The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:I voted that MM should be modkilled because I like modkills. I also hate the second season theme song. It is so annoying. The first is much better.

bea wrote:Welcome zeeky!!

Bye rox - I hope things get better for you.

I voted to not modkill MM. He's fun to have around.

I think if epi were bad, he'd be more likely to be the yoshiwhateves group than a kira. That's about all I got on him.

I'd like to hear who fz would have voted for if she made it back to vote.

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Looking back Epi, you suspected FZ because of her absence as well, saying she is probably bad with SD. But FZ has since contributed quite a bit (though she did miss the lynch), and you never updated your suspicion to something current. If you did, then I can't find it.

I don't share your assessment of FZ. I think she has since posted a lot, but the content is not what I associate with good FZ. Good FZ. has a certain tenacity and assurance. She is a focused civilian, one that has proven dangerous to Mafia. I am not seeing that here.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

Some light reading for you regarding what MP would do.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

boo wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

And this I don't understand about other websites. Why lynch a non-participant when you can lynch someone with an actualy suspicion? The lynch is the civvie's biggest asset, so it would be silly to use it on a player for not speaking. There is 0 evidence (for those who like facts), and it's too early to pass judgment on it.

Linki @Epi: I can think of 2 reasons.
1) He lost interest in the game after his Day 0 post. (I'm unconvinced this is the reason)
2) He has something to gain by being silent. I just finished watching Episode 25. I wouldn't say it centers around Rem and Misa though, but they are involved, and I do suddenly see where you are coming from. I'll give no spoilers though.

Because lynching a participant over a non-participant encourages non-participation. Non-participants add nothing to the game. Participants do, regardless of their alignment, they're still there making the game fun. Keeping the non-participant around hoping they eventually stop being a lousy player and actually play or get replaced while killing off people who are actually playing just punishes the people actually playing.

This isn't a new argument, and for whatever reason (they think one person who isn't even playing can help them win I guess) there are still people who don't seem to get it.

boo wrote:Not playing is a playstyle now? Wow. There's a stretch.

Anyways...

For example:

Trice posted Day 0. Trice posted Day 1. Trice got lynched, a direct result of his posting. Clearly a terrible strategy, sorry Trice, maybe try the one that actually works next time?

Next game, Trice doesn't post Day 0. Trice doesn't post Day 1. Trice doesn't get lynched Day 1! What a great strategy Trice! So, instead of playing the actual game, lets play 'How Far Can You Push Your Luck?'. Trice doesn't post Night 1. Do we lynch him Day 2? Nah, still wouldn't be fair. Trice continues not to post during Day 2. Trice doesn't post Night 2. Trice still hasn't posted during Day 3. Maybe we're finally getting ready to lynch him? Ahh, but then he realizes that, and comes and starts posting (letting him get away with nothing while 2 people have been lynched and another person has been NKed). Or gets replaced (burning a replacement for someone who may actually have something come up irl and need a replacement, and cannot get one and either has to stick it out or be host-killed). Wow, good thing we didn't lynch him, he sure added a ton of helpful stuff to the game so far.


As for your point of MP punishing non-participants... that really isn't something that should have to happen, and I don't think it would happen if players would stop letting it happen and would just work to bring an end to the behaviour by not allowing it.

And yes, the point is to lynch baddies. Someone who isn't playing can just as easily be a baddie as someone who is (another absurd argument people like to bring up, but I'll try and move past that one), and Day 1 suspicions (as was the case with Trice) rarely pan out anyways.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

And this I don't understand about other websites. Why lynch a non-participant when you can lynch someone with an actualy suspicion? The lynch is the civvie's biggest asset, so it would be silly to use it on a player for not speaking. There is 0 evidence (for those who like facts), and it's too early to pass judgment on it.

