RIP Epi and Typh.
That really sucks. I love playing with Epi and he dies early way too often anymore... and, like others, I am absolutely amazed Typhoony was killed N1 of his first game in years. Wow. That really sucks.
Okay, here it is. I tried to keep it as concise as possible and respond to as few posts as necessary and I think I did a really good job. If any of you still have questions for me or I missed something, then I apologize for missing it, but just please ask me.
Can any of the players that defended
unfurl's behavior by saying it is like unfurl please explain to me what in her behavior makes you believe this? What adjectives would you use to describe her play in general that you see here, that make you unable to distinguish her alignment, and not persuaded by any of the points I was making?
I love pedantic pink!
I really can't fathom why BWT received so many votes, especially since I (and a couple of others) clearly stated he gets mislynched often, for blendy and suspicious-seeming statements. When he made a mistake with the low posters, I don't understand the mafia perspective. Can anyone actually explain to me the anti-town perspective behind BWT's posts? Because I'm clearly missing it. What's the deal, BWT voters? I demand an explanation.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden wrote:S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.
What was your theory?
That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.
But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.
I suspect this mindset will be different for everyone, but I do think there could be value in pooling our individual perspectives.
Hey everyone! Please tell us here in this very thread how you think
you would go about choosing recruits in this setup if you were recruiters. What factors would be most important in your decision? Least important? If enough of you help me out with some delicious answers, I might even compile a CHART. Who wants a chart? We love charts, don't we? Seriously, this might be a good way to get a grip of early choices -- and perhaps even influence how future recruitment choices are made. We could in part
dictate how the baddies recruit. I think this is appealing.
My answers, most important numbered and least important lettered:
1.) My perception of their skillset -- I would favor someone that I feel has a diverse array of mafia skills that can function cross-alignment and long-term.
2.) Complementary talent within The Syndicate -- I am newer here than most and do not boast a lot of experience in setups as complex as this. Someone who can fill that void would be a big help.
3.) Less inherently likely to attract thread attention -- I wouldn't select myself, essentially. Loud players are a dangerous choice.
///
A.) Fun -- I'd probably be a party pooper in this regard. While I do love fun, I'd also think choosing based on fun would be more transparent to others and less likely to progress me towards a victory.
B.) Reputation on The Syndicate -- I only have a cursory knowledge of this anyway, but I probably wouldn't care much whether someone is perceived by others to be
elite or something else.
, regarding my criteria for hypothetical recruiting, refer to the following:
1) My perception of their skill and versatility
2) Less inherently likely to attract thread attention
3) If I've not had BTSC with them before
4) Complement my mafia style
5) Fun
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm a fan of Russ's early contributions. His longer multi-quote posts aren't good merely for being long, they're good for conveying a mindset and progression of thought that I have no difficulty following. I can insert myself into his brain and see the posts he is discussing through his eyes -- which would be suggestive that we both are reading posts with the same end goals.
, how do you feel about Russ now?
In fact, would you be able to provide a Rainbow List? Maybe we can swap rainbows even.
thellama73 wrote:Looking at MP's list again, I could see someone recruiting Spacedaisy early. She is rarely lynched, reliable, well-liked, and flies under the radar. An ideal first recruit.
, I incredibly disagree.
No offense to Daisy, I love her and all, but Daisy almost never makes it to endgame, just like DFaraday. She almost always gets called out after the game is halfway underway, if she hasn't been lynched or NKed before that. She would definitely not be one of the players I would recruit first, fifth, or even tenth probably.
Golden wrote:By the way, I've caught up on all of rico's llama suspicions and the talk around it and I have to say - I see no reason to take rico's suspicions of llama as anything but genuine, and it does make me think twice about MP because - MP - why dismiss Rico's suspicion as only able to be genuine if he is biased? I thought he was making pretty decent points (albeit that I agree with you that I don't find llama suspicious for it).
, to answer your concerns about my dismissal of Rico, it's as simple as this.
Rico and Llama have a weird history, and it seems they never see eye to eye. Frankly, if I had a dollar for each game that Llama has tried the "are you bad?" stuff and pursues it, I'd have more money than I get for my PhD stipend.
Seriously though, so the reason I immediately dismissed Rico's thoughts were because I saw nothing different about Llama's shtick, and Llama used it infamously against Rico in Rico's first game ever, so it read to me like Rico was reading into Llama's intentions with a bias, particularly because the two of them have interactions on occasion that are, frankly, uncomfortable/awkward to read due to the passive-aggressive nature of them.
Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss Rico's thoughts, for that reason, but nonetheless that was (and still largely is) my thought process on the matter.
I feel much like Dom expressed
here.
timmer wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:
I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.
What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?
I think several people - Golden, Epig, llama, BWT - are trying to act like they normally do but it is often coming across as false because we all know they are at least mostly likely still neutral. Golden's chit chat in prticular sounded like he was playing the part of civ Golden when in fact he likely isn't civ. BWT's posts feel a bit forced as well. llama's feel a bit more natural, as do Bea's, Epig's and SVS's, and yours.
, can you elaborate on what it is about the posts of the players you mentioned that makes you feel that way about them?
Spacedaisy wrote:I have finally reached the end. And up until last night I was caught up, then the thread exploded today and it took me all evening to catch up. Ugh. I have so many thoughts...
First let me be clear here, I have been quiet not because I didn't have thoughts to share our am flying under the radar, but because I have had technical issues. I tried posting three times in the last two days. Each time were long posts with multiple quotes in them and each time I lost them to the monster that is my iPad. It is out to crush my soul, I tell you. Each time, I ended up throwing my iPad away from me in rage and give up for the moment. Only to return later and find one or more other players have said what I wanted to say. I need a computer, but we just finished paying for a wedding so it will have to wait for the moment.
Now, these are my game related thoughts:
This is not a LMS style game. The Civ factions both share two common enemies, not each other. They are only grouped into two factions because the baddie teams only need the other baddie team and one of the two civ factions eliminated to win. When I read this I thought it seemed kind of silly because if civ team 1 needs baddie team 1 eliminated to win, doesn't that mean that technically baddie team 1 would need them to be eliminated to win? It is not as if they can win together. Their win conditions are mutually exclusive, if I am understanding it correctly. Anyway, my eye is on those who are trying to paint this as a LMS set up when it clearly is not. The host identified two civ teams and made it clear who they need eliminated. It seems like trying to foster a LMS atmosphere would make it easier for baddies to hide. I'm looking at you MP and Timmer...
Regarding what I would look for in a recruit, I would be looking for balance people. People who would bring things to the table I lack, or that I know I work well with. Their skill as mafia would make a difference to me whether I was civ or bad. If i was civ, I would not want the feb players to be recruited by the mafia, and if I was mafia, heck yeah I would want them on my team. But everyone has their idea of who are the really skilled bad players and we have a lot of old timers back and new players, so that muddies the water a bit.
Voting low posters. Really? If you want to vote someone for low contribution, fine, but in this situation there seems like a beck of a lot of other things to consider and I think the discussion of recruit/recruiter reasoning has been an excellent example. If we can locate either a recruit or recruiter it might give us a possible direction to look next. At one point llama made a comment about not thinking low posters are a good lynch option, but if we are going to lynch them today would be a good day. I think that is extremely silly given the fact a recruitment has already occurred, and twice for at least one of the baddies it seems. It didn't give me warm feels about llama, but I read it twice and he did say he didn't think they were the best option, so I kind of out him on my back burner, suspicion wise. Anyway, the low poster people who have masse me last comfortable are MP and bwt. MP listed me in his low poster column, knowing full well what my situation is because he has been witness to my rage against the iPad.
Golden, I trust you. I get what you were trying to say with the "but" statement, and it flowed naturally in my mind as I read it. I don't think you are bad at the moment, but I also don't think sacrificing yourself is really what is best for the game.
Epi, I also don't think you are bad, yet. But I think you are wrong. At least at the moment, players can go from neutral to bad very quickly. It is the nature of the game. Right now I think you are both either neutral or civ.
I don't like people listing who they specifically would recruit. We have no way of knowing if they are being honest or not and basically it seems like a great way to paint targets on people's backs.
