The Syndicate

Fun game, Captain. Laughed every time Jimmy posted.

Fist bump to Speed. Couldn't have won without ya.

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:09 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:37 pm
Dragon D. Luffy - Posts
Kylemii - Posts
MovingPictures07 - Posts
speedchuck - Posts

..............
.............................
...... ....................
.......... .........................
.......... .........................
..............

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:28 pm Fun game, Captain. Laughed every time Jimmy posted.

Fist bump to Speed. Couldn't have won without ya.

Right back atcha!

Oh, and good job avoiding a lynch for a day, MP, so I could look good bussing you and waste a town day on Wilgy.

For the record, didn't have a legit reason to lynch Wilgy.

Hey everyone! i know that game is over, and if youre itching for revenge we do have another signup going on right now hosted by your's truly

congratz to speedchuck and jack

a deadly duo for sure

(also i totally wouldve guessed speedchuck since i know his scum game by now )

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:30 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:09 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:37 pm
Dragon D. Luffy - Posts
Kylemii - Posts
MovingPictures07 - Posts
speedchuck - Posts

..............
.............................
...... ....................
.......... .........................
.......... .........................
..............

yeah

Well shit sorry for being inactive the last few days, I kinda forgot about a test I had on Monday so I had to cram for it.

Having said that I'd probably have had just gone after DDL and ignored the real mafia members.

Thank for the game though it was fun.

My first mistake was in the role. Sloonei said I'm a watcher and I assumed that was a tracker role. I've never had a "watcher" in a game I've played.

My second mistake was writing in my notes for night 2 to watch Long Con, but then The National happened and a 5 hr drive, and I remembered while standing in the concert hall that I hadn't sent my night action in so I told JJJ over whatsapp if he can log me in to watch speedchuck even though he was in my "suspect list" at that point. No fucking idea why. I had no brain cells then.

So you can all say I singlehandedly lost you the game cos if I'd watched LongCon as intended, we'd have gotten speedchuck and quite possible have won.

Yep, I can retire now from mafia.

Hugs to Kyle for taking my suspicions like a real baller. I've had that sort of irrational suspicion on me countless times and it's annoying as f. Thanks bud!

Well played speedchuck! Well played Jack, nice to a see a replacement really make an effort!

dunya wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:25 am My first mistake was in the role. Sloonei said I'm a watcher and I assumed that was a tracker role. I've never had a "watcher" in a game I've played.

My second mistake was writing in my notes for night 2 to watch Long Con, but then The National happened and a 5 hr drive, and I remembered while standing in the concert hall that I hadn't sent my night action in so I told JJJ over whatsapp if he can log me in to watch speedchuck even though he was in my "suspect list" at that point. No fucking idea why. I had no brain cells then.

So you can all say I singlehandedly lost you the game cos if I'd watched LongCon as intended, we'd have gotten speedchuck and quite possible have won.

Yep, I can retire now from mafia.

Hugs to Kyle for taking my suspicions like a real baller. I've had that sort of irrational suspicion on me countless times and it's annoying as f. Thanks bud!

Well played speedchuck! Well played Jack, nice to a see a replacement really make an effort!

I forbid you from retiring.

Nobody singlehandedly lost this game. There were numerous factors which contributed to the end result:

~ The mafia team was active throughout (if considering Jack), and an active mafia team is by default more difficult to solve than an inactive mafia team.

~ The total civilian effort was fantastic through 90% of Day 1 and then it fell off of a cliff. The DrWilgy lynch was really bad from my perspective, and it was an unfortunate way to end one of the most active Day 1s we've ever had in a heist game here. It seemed like a great deal of hard work was forgotten at the last minute and the easiest lynch available (the guy being weird) was selected instead of one informed by the discussion.

~ From Days 2 through 5, the game slowed significantly. Indeed, nearly half of the posts in this game thread occurred on Day 1 -- let that sink in. It is of course understandable that some folks had things going on in real life and that's perfectly fine. The entire civilian faction just shut down though, and it allowed speedchuck and later Jack to simply take over the game. They became essentially unlynchable because they were the most influential voices in the thread. Even if they were suspected they weren't getting lynched, and I think they were both pretty comfortable. A comfortable mafia team is rarely going to lose.

~ The no lynch at 5 vs 2 was the worst-possible strategic move for the civilians when it occurred. Any lynch available, even of a civilian, would have been better in that situation.

~ At 4 vs 2, a no lynch actually would have made sense. Inactivity and a lack of team cohesion prevented it though, and left the door open for the endgame shenanigan vote switches.