Linki @Epi: I can think of 2 reasons.
1) He lost interest in the game after his Day 0 post. (I'm unconvinced this is the reason)
2) He has something to gain by being silent. I just finished watching Episode 25. I wouldn't say it centers around Rem and Misa though, but they are involved, and I do suddenly see where you are coming from. I'll give no spoilers though.

boo wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Boo, Trice got lynched for the content of his posts, not because he committed the simple act of posting. Don't make him the straw man in your argument. Are you saying we should lynch Russ for not posting, regardless of whether the silence is role-enforced or not?

Again, he doesn't post, he doesn't get lynched. That simple.

It isn't, and if it were, the chance the lynch actually goes through and doesn't simply allow him to start posting is pretty much 0. So yes, I would be more than happy to see someone who isn't even playing lynched tomorrow over someone of any alignment who is actually here and trying to have fun and make the game more fun for everyone else. Russ, whether by choice or role, is not making the game fun, and I see no reason to prioritize keeping people like that in the game over everyone else.

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

And this I don't understand about other websites. Why lynch a non-participant when you can lynch someone with an actualy suspicion? The lynch is the civvie's biggest asset, so it would be silly to use it on a player for not speaking. There is 0 evidence (for those who like facts), and it's too early to pass judgment on it.

Linki @Epi: I can think of 2 reasons.
1) He lost interest in the game after his Day 0 post. (I'm unconvinced this is the reason)
2) He has something to gain by being silent. I just finished watching Episode 25. I wouldn't say it centers around Rem and Misa though, but they are involved, and I do suddenly see where you are coming from. I'll give no spoilers though.

Because lynching a participant over a non-participant encourages non-participation. Non-participants add nothing to the game. Participants do, regardless of their alignment, they're still there making the game fun. Keeping the non-participant around hoping they eventually stop being a lousy player and actually play or get replaced while killing off people who are actually playing just punishes the people actually playing.

This isn't a new argument, and for whatever reason (they think one person who isn't even playing can help them win I guess) there are still people who don't seem to get it.

Where have you been all my life?

Yeah, I have to side Boo on this. That said, I think it's more a point of punishment and not something that in fact helps the civvies. But if we go and lynch some players who barely post a few times, maybe the civvies will lose (like that doesn't happen often), but possibly, the low posters would stop using that strategy, or stop playing altogether. It always feels unfair that a player who posts a lot gets scrutinized for his posts. Even If someone is a baddie and is giving it his all by posting and putting himself out there to be looked at, he should be awarded for it, not punished by being lynched over those who barely contribute to the game. That's my stance

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: That happens to me every game, and I don't see it as a punishment for posting too much.

It happens to me every game, and I do see it as a punishment for posting too much.

But I can't stop myself. It's like a disease.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I think Russti cannot post, not that the forgot to or whatever else. But to make the assumption it's for a bad reason is a huge stretch.

I have seen him in the thread as well.

I am in complete agreement with this.

Boo is also right.

Good, because not being able to see it both ways is another mistake people will probably wind up making. Whether what I've said is true of Russ or not, it is true of non-participants in general.

And I don't think it's true of Russ, I think he's just not playing.

But sure, lets say he just isn't allowed. I don't think MP would make a role that isn't allowed to post (or vote in lynches apparently, which is something MP hates like any other host), and if he did, I do not think that role would be killed the first time a lynch attempt is made, but that the lynch attempt (or x number of votes maybe) would be what would allow that role to begin posting and playing normally. And until Russ can begin playing normally, he cannot be read, so I think it's still worth putting votes on him. I'd like to see that as an actual lynch attempt, but I'm going to guess x = 5 if that guess is the case, so if 4 other people voted (or were considering voting for him at the time I voted), I would vote for Russ in the hopes that that is the mechanic in play as well.

Turnip Head wrote:I think Llama is bad for the following reasons.

