from the Asylum appears to be independent. So, it might not help us find the crime families (who seem more analagous to mafia).

But a lot of those independents don't seem exactly friendly.

Independents whom most civvies need dead to win

They do? It doesn't look to me like ANY civilians need the independents dead, to me. Whereas the town definitely needs the crime families dead.

This is literally the first think I noticed when I got my role card, so right back at you.

I really don't think he's a cop based on this post. Not to mention, he could hope to get bought off, but in the end the mafia picks a number, not a player, so he can't exactly angle himself for that.

Although

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Eighth

SVS and I have an 8 bond.

There's a number.

It's a LOST number

It's also both SVS and my favourite number.

But I doubt epi took that into account. I know in at least 50% of cases he didn't. I've made no hinting that would help a recruiter and if I was one of the cops, I wouldn't do so. TH knows me well enough to know its a dangerous game to recruit me... because I told him as much in World Reborn.

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:Enrique, how desperate are you to get Golden out of this game and why?

Although I am generally the person who jumps all over Goldens shit at the start, Enriques single mindedness is kinda freaking me a bit here. He has some good points, but so does Golden (some of the Indys will be attritioned out via NKs, or lynches, etc.). I mean we need to keep them in mind, especially if they individually impact our individual win condition, but getting the baddies is paramount, IMO.

Actually, having just hosted the Champs game, I think our goal should be to NOT lynch the other civs, then lynch baddies>lynch Indies.

Yeah, SVS, thanks for saying in one paragraph my exact point that it takes me 1500 posts to make.

What bothers me about Enrique is not so much that he wants to get indys, but that the start of this chain was about him sussing me for pointing out that the mafia are not the escapees. I don't think we should ignore the Arkham independents (because some of them look dangerous), but the crime families are clearly the mafia.

Enrique wrote:There's all the proof I need that you're not reading my posts, Golden, but I'll gladly go over every single one of those points again. Just let me find a comfy spot in the library from where I can type this.

What about them do you think I haven't read. Is it the bit where you are still trying to push that the Arkham escapees are 'baddies'?

I don't think you've even thought through my rolecard comment at all, and I think it's because you didn't have to have the same epiphany I did. You are trying to push it as being bad, but if you were in any way trying to think of it from my perspective, instead of just push it as a slip without thought, I think you'd have a very different view.

@enrique - what method?

What, you think the first 6 people dead in this game will be the inmates? What are the chances of that happening?

You think that if we found inmates early, it wouldn't be the right thing to do to step back and hunt indys then? I'd agree with that.

No, what you've done is sus me for pointing out that the Arkham escapees are not the mafia...

And then double down on it.

I have tried seeing it from your perspective. From your perspective, there were no good reasons to suspect me so early at all. I didn't make any 'slips' because I'm not bad. I just did what I always do... analyse all sides... and for that you find me suspicious. If you were trying to see this from a civilian perspective, I don't believe you would have suspected me. You just would have seen that I had a point.

Can I see your perspective on 'the town needs the independents dead to win'. Yes. But I responded to it... What about the two independents who relate to a dirty cop? What if cop #5 is lynched on day one... do we then need independent 5 dead? No. If we hunt independents instead of the mafia from the start, we create inefficiency, very likely taking out independents that the town ultimately doesn't need to take out.

We only need those independents dead of those cops who are alive and civilian at end game. We need every mafia dead no matter what. In an average game, how many people would you say are alive at end game? Imagine it's 6 people out of 31... so if its a civ win lets estimate thats about 2 cops and 2 inmates, right? What is the probability that one of the cops won't win? About 20%. What are the chances same cop loses if a mafia is still alive at the end? 100%... because they can't win if there are mafia alive.

Enrique wrote:Well I kinda butchered those quotes, but at the same time they're legible. I'm being completely transparent. That's what I think, and you're just refusing to understand it.

