The Syndicate

Yeah that's what I mean. Restart it whenever you need to for the correct deadline.

Russ, you were my boy on Day 0/1. Where'd you go?

TinyBubbles wrote:switching vote to golden,i am not really convinced about bass and golden hasn't seemed himself.

TinyBubbles wrote:damn it, i just can't vote golden again. i don't care if he's a baddie or not, it feels like rejecting a friend. he's totally right about him and other talkative players like MP and epi getting heat just for talking, rather than for the content of their posts. it isn't right,and the game would be dead in the water without their input, i don't think anyone should be punished for posting a lot, even though it obviously makes them a bigger target.

hope you have a good trip golden! i wont vote you out though!!!
and i know my own arguments are flipping back and forth but thats what happens when you get emotionally invested in a game like this ><

voting rey on golden's testimony

If the content of Golden's posts shouldn't be reason to suspect him, then what made him seem anything other than himself before?

thellama73 wrote:So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

This is my first game with him so I have to guess at how his conduct meshes with his expected persona (or doesn't). He hasn't done anything pro-civilian really, but I don't know that I've found him outwardly suspicious either. He seems to be playing as neutrally as possible, like a more abrasive version of Turnip Head.

I kind of want to lynch him just because he is barely trying despite having so many posts, but that's more my personal bias against deliberate non-effort than a real indication of suspicion.

Hey Boomslang!

Vote Boomslang

aapje is going to murder me

thellama73 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

This is my first game with him so I have to guess at how his conduct meshes with his expected persona (or doesn't). He hasn't done anything pro-civilian really, but I don't know that I've found him outwardly suspicious either. He seems to be playing as neutrally as possible, like a more abrasive version of Turnip Head.

I kind of want to lynch him just because he is barely trying despite having so many posts, but that's more my personal bias against deliberate non-effort than a real indication of suspicion.

What strikes me about him is that, yes, he is barely trying, but then he acted all scared about Golden naming him. If he were as uninvested as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be so worried about gettting NKed. Leading me to believe thta his slapdashery is an act, or his scarednes is an act. Something is definitely an act.

My take was that his attempts to appear uninvested have definitely been deliberate -- but that they could promote a genuinely neutral agenda. He's a threat to exactly nobody right now, and being night killed would lose him the game after all. I'm wondering whether this unique setup is the inspiration for his approach.

We agree that he is invested in this game. He wouldn't have as many posts as he does otherwise.

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

This is a bit of a cop out. I don't disagree that the Golden Problem has become a distraction, but that doesn't mean the solution should be to remove him from the game. If you don't think he has been recruited by a baddie and you don't think he is a baddie recruiter, then I would assert that your vote might not be in the best interest of the civilians.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

My point is this: even if you think Golden's play is anti-civilian, a neutral Golden is by default not an ideal lynch. An ideal lynch for a player pursuing a pro-civilian agenda would be a recruited baddie or a baddie recruiter. Any other result is less than that -- indeed they are the only truly good results. Those should be your goal.

What about Golden's play makes you think he is deliberately playing in an anti-civilian way?

LoRab wrote:I did not say last night that I thought he was recruited bad/bad recruiter. Actually, I make it pretty clear that I thought then as I think now that you are unrecruited. I think you are neutral, but not civ-friendly.

I'll reiterate that this is a very specific distinction and it demands thorough explanation. My intuitive reaction is to doubt that you sincerely have this perspective.

LoRab wrote:Also, he literally asked to be lynched.

Exactly. That is not a valid justification for any vote.

LoRab wrote:Also, I'm not sure how that is hypocritical. And I had forgotten that at some point, in his many, many posts, he had thought that Epi wanted to recruit him. Perhaps, because I didn't suspect Epi in the first place, it didn't stick in my memory as his main point. And it is not a logical discrepancy--nor is it evidence of my being bad. One of Golden's main refrains has been that he didn't think he and Epi would ever be on the same team--it seems illogical to me that if that's why he had him killed/wanted him dead, then why would he go to thinking that Epi would cause the 2 of them to be on the same team. We think differently, that's fine. But it doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad, either, for that matter.

I didn't necessarily accuse you of hypocrisy. I suggested you might be deliberately avoiding an important component of the Golden case which was directly relevant to this issue. I'll restate it more clearly.

