The Syndicate

BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

Sure I'll look at DH. Why not.

I already talked a little about his disinterest in the Day 0 vote as being mildly suspicious (by the low standards of Day 0). I'll move on to the content that followed:

DharmaHelper wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:DH, I will not address any of that adverb nonsense unless you have something you specifically want me to address. That's how I normally talk.
I hate that adverb shit I'm just pointing out yours to see if any of the people who drink that fucked up Kool Aid will attack you for it or not.

This is a curious approach. I am brought to wonder how DH would have responded to any player who "drank the Kool Aid" after this post with regards to adverb-based suspicion. I actually think DH's behavior here inherently reduced the likelihood of anyone actually employing Adverb Theory in a serious way, making both this post and the preceding post in which he pointed out MP's adverbs essentially fruitless. I am also not sure why a neutral player employing a town mindset would be inclined to reveal the intent behind his own strategy before it could even develop into something.

DharmaHelper wrote:Adverb theory is so dumb, anyone who takes it seriously should punch themselves in the face.

I don't think it's useful either, but I should also note that a number of your early posts were adverb-centric. That represents a strange contradiction at worst or filler posts at best.

One thing I will say slightly in DH's favor is that his apathetic approach to the Day 0 vote bears out pretty consistently in his Day 0 content. There were no serious attempts in his Day 0 posts to garner significant information by my measure. He seemed to take the day off, which isn't necessarily scummy in this context.

DharmaHelper wrote:Im gonna do some readin'