I've understood your perspective fine all along. Except the bit where it's logical to see me as bad... and that I cannot rationalise. And it's THAT that I think makes YOU look bad... not the fact that you want to chase independents, which is logical enough (although also just as in the interests of the baddies). It's why you would think I'm bad because I point out that mafia are the bigger threat? That makes no sense to me.

linki @ enri - well, I think everyone should try and earn it... but lets say you were a cop, how do you find the right inmate?

Enrique wrote:@linki: not by sitting back and ending the game prematurely!!!

I was beginning to feel better about you, but this doesnt help. If you are being transparent about your perspective, I really want to understand this.

For instance, what if you are a cop, and your independent is NKed night one, and you don't know about it? How do you earn it from there?

For me, earning this win is about catching the baddies. Catching the baddies isn't 'ending the game prematurely'.

But I will say... as alluded to at the start of this post. I am feeling a bit better about you. But I don't like these offhanded responses. Transparency needs detail about your thought processes. Why do you think pursuing 'independents' will help you find yours, if you were a cop?

Enrique wrote:Okay, I guess I get it. Dom's idea basically was that I wasn't being genuine about Golden role-hinting. Well, it's not something I even believed. I thought my post was clear in presenting it as an alternative to what I actually do believe. If Golden was a cop I wouldn't be going after him, no. Does that make sense?

He did present it as an accusation, though. "I'm not buying it" isn't much of a question especially when you frame it around an inside joke thing that I had no way of interpreting correctly. He can say he doesn't buy Golden hinting at a number, but that I'm lying and obviously understood the reference? Yeah no. That's silly and not really an argument.

I think your suspicion of Dom is fair.

I know that SVS has a favourite number of 8. I didn't know it was because of Lost, and I wouldn't have made an association to Lost. I just happen to know it is her favourite number because it is also mine, and don't see why anyone else should know this.

Typhoony wrote:

Golden wrote:Looks like you are in the clear sig.

I know I say this and then people still sus me anyway but...

I'm GOING to be quieter this game.

I have a plan for the very few games I can sign up for in the coming months. Arkham was not on that plan. I just started a new role at work, and have heaps of other stuff going on in real life, so I need to be very careful with my time.

How's that working out for you so far Golden?

it has been ok so far. It's when I vanish for large periods and people start suspecting me because I'm not responding to them instantly that we'll have a problem.

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

a2thezebra wrote:I agree that Enrique's paranoia isn't alignment-indicative, but it's not his paranoia that bothers me.

This exactly. Also, it's not Enrique's stated opinions about game mechanics that bother me.

I can see both sides on Enrique, but his constant assurance that I'm bad and the manner in which he has pursued that is what bothers me.

Enrique wrote:I think I've laid it out before. You call them indies, I call them baddies. They're a little more than non-friends, they're enemies. I don't want the game to end when I can't win, and I'm sure most of the town will agree. I have never opposed scum hunt, that's just silly, but so is opposing the so-called indie hunt. They're all bad.

Who opposed an indy hunt?

Need I remind you that this started with me suggesting we had OPTIONS (to pursue baddies or indys) and that we should remember that the inmates are not the mafia... I also said bass's point on Arkham was good.
And you suspected ME for that.
And you have continued to ask me about why I would vote Arkham, despite the fact I've consistently said it isn't a bad idea from the start.

But you are trying to paint me as the one who is anti-option. When you are the one who sussed me just for pointing out that we had them.

To me it read like you really wanted the initial focus to be on the independents, and then you've had to double down by building a rationale for it. I think the civilian reaction to my initial post would be "Oh yeah, we should keep both options in mind", which was the reaction I got from a number of others.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with Enrique. I don't think any of the cops are going to want the game to end if there win condition isn't met.

Oh good. Then you also agree with me, I assume. Because I don't disagree with that, and it is not where Enrique and I disagree.

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I agree that Enrique's paranoia isn't alignment-indicative, but it's not his paranoia that bothers me.

Elaborate if you don't mind.