I don't mean for this to be critical of anyone. Shit happens. Civilians grow with every loss.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:03 pm ~ From Days 2 through 5, the game slowed significantly. Indeed, nearly half of the posts in this game thread occurred on Day 1 -- let that sink in. It is of course understandable that some folks had things going on in real life and that's perfectly fine. The entire civilian faction just shut down though, and it allowed speedchuck and later Jack to simply take over the game. They became essentially unlynchable because they were the most influential voices in the thread. Even if they were suspected they weren't getting lynched, and I think they were both pretty comfortable. A comfortable mafia team is rarely going to lose.

I think this is really what kept me in the game. I made a lot of stupid moves this game, moves that should have been called out. But I was so confident and comfortable in my D1 lynch of Wilgy and my no-lynch decision, so ready to ignore them myself, that it put a damper on calling me out.

My confidence and willingness to stick to my guns gave me an edge, I think. First time I've tried that as scum. Don't know if it will work again.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:03 pm~ The no lynch at 5 vs 2 was the worst-possible strategic move for the civilians when it occurred. Any lynch available, even of a civilian, would have been better in that situation.

The good news is I can only go upwards from here.

Hey, we won this! Wow. Incredible job, teammates!

I'm really sorry for disappearing. It was the presence of house guests that took me away from the game. Dunya, I really owe you an apology. I sent in my protection for the night you died before I read the thread. I read the thread after the deadline. I knew immediately you were the other power role when you asked about double targeting because I almost asked the exact same question. If I had read the thread before sending in my kill I would have protected you instead. I'm so very sorry. I was out to dinner with bwt and MP and I needed to send out the protection quickly in order to get it in on time.

In answer to the double targeting question: Daisy protected Long Con Night 1, but then Long Con was killed Night 2. Double targeting is not allowed, but this move was allowed because different members of the scum team performed the kill each night (Spank N1, Speedchuck N2). Other hosts could rule differently on this, but that was my ruling.

I agree with that ruling. If the entire mafia team isn't allowed to double-target (between differing members) with their night kills, then the purpose of the double-targeting rule is wasted. Otherwise you get this:

N1: Mafia kills Long Con (fail, protected)
N2: Neither mafia nor doctor can target Long Con
N3: Mafia can now target Long Con, but so can the doctor

No thanks.

Additionally, if the mafia kill was a team ability rather than an individual player's nightly action, the watcher would be a pointless role.

I disagree with the ruling, and I see your N1-N3 steps as a good thing. Why "no thanks"? Too much Mafia-favour with that ruling. Why should the Mafia get a guaranteed kill after the doctor was awesome enough to stop a kill? It diminishes the doctor role considerably, and it's a hard enough role to succeed with as it is.

N1: Mafia kills Long Con (fail, protected)
N2: Neither mafia nor doctor can target Long Con
N3: Mafia can now target Long Con, but so can the doctor. The Mafia AND the doctor have to decide whether or not their opposite will go for the N3 targeting, or try to outsmart the other and go for N4. This is good. This is a fun way to play a little WIFOM game behind the scenes, a battle of wits between the good and bad.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:01 pm Additionally, if the mafia kill was a team ability rather than an individual player's nightly action, the watcher would be a pointless role.

Not if the team can't double target, but they still pick a killer.

Long Con wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:04 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:01 pm Additionally, if the mafia kill was a team ability rather than an individual player's nightly action, the watcher would be a pointless role.

Not if the team can't double target, but they still pick a killer.

I suppose so. I've always preferred to designate a specific player each night to perform the kill, because I usually find this to be more of a risk/challenge for the mafia team. They have to pick the right person to perform the kill without being caught in any traps/IDs each night. But there are situations like this, or when a certain team member might be an obvious target, where it can give them an advantage.

The only reason I think a "no double targeting" rule has any value is to prevent protective roles from completely dictating mafia kill decisions (to permanently protect a single player, for example). I think that problem persists in a lesser form if the mafia team cannot double target between members.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:10 pm The only reason I think a "no double targeting" rule has any value is to prevent protective roles from completely dictating mafia kill decisions (to permanently protect a single player, for example). I think that problem persists in a lesser form if the mafia team cannot double target between members.

This was always my logic as well.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:07 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:04 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:01 pm Additionally, if the mafia kill was a team ability rather than an individual player's nightly action, the watcher would be a pointless role.

Not if the team can't double target, but they still pick a killer.