Day 1 hasn't been any better for him though. He's pledged to do some reading. I suspect we'll see more substantive content from him in due time.

~~~

I see minor reasons to have suspicion, but I felt like I was reaching a bit as I typed them in this post. I'll call him more suspicious than the mean, but not a leading candidate for a vote. Whaddya got on him, Golden?

Tranq wrote:I like JaggedJimmyJay's idea. I don't think it'll help with the Day 1 lynch, but i've enjoyed reading the responses.
My three recruits would be aapje, Typhoony and SVS. Regardless of alignment.

Poor unfurl. It always sucks to get the 1st vote on the 1st Day I agree with Golden and Roxy - I saw nothing un-unfurly (furly..?) in her interactions with MP.

I don't mind going with a low poster if there are no other solid leads.

Also, this post has been written using default-#E6E6E6. I encourage everyone to try it out

Could you say why you'd pick those players specifically? The stated motive is what I'm tracking, though this post might make for nice reference material later.

So far I've only tracked the answers that followed my initial proposal; I am sure some player(s) stated motivations prior to that. I'd ask that they restate for the sake of clarity. Obviously these aren't the exact terms people used. I reduced them to single words that I thought were representative of their responses which could be quantified reliably.

I don't think this should be considered important within the context of discussing who will be lynched. I have other reasons for caring about this and you may too.

I'd appreciate it if y'all would share your hypothetical motivations for recruiting whoever you would recruit if you were a recruiter in this game if you haven't already.

NOTE: I acknowledge that it is important that some recruitments might not be entirely under the control of the recruiters.

DrWilgy wrote:I do hope I am color coding everything appropriately. A question for anyone, on average how long does it take before players start putting in their votes? Is the fact that I voted first when I did unsettling to anybody? If so, then why?

Everyone seems to have their own preferences about when it is most appropriate to place a vote. I prefer to wait as long as I can when there are no vote changes allowed (as I believe is the case in this game?), and I know many others are the same way. Some people are less concerned with waiting and just throw one down whenever they feel like it.

Are you unsettled by the possibility of someone being unsettled by the timing of your vote?

Dom wrote:JJJ, do you think your spreadsheet there will have merit in finding links amongst people? That assumes that all recruitments are by choice and we find a recruiter.

I am acting under the assumption that at least some of the recruitments are by choice. If none of them are, then the spreadsheet is probably worthless. If the former is accurate, then I do believe there might be some potential for the information to serve a real purpose as a component of later analytic compilations and perhaps the forming of specific recruiter/recruitee-hunting strategies.

Golden, what do you suppose might Epignosis's anti-town motives be if he is smearing you deliberately right now?

bea wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:While I do think there's value in discussing potential recruiting strategies, that discussion is probably not going to be the eventual motive for my vote on Day 1. I still intend to push for the lynch of a player who I view as suspicious. Recruitment theories are way too speculative to serve as the basis for a lynch choice in my opinion. The insight there might help people to find people to focus on though in such a large roster of players.
I'm curious as to what is suspicious in a game where at least 4 if not 8 of 3O SOMEMTHING players do in fact have a team. Two of which are civ. Are you trying to get a recruiter and do you understand that statistically speaking, you are prolly wrong?

I have btw no better solution to this delema, I'm just curious as to your critera.

TBH, I know I still have like 10 or more pages to catch up on and apparently epi/golden is a thing - but from *this* point, I'm prolly going to randomize and I doubt much will change my opnion. We'll see when I get to the end...

I think the same general things that [insert player] might view as suspicious in a more typical setup are still applicable in this setup. A recruiter or any recruitee, particularly those designated as baddies, are still more likely to be prone to behavioral quirks and manipulative content usually associated with mafia. On that front I am not inclined to handle my vote preferences that differently from now I normally would.

I certainly acknowledge that there are fewer baddies in play right now than a normal alignment ratio would designate, but I think a sincere effort to find them still has to be made. A smaller minority faction doesn't warrant total randomization -- every vote should be motivated by a distinct something; there's still plenty of room to approach this game as though it is based in the fundamental tenants of the activity we know as Mafia.

Hey MM, could you describe in brief terms what sorts of criteria you're respecting when you eliminate certain players from the lynch pool?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think the same general things that [insert player] might view as suspicious in a more typical setup are still applicable in this setup. A recruiter or any recruitee, particularly those designated as baddies, are still more likely to be prone to behavioral quirks and manipulative content usually associated with mafia. On that front I am not inclined to handle my vote preferences that differently from now HOW I normally would.

I certainly acknowledge that there are fewer baddies in play right now than a normal alignment ratio would designate, but I think a sincere effort to find them still has to be made. A smaller minority faction doesn't warrant total randomization -- every vote should be motivated by a distinct something; there's still plenty of room to approach this game as though it is based in the fundamental tenants of the activity we know as Mafia.

EBWOP

bea wrote:linkie - JJJ - I'm not gonna lie - I have to vote either before I go to bed, or first thing in the morning. I'm still reading and I'm still trying, but I can almost garentee if I don't see something super baddie in the next pages to come, I'm going to roll the dice and radom.

It's a needle in a haystack and I'm not skilled enough to hunt down that haystack.

Time constraints are understandable. My recommendation (which you needn't care about unless you find it agreeable) is that you place your vote on whoever has pinged you the most so far -- even if those pings have seemed trivial. It'll be a little better than random, because at the very least your reasoning will be more easily discernible and you might even have some influence on the final lynch result. A random vote is almost certain to amount to nothing because everyone else is going to vote however they may for anyone at all.

DharmaHelper, you currently rank 6th in post count but you have contributed close to nothing to the continuing conversation. What should I make of this observation?

timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?

The exchange of votes between Golden and Epignosis looks to me like the literal definition of OMGUS (I think y'all call it "no u"). I doubt I'll support a lynch of either of them on Day 1.

I'm not sure if there's a thread for this sort of thing, so I'll just put it here for now. I think one feature The Syndicate could really use is post links within the post count listings for each thread. That's always the single easiest way to access ISOs of a variety of players without having to find their content in the thread. Just an idea, the site is already quite splendid of course.

Update for my own reference if I decide it has any value later on. Again, it's tough to translate people's answers into quantifiable terms, so if you feel you've been misrepresented here just say so.

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?

I am playing like I would as a townie despite the fact that I am not a townie. What does that mean to you, timmer?

Spacedaisy wrote:Right now the fore runner for my vote is probably bwt. The way he jumped on the JJJ thing about golden using the word but, then back pedaled out of it, followed by him jumping into MP's case for voting a low poster, I'm just feeling all kinds of sketch from him right now.

Yeah. If I'm looking for face value indicators of evil, BWT is the frontrunner for now.

timmer wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am playing like I would as a townie despite the fact that I am not a townie. What does that mean to you, timmer?
Since I know neither your civ game, your tactics or your tendencies... absolutely nothing. We're all actors in a wonderful, as yet unwriiten story.