It's what he has focused on the most. The things that he has emphasized and advocated throughout the day. It reeks of ulterior motives to me. Now they could be civ-serving ulterior motives but regardless I think he's worth keeping an eye on just in case they are not so civ-serving. I don't have a strong read on anyone yet.

Thats the thing, right? They could be self-serving.

I think there are two possible things Enrique could be.

1) Crime family
2) Cop

I think his perspective has been entirely self-serving, whereas mine has frankly not been but rather been what is in the best interests of a civilian win. The question is, what role does Enrique have that self-serves, and those are pretty much the two that work for him.

Ultimately (after recruitments) that means Enrique should have a 6/14 chance of being crime and an 8/14 chance of being civ.

Dom wrote:

Enrique wrote:Okay, so what was the purpose of that post?

If one read my posts I think they would know.



I think you are posting ad nauseam about Golden because you are trying to sell people the idea that he is bad. I'm not on board with the evidence presented. You claimed that something might've been an attempted role hint, and I said I don't think you genuinely thought it was a role hint. Whether you are subverting the truth because you genuinely think Golden is bad or because you are bad remains to be seen.
Your most curious behavior to me has nothing to do with this, but rather with your response to me. You jumped to the conclusion I was accusing you of something (of which you have yet to clarify). TH later gave you a frame of reference that would make sense, but you declined to take it. Hyper-defensiveness is running through you.

OK, I actually get your perspective now dom, that makes sense.

Matt, I asked you a question which you didn't answer.

Ugh, I stuffed up that response to zebra earlier. I didn't mean to say 'they could be self-serving'. I think they are patently self-serving. I meant to say they could be self-serving civ.

Enrique wrote:*sigh* That's the deal, Golden. We really really don't agree about game mechanics and to me that's a big deal.

First I wanna point out re: me backing down from AA (I refuse to call them independents), this is just really messy. From the start, and I really haven't changed my mind here (if anything I'm more for lynching them first), I've wanted to keep this balanced and lynch who we think is bad. Not who we think is mafia, because it's not the same. I've explained why the inmates to me are bad, several times. They are. I actually don't think I had talked about this distinction before I 'd that one post of yours asking to focus on the Mafia. I still read it the same way as I did then. Oblivious to the town's actual win conditions.

I don't like you painting yourself as some sort of civvie savior who's gonna win the game with his method. Because I disagree with it completely. We need to fulfill our win conditions, which goes way beyond killing the mafia. Your civilian win, if real, isn't the same as nearly any other civilian win.

I AM self serving in the sense that I'm playing to win. I'm also playing for the rest of the town to win, and you've said it yourself, how can we know if our inmates are dead? We don't, but we can always do our best to eliminate them and give the Mafia hunt a purpose. Because, again, we don't win otherwise. I don't benefit from killing all the Mafia if the inmates are still intact by the end of the game.

You bring up your voting for Arkham, and I see it as an inconsistency, not a point in your favor. Yes, you've been there from the beginning, but I still don't really understand why. Aren't the inmates independent? I do see you as being anti indie hunt, simply because I don't understand how you can reconcile those views, and because you have said we should focus on the Mafia, repeatedly.

I don't get the self-serving argument or how you're narrowing down my possible roles already. This is how civvies win. Arkham Asylum is a baddie faction. You not seeing that doesn't make it untrue.

(Hopefully this has been cleared up already @Dom, but just in case, I don't think the number thing was a claim at all. Not a fake claim, not a real claim. Just a post that could be interpreted like that if you were really looking. So yes I see what you were saying, but it all comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of my post.)

OK, but

1) The post you eyed didn't ask people to 'focus' on mafia. It pointed out that we shouldn't solely focus on the inmates. That's a really different thing. It's why to me your sussing read as wanting us not to focus on the mafia at all, which you've subsequently denied but to me thats what it REALLY looks like you were doing at the start. I actually agree with you that the inmates are bad dudes, they just are patently not the mafia. And they aren't a 'baddie faction'. In fact I'd go so far as to say they aren't a faction at all. They all have different win cons. They are, mechanically speaking, absolutely independents. That doesn't make them town-friendly. It just makes them independents.