Speaking of which, I don't know how the nonsense about MP recruiting me got started but slow me to remind you all of the Champion's game, in which everyone believed I was MP's narrator. They kept falling about how killing me would kill him blah blah blah. And I repeatedly told you there was no way he chose me. He didn't. I know him. I guarantee you that I would not be his first recruit and it is likely he would not recruit me at all. And frankly I would not recruit him either. Enough with that noise, felt like some serous target painting to me. Yeah, I'm looking at you again llama, and was it MM or bwt that jumped right on that train of discussion too? Talk about who specifically someone would recruit once you have some tangible evidence to go on to even know that they did recruit. Until then, you are just blowing hot air. And in regards to me being a good recruit, I played the first recruitment game. I was never recruited, I actually got randomized into a baddie role late in the game to replace aapje I think. So I'm not sure why you think I would be a good recruit but if this were the school playground and they were picking dodge ball teams, I would be the one left standing with the creeper mouth breather. I have never been picked first or early for anything recruitment in nature where mafia is concerned. It would actually make me feel good if someone would think I'm an ideal recruit, feel free y'all.
DH & MM, next time you plan on having a string of posts about granola bars our such other off topic conversation, do us all a favour and OT green that shit, some of us are trying to keep up here and it makes it a heck of a lot easier if we can skip crap like that. Funny as you all are, we can make jokes in OT green too.
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.
Did we end up in the position where a lynch stop can be used? I can't recall. This early in the game it might be useful since we are way more likely to lynch a neutral than anything else. Just my two cents. If it is something that can be used anytime we are in that position I can't see a down side to it, unless we feel pretty sure the person we lynch is bad.
I think I covered most of my thoughts, but I had to catch up on so much I gave up on writing things and did this by memory. Anyway, that's all right at this second. I should be able to be more active tomorrow, it's my day off. And I have started using the kindle in place of the iPad, despite it having a more annoying autocorrect and being less convenient to type posts on, art least it doesn't eat them!
, yes, I obviously was aware of your iPad issues, but I wasn't going to exclude you from my list of low posters that I was trying to prod to post. Sorsha had a funeral. Devin has been busy. I don't know every facet of everyone's RL. I wasn't going to speak for anyone and make any exceptions. You can defend yourself, yeah?
unfurl wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Fuck x 9001, something's come up re: PhD and I'll probably be pulling an all-nighter tonight and possibly tomorrow night to get all of this shit done. I'm sorry, folks, but this absolutely has to come first.
I'm going to just go ahead and vote unfurl in case I can't come back in time. I know this is unlike me, but I'll be lucky enough to get this done even with not sleeping tonight. I'll catch up properly whenever I can, probably Saturday or Sunday.
So according to you Im worst then a low poster? cause thats who you said wanted to discuss, and
because i when against you, I pretty much became your target
So is more an easy vote to just vote for me?
unfurl, this is a misrepresentation. That is not why I find you suspicious.
I've since provided more clarification on my thought process for my vote. If you still have questions or concerns, let me know.
Devin the Omniscient wrote:thellama73 wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Ludwig von Mises wrote:
The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.
Now, regarding low posters: My feeling is that they are less likely to be recruited, and therefore more likely to remain unaligned. Not ideal choices for lynches, especially later in the game. On Day 1, however, they are just as likely to be a recruiter as anyone else, so if we're going to go after them, we should do it sooner rather than later.
Being a low poster right now, I have to disagree. There are already 14 pages of discussion (for me, at least), and from what little I've read so far there are too many good points being brought up to just go after low posters.
RE BWT: I've seen him leave wiggle room plenty of times before this. I've even done this myself lots of times in previous games, especially as a baddie (and as a civvie-attacking indie). That last part being said, I do agree that BWT does get lynched a lot regardless of alignment for stating wiggly-roomy type statements such as this. But I do want to keep an eye on going forward.
Linkie: MP and llama beat me to this
Devin the Omniscient wrote:I agree with your second statement Boomslang.
birdwithteeth11 wrote: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.
I went away from Golden because I felt the explanation he offered me when I questioned him about it seemed fairly reasonable, and I overlooked/missed an earlier post from him where he further explained his initial response to the whole SVS thing.
I think in a game this large, there's just too much unknown to really be sure we're going to hit a target on Day 1. So I feel more comfortable voting for someone who is not contributing to the game that significantly. I know it takes some people time to really get into games, and I understand that. But in a game this large, I'd rather it be more about people actively participating and trying to get involved early on.
Now Day 2 on the other hand, I would start to look for more concrete reasons to lynch someone than "a low poster".
You are not making me feel better about you, BWT. I agree that it is always the norm to have more concrete evidence to go on in Day 2. But there is now almost 30 pages of discussion to sift through on this Day 1, and that is just too much info to ignore and go with a random or a low poster.