When Golden and Epignosis were dueling, one thing Golden said was this (paraphrasing): If I end up on the same team as Epignosis, I will kill him myself.

Don't you think this maneuver by Golden, which on the surface seems like an absurd statement, might have an underlying meaning which strongly supports what he has been saying? If some part of Golden suspected Epignosis was a recruiter with an interest in recruiting him, then that seemingly absurd statement suddenly makes perfect sense. He'd have been literally instructing Epignosis not to recruit him because he didn't want to be recruited by Epignosis. "Don't do that or I'm going to be a detriment to your win condition."

LoRab wrote:Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am neutral, yes, but I am civ intentioned. My reasons for my vote may not mesh with the way you think through games, or the games you're used to, but it's how I think and how I play. I will even be nice since you're new and all and twirl for you.

I'm always willing to respect an alternative thought process. Mafia games are won when people of differing perspectives work together. I just need to know exactly why you think Golden's play is both neutral-indicative and anti-civilian. That's a strong and complex read you have espoused and I need to see how your brain developed it to believe that you believe it.

I don't know about The Syndicate, but in my experience appeal to emotion is a town tell far more often than an anti-town tell. That doesn't mean players should be exonerated for making emotional posts, but those emotional posts shouldn't be doubted simply for being emotional.

My cries for attention from the lurker crew aren't working.

Boomslang wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Boomslang!

Vote Boomslang

aapje is going to murder me

I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to defend my points on Golden when the guy is literally asking to be lynched. That's all I needed to know for today, honestly.
*votes Golden*

In what universe do people think this is a good reason to vote for somebody? You've dropped all accountability for your vote on the person receiving it. There is no ownership.

I will probably never self-vote in my Mafia life, but it does offer one benefit. It helps expose the people who aren't thinking about their votes very much.

I think rey might deliberately be clashing against Golden's appeal to emotion with an appeal to emotion of his own. Sorry if I'm wrong about that.

Golden wrote:JJ, I'd like to know what you think more broadly about Boomslang beyond just that vote.

Also, boomslang, noting that my vote is still in play, I'd like to know if you have prefer to vote for me when I say this clearly - I am not asking you to vote for me. I am resolved to fight what I can fight, I'm just also resigned to the fact that I am a very easy target today and I might well be lynched. If I survive today, there won't be any self-voting from me tomorrow.

I've prodded Boomslang a few times this phase, but truly it was just because I found him in The Red Zone. By this I mean the lurking players who had started the game with just enough activity to seem involved without really being involved. This is something I look for in pretty much every Mafia game I play. So on that front, I wasn't distinctly suspicious of his content, I was suspicious of his position in the game. So I wanted to get him in here to gauge him more thoroughly based on current content.

His return was bad (his incredibly easy vote for you, Golden). I'll look into his posts now as you've requested for a more complete understanding.

I have found S~V~S to be the most believable among Golden's detractors. Everything about her conduct here strikes me as genuine suspicion being expressed on every front -- even if I perceive it to be stubborn beyond reason.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Don't count DF out just yet. He may be quiet now but he almost always is, and he can be an absolute joy to scheme with in btsc because he's lethal when it matters. Still I think your general point here is an accurate one.

Quiet is an understatement. He hasn't posted for more than three days. I'll try to get his attention:

DFaraday, if you don't get involved then your eventual lynch will be close to inevitable. That's not a winning strategy, mate.

What does this mean?

It's a general threat which may or may not actually be true. Chronic lurkers tend to get lynched, but not always. I just want him to get involved -- he's requested replacement though so hopefully the new player can do that.

Accidentally clicking the X while compiling a large post.

Boomslang ISO
This is Boomslang's first post on Day 0. On the surface it appears pretty innocuous; he joined the game a little late and offered some comments on a few discussions of interest. The reason I bring it up here is that the comments he made were pretty easy to make. The adverb discussion was always total filler from everyone involved; it was never going to amount to any relevant content. The part I highlighted pings my intuitions a tiny bit, it's just a small tidbit that smells iffy to me -- primarily "which is to be expected I suppose". That's purely intuitive though so y'all might not agree. The only truly original content in this post is his idea w/r/t the Brutal Executioner.