2) The concept isn't hard to reconcile, it's actually really easy, but I think you are choosing not to. I'll repeat it again.

a) the independents are people we should be mildly looking to lynch, as a second choice to mafia
b) the mafia are people we should be strongly looking to lynch, as our primary choice
c) we could guess where mafia are, eg locations like fish mooney's, to help us get info on them
d) on the other hand, we may only have one chance to get info at Arkham, immediately after the breakout. That info might be gone if we wait. So perhaps we should prioritise the urgent, less important thing over the important, non-urgent thing.

3) I think you are confusing disagreeing with me over game mechanics with my affiliation. You seem to think I'm bad because I disagree with you, but you haven't been able to explain any baddie motive for what I'm saying (beyond saying that I wouldn't possibly ever take the view I have if I'm a cop, which just goes to show you don't know me that well), whereas I have a very clear one with what you were doing with your first suspicion of me... pushing the towns attention solely towards the independents at the exclusion of the mafia, and putting the eye on me simply for pointing out the fact that the mafia are not the inmates. And again, don't confuse me using indy and mafia with town and anti-town. They are different things. Independents can be anti-town, but it doesn't make them mafia (serial killer, eg).

4) Enrique, for me the most damning thing about you is how intently you have called me very bad from a very early point in time, when I do not think you could hold that view genuinely, and to me it does (genuinely) feel very reactive and a little caught. It felt like it particularly ramped up from you at this point:

Enrique wrote:

golden wrote:]I think trying to focus the thread very squarely on independent hunting is exactly what the baddies would want to do.

Totally called this misrepresentation. I love how bad you are already. I'm reading your role card post added to your reluctance to go after independents as a huuge early slip. Even if you were one of the three other GCPD roles, surely you'd understand that the rest of the team can't win as easily.

Which is where it felt to me like you went into another gear.

Enrique wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

He thinks Mafia would want to focus on Arkham. I argue Arkham would want to focus on Mafia. Same dealio.

Why would Arkham want to focus on mafia any more than anyone else?

Enrique wrote:Arkham Asylum is a baddie faction. You not seeing that doesn't make it untrue.

Yes, they are a baddie faction (if you can call them a faction). I've never not seen it. I've been consistent about this since before you were even sussing me.

But they are INDEPENDENTS who, in each case, most civilians do not need dead to win.

They are still worrying, some more than others.

But, say for example the penguins cop equivalent is lynched on day one. Is it still in the towns interests to kill the Penguin at that point?

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

Thats interesting. Sig looks good to me.

For me its MP.

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

It isn't.

Dom wrote:Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

That's part of it. I've been finding his tone disingenuous. Hard to say if its MP trying to invest less.

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

This is a really inaccurate statement about what zebra is doing.

He finds how popular an option is, he thinks there are baddies on there.

Why should he have a read on specifically who those baddies are. Is it not enough to say 'I think some of those people are bad'? He doesn't need to know which people right now. It could have use later when reads are more established.

This seems to me, like it would be normal MP modus operandi. You are the kind of person who likes to get thoughts out there, even if they involve null reads.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

I did read it.

My point is that you do this to yourself and the thread every game you play. It's like you can't help but bring attention to yourself by causing misunderstandings, then you get either mislynched or lynched, and during the latter people get vindicated because they think they caught you, when in reality you consistently get lynched because people fail to make the same connections that you are, or think that you're blowing something out of proportion. Look at the train that's forming now.

Now, knowing that, why do you continue to make statements containing language such as "alarming" if you really only want to express dislike for one option receiving so many votes, and then express outrage when people fail to see the point of your extensive language/posts?

Doesn't this also describe you, and me?

S~V~S wrote:

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence

Linki @ Golden, but she DOESN'T think there are baddies on there.