I suppose so. I've always preferred to designate a specific player each night to perform the kill, because I usually find this to be more of a risk/challenge for the mafia team. They have to pick the right person to perform the kill without being caught in any traps/IDs each night. But there are situations like this, or when a certain team member might be an obvious target, where it can give them an advantage.

I totally agree, I just think it should go alongside a no double targeting rule for the kill.

It occurs to me that we haven't posted the actions, though they may be known now.

Day 1

DrWilgy lynched

Night 1

dunya watches Spacedaisy
Spacedaisy protects Long Con
SpankGangsta kills Long Con (failed)

Day 2

MovingPictures07 lynched

Night 2

dunya watches speedchuck
Spacedaisy protects kylemii
speedchuck kills Long Con

Day 3

Quin lynched

Night 3

dunya watches sig
Spacedaisy protects Kylemii
speedchuck kills dunya

Day 4

No lynch

Night 4

speedchuck kills Spacedaisy

Day 5

colonialbob lynched

Night 5

sig killed

End game

I kind of agree with LongCon fwiw. Giving mafia team the ability to rotate so they can outsmart the no double target rule, but speedchuck placed the kill three or four successive times anyway seems a little imbalanced. I like LongCon's logic where both teams have the rule. It makes it a bit more challenging.

p.s. Daisy, that's ok! I was trying to watch you *but I thought I was tracking you hence my confusion first night*. Also, I fucked up by not watching longcon.

Numerous town players really deserve some accolades for their performances this game, IMO, despite the loss. There was some seriously incredible town play on D1 especially -- LC, Daisy, dunya, and Kyle in particular, though there were many of you all giving a genuine effort. I can say it was really tough for me personally to fabricate content amid all of that, especially being rusty (somehow I haven't been mafia-aligned in forever) and lower on time than I would have liked. I thought we were likely screwed after how much attention (some of it rightfully so) I received on D1 leading to my lynch and having an inactive on our team.

Don't let the game slipping away from you all keep you from seeing what you did right as well, because town looked good at the start of this game.

Still I think I made a lot of mistakes that could have resulted in a better result for town, and some other townies felt the same way, so I'm not hating the result cos mafia team deserved the win.

MovingPictures07 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:39 pm Numerous town players really deserve some accolades for their performances this game, IMO, despite the loss. There was some seriously incredible town play on D1 especially -- LC, Daisy, dunya, and Kyle in particular, though there were many of you all giving a genuine effort. I can say it was really tough for me personally to fabricate content amid all of that, especially being rusty (somehow I haven't been mafia-aligned in forever) and lower on time than I would have liked. I thought we were likely screwed after how much attention (some of it rightfully so) I received on D1 leading to my lynch and having an inactive on our team.

Don't let the game slipping away from you all keep you from seeing what you did right as well, because town looked good at the start of this game.

hell even after the kyle and speedchuck and colonialbob no lynch, there was a point the next day where I saw everyone possibly directed to speedchuck and I thought shit this could still work.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:03 pm Nobody singlehandedly lost this game. There were numerous factors which contributed to the end result:

~ The total civilian effort was fantastic through 90% of Day 1 and then it fell off of a cliff. The DrWilgy lynch was really bad from my perspective, and it was an unfortunate way to end one of the most active Day 1s we've ever had in a heist game here. It seemed like a great deal of hard work was forgotten at the last minute and the easiest lynch available (the guy being weird) was selected instead of one informed by the discussion.

To be fair to the town as well, part of this was because speedchuck and I made a concerted effort to make the Wilgy mislynch happen. I really didn't want to get lynched on D1. Wilgy put us in a tough spot and in retrospect we both handled him horribly. Our treatment of him was suspicious as fuck and we should have received more beef for it than we did even.

dunya wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:40 pm Still I think I made a lot of mistakes that could have resulted in a better result for town, and some other townies felt the same way, so I'm not hating the result cos mafia team deserved the win.

Oh yeah, unfortunately I stopped following this game with the revolving door of company Daisy and I had the past week and a half, but speedchuck and Jack clearly put in a ton of effort and dug us out of a pretty bad spot. They deserve recognition for that as well. I really appreciate them carrying us through to the win. You guys were obviously the best teammates I could have asked for, and sorry I couldn't do more myself.