Not only this, but I get the feeling that you are avoiding putting yourself out there into some of the more prominent discussions going on. Your "on-the-fence" (as someone other than you referred to it) comment RE:Golden is what pinged me immediately. That felt almost identical to something you said in Bioshock, and we lynched you Day 1 as a baddie. I wanted to get away from that and go after someone referring to this game as LMS (I still might if enough people vote that rout), but I just can't get this out of my mind. So I'm going meta for now and
voting for you. I will check back in later before the day ends, but I have to disappear now that I've caught up.
I REALLY need to work, as I am off for most of next week.
DON"T HATE ME DAVID! 
Linki: Thank you for clarifying, Timmer. That makes me feel better about you individually for now. I understand that currently a huge % of us are neutral and that that type of game is typically LMS. I just feel that playing this game as if it is LMS could really fuck us when we're recruited. I could see the same being argued for playing it as good vs. evil, but I'll stand by that type of (familiar) game play
, how did you go from Post #1 to Post #2 here? As it stands, your vote for BWT might be the one I find most suspicious, because you seem to disregard your previous meta read on BWT to some degree.
timmer wrote:In regards to SD and Devin (and anyone I missed) who don't like my stance on the game. I've been pretty clear in saying that I think it is an LMS game that will then segue into a traditional mafia game. I'm not saying LMS forever, just LMS for now. An unrecruit has no allegiance, no alignment, no task except to stay alive until said recruitment can happen. That's it. Right now, day 1, there are apparently 8 people on teams, and something like 25 not on teams. So the majority of us have survival on our mind, plain and simple.
My problem with people saying that they are playing civvie until they get recruited is that it could all be such a lie already. Someone could say that as the leader of a baddie team, lol. Whether someone wants to admit it or not, it's all lying because half of the people saying it will end up bad and their stance will then be strategic tactics, or already are.
You must see how there is at least anelement of LMS in these early days?
sums up my exact thoughts here regarding the nature of this game very well.
I also implore anyone willing to judge me harshly for viewing the game as LMS to search through my posts for where I said this game was LMS because I did not.
Russtifinko wrote:Posting from airport...my last weekend traveling before a one week break from it! Haha
I have been mostly following, just haven't had time to post. I only skipped 10 pages, I swear. And apparently they were full of DHs poop anyway.
I think voting low posters on D1 is ludicrous. DF could be really excited for this game and just had one long shift at work and then needed to sleep, and he could've missed basically all of today. I think people are basically giving up on getting a baddie because there are just 2, so they're playing for self preservation and feel least guilty about voting a low poster because they seem less interested in playing. I think that stinks.
I'm voting timmer. He and MP were suggesting we play the game in a way that pretty much guarantees cob defeat IMO. And plenty of baddies have tried to use odd setups as reasons to convince Cubs to work with them. I actually think MP was more militant about it, but I believe that his real life concerns are real, and timmer was all for an "everyone is LMS" game.
OMG STOP. I clicked submit 3 times without even reading the Linki and it won't go thru. *sobs*
Linki. Listen to JJJ. He's not stupid. If we get a baddie with DF, it'll be blind chance. Use actual suspicion. I know some people don't feel hopeful about getting a baddies, but we have to try. Nipping the baddie recruitment in the bud is by far the easiest way to win here.
, I think you're somewhat mischaracterizing mine and timmer's views here, and you completely fail to acknowledge Canuck's viewpoint. How do you feel about her?
You said vote an actual suspect, yet you voted for timmer, for the way he is approaching the game. Do you have suspects that you suspect in a more traditional sense? (does that make sense?)
Metalmarsh89 wrote:This doesn't seem right for unfurl to end the day early, but this is the finaly tally I came up with. Everyone had 1 vote except unfurl who had 2. This makes more sense for someone like BWT to be the one who stopped the lynch.
2 - unfurl
- DrWilgy (1), MovingPictures07 (3)
1 - birdwithteeth11
1 - Canucklehead
1 - DrWilgy
1 - Epignosis
1 - Golden
1 - MovingPictures07
1 - Russtifinko
1 - S~V~S
1 - Tranq
, or anyone else, so is this tally the correct one?
I was thinking YES VINDICATION
when I saw the timing of unfurl's post as pointed out, but if you're right MM, then yeah, it does seem unlikely that she did it.
Fiddler on the Roof
[/color][/b]
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