Turnip Head wrote:Here's a lore-mechanics question: how do we get the Death Note out of Kira's hands? It sounds like it should be possible.

boo wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:It's entirely possible and extremely likely that Russ has a role that gained something by staying silent on Day 1. What I don't really know at this point is what role that would be. My best guess, X Kira, is clearly wrong.

My problem now with it being role related is that since we now know the roles of living players are going to be revealed over time or when conditions are met or whatever, is that if that is in a role it would out him when that role gets revealed, while outting him as not certain roles (like X Kira) as they are revealed. That seems really weird to me, especially because there is no ambivalence about it, he's the only person who didn't post, we didn't have like 3 or 4 people who could each have a role with something similar.

Matahari wrote:Players seem extremely out of character, and its making me crazy. er. I've pondered whether TH and Llama were just doing something kind of cliche, like they have bts and both are safe from dying, but that doesn't make sense. Its too old school plus why even draw attention to themselves or each other.

Turnip Head wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I think Llama is bad for the following reasons.

Why do you say "the following reasons" when you linked "some previous reasons"?

Didn't you already almost get modkilled for asking stupid questions?

Matahari wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I read Mata's post and then that's the impression I got from it.

What about her post gave you this impression?

It seemed to me that she is/was more interested in what players of certain alignments might be up to than she is in actually catching baddies.

Baddies hunt baddies. Civvies prefer to be more careful.

Spacedaisy wrote:On a side note I am traveling back to Ohio tomorrow, my grandmother is dying and I want to spend time with her while I can. So, my participation will be different than normal. I'll either be too busy or I will have more free time on my hands than I anticipate now. I can't tell which. But I wanted to give you guys the heads up. Now I should go check out these revealed role secrets I haven't even taken time to look at yet.... Who knew mafia was so much work??

On second thought I have an early flight. I'll read the role secrets during my layover in Dallas. Night all!

Turnip Head wrote:I like the cases on both Bea and Snowman. I was about to bring up Bea myself, and I think Epi did a good job demonstrating that Snowman is playing more carefully than he did in his last game.

Long Con wrote:A lot of players right now don't even have "motives". Even the two baddie teams (or the baddie team and the independent team?) don't really have a clear goal... the red team has to eliminate detectives, but they all want to appear to the thread as detectives, so it's very easy for a red team member to go hard with a case against another red, thinking they're getting a detective, wanting the thread to think they're going after a baddie, and really having no idea what the reality actually is.

For all we know, the best case-makers are all red, and they will be awesomely convincing and get us to lynch their teammates, while the Civvies sit back and lay low while it happens. It could be! That's so backwards! Maybe you want to accuse me of some sort of manipulation by suggesting that, but even if I were red, how would I know?

I just looked back at the roles to see if I missed anything and another thing that is a major part of the game is the receiving of Death Notes... a major part of the game that we cannot use for anything because we don't know what the deal is, how they get received, when this happens, if there's an element of chance or skill to get them...

So if people are mostly individuals, their biggest motivation is going to be personal survival. A Detective, trying to survive long enough to somehow catch a Kira, will want to be really careful about what he says, so as not to attract too much suspicion... unless he wants to try and be extra-outspoken, to both attract suspicion AND seem like a useful player to have around. Wait, no, I just described how a baddie would probably want to play. See?

After talking this out with myself, I find myself on boo's side of lynching low-posters... at least until some game elements coalesce into something more tangible. Hoping that will happen. Also, I tend to agree with his other points about low posters. I don't think it's an acceptable tactic to specifically not post so as to make it to a later part of the game, knowing that people won't vote for them.

Then again, I'm pretty sure I'M a low poster in this game, so there's that as well. I don't want to be lynched.

If you read all my thoughts here, and you have a different opinion on how to get a more solid handle on this game, then I'm all ears. There must be something more we can use, and it's not currently what we'd use in a regular Mafia game, where baddies have BTSC.

S~V~S wrote:Linki, I am in a really good mood

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.