I just know how it is to be on a losing town team despite an initial good effort and how demoralizing that can be, so I wanted to go out of my way to make sure you all know that there was some seriously good performances in this game. Don't let the end result get you down.

we'll get you next time speedchuch/jack

If there aren't protective/blocking roles then I don't think there's even a reason to implement a rule against double-targeting. I think that's something that has just become typical or standard here over the years. There are sites that never have that rule. RYM rarely had it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:33 pm Spacedaisy protects kylemii
Spacedaisy protects Kylemii

Awww thanks

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:51 pm If there aren't protective/blocking roles then I don't think there's even a reason to implement a rule against double-targeting. I think that's something that has just become typical or standard here over the years. There are sites that never have that rule. RYM rarely had it.

It could make a watcher/tracker, or a roleblocker overpowered. They could all just plant themselves on a particular player and reap the results of whatever occurs.

But it is true that RYM rarely had an issue with double targeting. It was a pretty foreign concept to me when I first came here, so my ideas on it are not as fully former as others.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:06 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:33 pm Spacedaisy protects kylemii
Spacedaisy protects Kylemii

Awww thanks

Yeah that's an error. I one of those should be someone else. I can't remember.

I agree with LC's thoughts on the double targetting thing, mainly cus that's how it's always been in communities I've been a part of.

The wifom will-they-won't-they shit is the most important part of the doctor role and it's also why the doctor is so important as a role, and honestly the most interesting part of choosing a kill as mafia. With double targeting kill rules the mafia has to consider whether their target might be protected. Without it that stress is still there but worst case scenario, second times a charm right? It give you incentive to find and kill the doctor that you wouldn't have had before as mafia.

MovingPictures07 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:39 pm Don't let the game slipping away from you all keep you from seeing what you did right as well, because town looked good at the start of this game.

Well lesson #1 is that I'm never going to shy away from forcing ties on day 1

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:18 pm Yeah that's an error. I one of those should be someone else. I can't remember.

Hurtful, and also rude.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:11 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:51 pm If there aren't protective/blocking roles then I don't think there's even a reason to implement a rule against double-targeting. I think that's something that has just become typical or standard here over the years. There are sites that never have that rule. RYM rarely had it.

It could make a watcher/tracker, or a roleblocker overpowered. They could all just plant themselves on a particular player and reap the results of whatever occurs.

Roleblocker agreed. Watcher/tracker meh. They have no unique insight about the value of targeting any single player, and if they do catch someone red-handed once by repeat targeting then they guarantee that their max utility is getting one catch -- something they're supposed to aspire to anyway with those roles. I think that'd be a silly strategic decision for any investigative role.

I think anything that significantly hampers the civilian control over the lynch is a problem. I think anything that significantly hampers the mafia control over their night kills is a problem. Those are the fundamental means by which each faction progresses toward their win conditions, and screwing with them more than a little bit is not something I'm ever keen on as a host. Others differ, that's fine, it's a free planet.

I mean as long as the physics are outlined from the beginning anything goes.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:51 pm If there aren't protective/blocking roles then I don't think there's even a reason to implement a rule against double-targeting. I think that's something that has just become typical or standard here over the years. There are sites that never have that rule. RYM rarely had it.

I think that silencing roles (which are objectively bad but whatever) shouldn't be allowed to double target.

Being silenced once isn't fun. Being silenced four days in a row kills 100% of the enjoyment of a game and I say this from personal experience.

If stopping a doc from parking on one player is the other goal of the double targeting rule, I say scum should be allowed to double target with the kill and doctors can double target after a successful save.

Yes I can agree with silencing being a no-double-target role.

In fact I prefer to disallow silencers from targeting any player twice period.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:36 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:51 pm If there aren't protective/blocking roles then I don't think there's even a reason to implement a rule against double-targeting. I think that's something that has just become typical or standard here over the years. There are sites that never have that rule. RYM rarely had it.

I think that silencing roles (which are objectively bad but whatever)

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:19 pm In fact I prefer to disallow silencers from targeting any player twice period.

well I guess I better put the "Oops! All Silencers!" themed mafia game I was planning in the fucking trash :/

Kylemii wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:24 pm well I guess I better put the "Oops! All Silencers!" themed mafia game I was planning in the fucking trash :/

The regular trash will be fine.

I'm not a huge fan of silencers either, but I don't fault hosts for throwing them in there once in a while. If the game is meant to be classically constructed, there are only a handful of other standard mafia-aligned power roles commonly employed (i.e. roleblocker, role cop, godfather, strongman). A silencer just adds a little spice and diversity.

I do agree though that it's not great to prevent someone from talking in a game designed around talking.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:24 pm well I guess I better put the "Oops! All Silencers!" themed mafia game I was planning in the fucking trash :/

I'm hanging my 'All insanifiers!' themed mafia game on the fridge for everyone to see.