Unoriginal, easy comments on Day 0 aren't a big deal. It will only become interesting to me if it's a trend in his post history after this point, so we'll see.
This might be called "easy" too, because it speaks the obvious (that nearly any role on the roster has the potential to be recruited civilian). However, I do like that Boomslang explained his preference for avoiding killing roles in a unique way. I don't believe anyone else cited the expansion of public information would be threatened by killing roles. That's a decent perspective to adopt.
This post pinged me strongly. I explained why in an earlier post. Boomslang never addressed it.

I called his assessment "basic" and thought his focus was purely on surface content instead of deeper critical thinking. This meshes with the "easy post" aesthetic too.
I espoused a similar perspective at this point in the game, so I'll give Boomslang credit for at least being agreeable.
While I agreed generally that Bass's theory post was suspicious, I'd have liked Boomslang's vote better if this wasn't his first mention of Bass. He ought to have been more involved in this dialogue if this was how he felt about it.
This could be Boomslang's best post. His examination of MM specifically regarding timestamps evidences a genuine thought process that he was following through with. I also like his objective take on MP's "aggressive defense".
This post confuses me. Even if we assume Golden did kill Epignosis as a member of the Night 1 killing baddie team, that doesn't imply Golden would have then known that Epi was on the other baddie team. This might be manufactured suspicion which Boomslang jumbled up as he put it to paper.
Also confusing. In this post Boomslang seems to justify his vote for Golden with his suspicion of G-Man. How does this make sense? Is the implication that Golden and G-Man were team mates and G-Man was protecting him?
You thought wrong. Defend your vote or else.

~~~

There isn't enough content to build a significant case, but I do think there are a number of pings here. His dealings with Golden are the most troubling. Otherwise I observe minor pings and minor positives -- not enough to make me feel anything.

S~V~S wrote:I just cannot reconcile that post up there^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ with civ ANYONE.

Can you reconcile it with a neutral and unrecruited someone?

Thanks for the reminder Roxy.

Roxy wrote:ebwop

JJJ - I am not SURE if like unfurl the set up of this game seems to be affecting your usual rhythm of playing. I am just not feeling "it". Can't put my finger on it or point to any one post but something feels wrong about your game this time around.

There's nothing I can say to an assertion that "it" is not being felt. That's as vague an assessment as any assessment can be. I've actually felt surprisingly in-rhythm in this game despite the setup. I have never been "neutral" before so it's definitely new -- but I've just played it like I would as a townie and I've felt pretty comfortable in doing so. I need to know precisely what is troubling you to be able to affect your perspective in any way.

Time for work. For the moment I lean toward a final vote on either Boomslang or LoRab.

Boomslang wrote:Let's try voting for myself! Seems to give you a get-out-of-jail free card these days!

Address the cases presented against you.

It's not insanity. It's critical thinking. Mafia is nearly never that simple.

DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I still think Golden needs to go so I'm still voting for him.

You seem to have pulled a 180 on this issue. What made you change your mind about Golden?

The self vote.

You're going to need to be more thorough. Why did the self vote affect your stance so significantly?

MovingPictures07 wrote:My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

The MP I know stops at nothing to slaughter baddies. This is not an example of that.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

The MP I know stops at nothing to slaughter baddies. This is not an example of that.

You're entirely right, Jay.

What do you think that means?

The most logical assumption would be that your win condition has changed for the worse.

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

*Another note appears on the window seal*

not Azura, but Ubzargan. I'm dumb and got the baddies names mixed up in my head. Ubzargan was immune to lynch day 1, meaning there's a higher chance of hitting him if we vote for those who received a vote day 1.

They day ended early though, should we assume it was lynch immunity? I haven't thought so.

What is "RNG"?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Jay, you really think so?

Why would I make my win condition change so apparent?

I don't imply it would have been intentional.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Rather, I think fact, the most logical assumption would be that I'm a flip flopping flipper flopper.

Did you flip flop? You seem to have the same non-baddie perspective of Golden as before.

But you want to lynch him.

Turnip Head wrote:Maybe MP's vote is being forced.