Oh there's a logic to it. See, I want you lynched now. Because regardless of what's going on with Epi, I know you're thinking straight, I know you were trying to get me to spin out, I know you think you succeeded, and I know I'm now going to turn my attention to getting you lynched, because you were wrong, and made a series of very poor choices which have me very convinced you are a baddie.

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.

Oh there's a logic to it. See, I want you lynched now. Because regardless of what's going on with Epi, I know you're thinking straight, I know you were trying to get me to spin out, I know you think you succeeded, and I know I'm now going to turn my attention to getting you lynched, because you were wrong, and made a series of very poor choices which have me very convinced you are a baddie.

Is that baddie behavior?

Trying to spin people out? Yes, I think so.

I have seen a civ do it, but I don't think it was a successful strategy for him, and the host flaked on the game before we could find out so, meh.

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.

Oh there's a logic to it. See, I want you lynched now. Because regardless of what's going on with Epi, I know you're thinking straight, I know you were trying to get me to spin out, I know you think you succeeded, and I know I'm now going to turn my attention to getting you lynched, because you were wrong, and made a series of very poor choices which have me very convinced you are a baddie.

Is that baddie behavior?

Trying to spin people out? Yes, I think so.

I have seen a civ do it, but I don't think it was a successful strategy for him, and the host flaked on the game before we could find out so, meh.

Now what if llama spun boo to the point where he said something really amazingly bad?

Innocent by reason of Spinsanity?

juliets wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I feel like there is a recurring theme this game, and it isn't related to Death Note.

What do you mean MM?

thellama73 wrote:Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

S~V~S wrote:OK, Epi. You just go ahead and don't say anything about something no one asked you to talk about anyhow.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

I read boo's answer, and it sounded fine to me. I don't understand why you call it madness to give someone until the end of the day period. I realize that is not a number, but you didn't ask for a number at the time.

I didn't say it was madness to wait until the end of the day period. I said it was madness to claim that someone hasn't had a chance to respond to accusations against them ten seconds before the end of a 48 hour day, when those accusations were made at the beginning of the day. Boo's answer, as I understood it and continue to understand it, is that IF Snowman has not responded by then, THEN he will not have had a chance to respond. That is what I consider madness.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

I read boo's answer, and it sounded fine to me. I don't understand why you call it madness to give someone until the end of the day period. I realize that is not a number, but you didn't ask for a number at the time.

I didn't say it was madness to wait until the end of the day period. I said it was madness to claim that someone hasn't had a chance to respond to accusations against them ten seconds before the end of a 48 hour day, when those accusations were made at the beginning of the day. Boo's answer, as I understood it and continue to understand it, is that IF Snowman has not responded by then, THEN he will not have had a chance to respond. That is what I consider madness.

And that sounds perfectly logical to me. I don't see where you're coming from. Surely the majority of the day period is ample time. Snowman still has to come online and vote.

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! Boo holds that it is not ample time. Boo holds that if Snowman has not responded, then he has not had a chance to respond, regardless of the intervening time.

Turnip Head wrote:Snowman post incoming

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I read "He will not have had a chance to respond" as "He lost his chance to respond" since boo will follow that opportunity up with a vote (if his vote was available that is). Is that wrong?

That's not how I understand it. I understand it as "he has not had a chance to respond, despite having nearly two days to do so."

Turnip Head wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Snowman post incoming

Turnip Head wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Raye Penber – An FBI agent who begins investigating Light Yagami when L tells him to. Has BTSC with Naomi. (Secrets)

Turnip Head wrote:Snowman sounds quite genuine to me. I'm glad I didn't vote for him before hearing his response.

Snowman wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This is a Penber.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Raye Penber – An FBI agent who begins investigating Light Yagami when L tells him to. Has BTSC with Naomi. (Secrets)

Whoah, slow down professor.

Snowman wrote:Changing my vote to Moscato.

This game is awesome!

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

Not true. Someone does. It's in the roles.

Emphasis on the S.