No, thats not what she said. She said she didn't have specific baddie reads on individuals. If I'm wrong, then I take it back, zebra is suspicious, because your understanding of it would be suspicious. But I think you've understood her wrong.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

@Enrique - you make me tear my hair out. Because you are so ridiculously out of step with how this went down and you keep insisting I rejected Arkham and independent hunting but thats just not even close to the truth of our exchange at all.

But the hypothetical scenarios are utterly important, in fact I'd say they are crucial. If we lynch the penguin, and then the day after the cop who loses if the penguin is alive is lynched, the penguin is quite possibly an entirely wasted lynch. A baddie will never be a wasted lynch. In alluded to the civilians who need ANY inmate dead, I assume you talk about Wayne Enterprises. Well I see them as town-aligned independents anyway since their main goal is about percentages and not about taking out any specific people. But they may have no particular interest in lynching any specific independent. Again, if cop number penguin is dead, this means that at end game literally no-one could have their win condition annulled by the penguin being alive. All town could still win if they meet their win condition. Wayne Manor could. Other inmates could. The mafia could. The only person who specifically needs the penguin dead is that ONE cop. If that cop is gone, literally no-one needs the penguin dead. Are you getting me yet? We could have wasted an entire day on an indy that NOONE needs dead.

Thats not to say its not a good thing to take out the penguin anyway, it could well be. But not as essential as something that HAS to be done or else you will not win.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

That's not to say I can't see how some people could misunderstand, but its easy for some people to be deliberately misunderstanding, when others have already expressed genuine misunderstanding, you know?

Dom wrote:also golden, do you think enrique is bad at the end of the day?

50/50.

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Well, I didn't understand it.

You know how you separate them? By sitting down and trying to have an honest conversation. Otherwise you're giving everyone a license to misunderstand you. It's a two-way street; if you're consistently misunderstood it's as much your fault as it is those who either misunderstand you genuinely or are deliberately twisting it against you.

Again, rather than see it as my fault or anyone else's, I don't see why it has to be anyone's fault. As long as both parties are putting in an effort to communicate, I fail to see how blaming anyone in particular is warranted. What I'm doing is to try to get people who don't understand to understand, as well as to see if anyone is in fact deliberately misunderstanding to be opportunistic. So far I can only confidently say that Matt has done that, and the rest of you seem genuine to me.

This is so it... actually you've really put your finger on something. I feel like MP is trying to attribute blame to you and act like you're deliberately acting in a way that will create misunderstanding.

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

Can you elaborate?

This coming from you, the master of one word posts? :P

It just seems so ... I can't really explain oit... Just Wow. It seems like a somewhat antagonistic/mean thing for Golden to say. The implication about not understanding something as quickly as Golden did is somehow suspicious or not a genuine feeling, or not to undeerstand it the same way that he did.

I totally misunderstoof Zebra (I think, I am not 100% sure I totally understand her point even now) yet she (and Golden) seem to be implying that it was such a simple thing that it is somehow odd to NOT have gotten it right away (just sayin'). My least favorite mafia (or rl tbh) thing is beingmade to feel stupid. And posts like this^^^^ seem to have that as their mainpoint.

So yeah, Wow.

Well, SVS, are you suggesting that people don't use 'deliberate misunderstanding' as a tactic to generate fake reads?

Enrique wrote:I understand that perfectly, but it's still missing the point of the larger discussion. The game isn't just deciding whether to lynch the Penguin or not.

This isn't going anywhere.

No, the game IS deciding whether to lynch the Penguin or not... along with all the other independents.

I'm saying... those decisions are contextual and can be made based on the circumstances. Lynching every single independent is not necessarily a must-do. Lynching some is a must do, but not necessarily all.

But ALL of the mafia must die.

S~V~S wrote:It's like we are not all having the same conversation somehow. This is probablynot helping you, Sprityo.

Linki, yes some do. But I had no idea what she was saying, maybe you got it in one post, but not getting it in one post does not make someone a baddie.

No, but so many people not getting it does make me think that some might be bad, especially given that the meaning is able to be correctly understood.