You assert that Golden's content w/r/t possible recruitment motives might have been meant to merely provide the appearance of relevance and involvement. Is this to say then that you don't feel that content flows logically and/or reasonably from his discussion with S~V~S, and that such a discussion -- even when it includes seemingly obvious points -- is inherently likely to appear in the first active day of a game in which recruitment is the entire setup?

Put more simply: what would you expect a more sincere Golden to say in that context?

I can't say much at work, but one point I want to make is this: the importance of a lynch extends beyond just the alignment of the victim. Randomization ensures that a vote is not readable whatsoever and that it cannot progress the game.

DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DharmaHelper, you currently rank 6th in post count but you have contributed close to nothing to the continuing conversation. What should I make of this observation?
I've contributed exactly as much as I've claimed to have contribute. I'm a man of my word. I'll get into the meat and mess soon.

DharmaHelper wrote:I've given up hope on me catching up. My vote will likely go towards breaking any ties or something.

I wish I'd known votes are changeable. I'd have been driving you spreadsheeters insane all phase long. Y'all are going to hate me.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Congratulations, you're tied for 1st place in today's tally!

Question from a foreigner: what does LMS mean?

DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Congratulations, you're tied for 1st place in today's tally!
Do you have a reason behind your vote?

Unfulfilled pledges to provide substantive content were a hallmark of my most recent anti-town performance. I'm personally familiar with the notion. As active as this game has been so far, I don't think it has been impossible to keep up -- particularly not for someone who's been present often enough to put up over 70 posts.

Bullzeye wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Question from a foreigner: what does LMS mean?
Last Man Standing

Cool beans, thanks.

My immediate inclination is to not think ill of players who have wondered aloud about the potential for this game to feature some manner of LMS characteristics. Even considering the civilian/baddie designations offered by the moderators, the nature of this setup seems to point that way inherently. It can't be true LMS of course, but it can be pretty close. Last team standing, potentially a pretty small team in the grand scheme of this huge roster.

I think it merely reflects an alternative mindset, and moreover so many people have espoused this perspective that it's impossible for all of them to be bad.

DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Congratulations, you're tied for 1st place in today's tally!
Do you have a reason behind your vote?
Unfulfilled pledges to provide substantive content were a hallmark of my most recent anti-town performance. I'm personally familiar with the notion. As active as this game has been so far, I don't think it has been impossible to keep up -- particularly not for someone who's been present often enough to put up over 70 posts.
I don't think it's fair of you to judge me based on your game style, particularly when you've never played with me and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It's not my style, it's fundamentally suspicious. Whether I've played with you is irrelevant in the context of something that is fundamentally suspicious. Moreover, me having "no idea what I'm talking about" is an awkward non sequitur following from the prior comment. What about my content, even if just in that accusatory post, suggests that I have no idea what I'm talking about, and how is that a "particular" modifier to enhance anything else you might say about me?

If I have no idea what I'm talking about, then that is the only argument you need to make right? Everything I say is valueless by default if that's the case.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.

Golden wrote:@JJ - what do you think, specifically, of MM's posts in relation to BWT?

A quick scan revealed nothing striking to me, what should I be looking for? The only curious thing I saw was, if I am interpreting correctly, MM stating his unwillingness to vote BWT because BWT is off-meta. That'd be interesting and MM should talk about that.

LoRab wrote:@JJJ (can I call you JJJ?) I'm not sure I get what you find suspicious about Bass's post. Could you elaborate?

He proposed a "crazy theory" that would implicate two of the most vocal players in the game (MP and llama) for reasons that are either outright incorrect (such as Bass's reference to MP's point about low posters) or make no sense in a Mafia game (suggesting the mods manipulated the roles to ensure the recruiters were/were not specific people) -- and he hasn't followed up on it or said anything at all since that point. I think MP is a very easy target right now and he was then too; Bass might have been opportunistic with that in mind.

Bold assertion:

The original recruiters have not pushed distinct agendas in this thread, at least not yet. They've done everything in their power to keep their names out of everyone else's posts.

Something I like about BWT in this game so far despite my misgivings: he seems to be playing pretty loose.

Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.

Bullzeye wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.
Currently weighing up my options. Leaning toward a low contributor, but first I want to go back over Unfurl. I found her seeming unwillingness to get involved suspicious early on and think I might look to see if anything she's said since can change my mind. I know a few people seemed to write off the case against her saying it's just her way of being.

My take on unfurl is that her content is baddie-compatible but not necessarily baddie-indicative. I'm willing to call her a suspect still because her responses to accusations have seemed pretty null that's just me being me. It should be noted though that other people who know her better seem to agree with that assessment.

S~V~S, do you prefer unjustified votes?

Golden wrote:I think people would have been wise to vote epi, but oh well. Never mind.

Is there a compelling reason beyond the potential that he won't ever be on Golden's team?

Turnip Head wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.
Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.
I definitely see what you're saying re: TMI, but Bass could just as easily be a civvie recruiter who tried to recruit MP and/or Llama and failed, so he thinks they're already baddie-aligned.

I'm not sure I agree. What you propose adds another element to the equation for Bass (being a recuiter and having tried to recruit those specific players) which would make it inherently less probable.

aapje wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Votes DFaraday
You realise you haven't actually voted right?

DharmaHelper wrote:Actually yeah fuck it Scotty gets my vote.
Oh no you didn't

Votes DH

Vote changes should be a positive for your spreadsheeting exploits. You have more trends to observe and can incorporate timing for changes.

I will say that I think the chance of Golden deliberately killing his own team mate, even if it's Epignosis, is exactly 0%.

Golden wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.
Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

If I was a civilian recruiter I would be very willing to recruit Epignosis.

Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I will say that I think the chance of Golden deliberately killing his own team mate, even if it's Epignosis, is exactly 0%.
Then you still don't know me that well.

You're asking me to believe this:

You'd intentionally create a huge rift of a pretty personal nature between yourself and another Syndicate regular as a spiteful statement in response to him playing to his own style as he always seems to play?

Oh yeah, LoRab: "JJJ" is perfectly fine.

I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.
Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I'd rather kill a neutral than end the day in a no lynch. We'd learn nothing.

Typhoony wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.
I'd rather kill a neutral than end the day in a no lynch. We'd learn nothing.
What would we learn from a neutral lynch?

That the player was not civilian or baddie. Players involved and not involved could be examined for their involvement and non-involvement. It's not that different from any lynch in a normal game.

Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.
Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.
I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.
Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.

What do you think of Bass's proposed theory re: MP and llama in his most recent post?

I'd lynch BWT before DF.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not sure why the neutral in this case needs to die in order for you to look at people's involvement in his/her lynch though.

That analysis would probably change if the alignment is non-neutral (primarily if it's a recruiter).

What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.

Search found 458 matches