Nothing he is saying right now is making me think so. He's playing it like DH has played the whole game. I am perturbed.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I deny this speculation, good sir, though I can see why you think such a 180 could be explained by an alieI really just am so sick of this talk around Golden; Golden obviously wants to die, what's the big deal?

He literally doesn't want to die. You're pressing the easy button.

MP never presses the easy button. You're bad.

Is Golden being such a distraction entirely his fault? What of the people forcing him into that position including Epignosis?

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Also, skimmed through 13 pages and saw nothing for the Boomslang votes. Please halp

Click on my post history and find the big ISO from today.

Okay so I poked MP to generate a reaction, because he's always good for that.

But I didn't anticipate this.

Does anyone who knows him better than I do have any insight? I've played with him more than any other Syndicateer and definitely haven't seen behavior like before. Help me out.

Wait I just now noticed DrWilgy changed his avatar to a sock. *head explodes*

Turnip Head wrote:Out of the three self-votes, Boomslang's felt the snarkiest and least genuine.

Definitely. Now that self-vote has been moved to Golden.

Boomslang talk to me bb. What are you doing?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Anyone else feel uncomfortable with this sudden move to Boomslang? The timing of it seems odd. Especially with everything going on with Golden.

Linkis galore. But yes, I wouldn't mind hearing some more from Boomslang in the meantime.

I'm not uncomfortable simply because there are so many players in this game. It's hard enough to get everyone moving in one or two coherent directions anyway, and a small wave of votes isn't too alarming as players try to coordinate (of all alignments, potentially).

Later in the game it might bother me more.

@ BWT, in addition to my prior post:

Especially because The Golden Problem has become a pretty clear dichotomy -- people who want him lynched and people who don't. It makes sense that this would eventually develop into two or three wagons (Golden and the counter).

Was the prior poll ever posted? I believe Golden has the lead right now if that is included, but I'm not certain. We need to be mindful of that as we consider our votes now.

MP, now that you've found your sanity again for the moment, could you restate that you do indeed want Golden lynched because of his self-vote? If that's the case.

Boomslang wrote:I've been in class all day and still don't have time to post. My self vote was indeed a protest. And you all jumped on it predictably. Point made.

What was the point?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:MP, now that you've found your sanity again for the moment, could you restate that you do indeed want Golden lynched because of his self-vote? If that's the case.

Ah, well, I suppose I can elaborate now since I've accomplished what I've wanted to with it.

I don't really want Golden lynched; I never did. Heat on Golden started to die (relatively, it still was definitely there), and if I recall correctly, the vote between him and rey was about tied when I voted. With the state of the thread the way it was, after rey's breakdown as well, I wanted to change up the direction of that specific conversation (Golden v. rey). I wanted to see how everyone would react to me flipping 180 and I specifically wanted to draw attention to how ridiculous I think many of the points and votes against Golden really are. The crusade against him has absolutely become a "GOLDEN MUST BE LYNCHED" train that has flown off the rails, intent to derail many other trains, merely because players are afraid at letting a potentially baddie Golden slip away.

I still firmly believe Golden is neutral.

I agree with all of that. Why'd you say I like crazy theories?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Was just rolling with the fact that you said I was bad, so I lumped you in there. :P

Yeah I was just playing the part of Epignosis for a moment to see what you'd do.

So, MP. If not Golden, who're you thinking? I've spent too much time this phase defending Golden's honor (so've you). Help me decide who should die instead. Obviously Boomslang was my prior inclination. He just made a post. Does that post make you feel anything?

It makes me feel a very small something. Indignant neutral? Hmmm...

Dropping a Boomslang vote and I gotta go.

Roxy, who are your suspects right now?

llama, I stated my suspicion of Boomslang in a large ISO post. It's not far back in my post history. I can't easily reference it on my phone.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why's everyone voting Boomslang?

I made a case. It's not far back in my posts. Tell me what you think.

I'll look into other options when I get home.

Canucklehead wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:@Boomslang voters: Does JJJ's ISO case adequately cover all the reasons why you chose to vote for Boom? Or are there other points you want to add?

JJJ seems to be stepping up admirably to take the scrutiny about the rush of Boomslang votes..... and I REALLY am very itchy about how other Boomslang bandwagoners are just letting him do so....

Yeah. nutella has done a nice job expressing her suspicion, but I need more from the other people who voted Boomslang yesterday and today.