The Syndicate 2014 Game of Champions [ENDGAME]

[reywaS]

For the record SVS, my only goal with voting you the way I did was to instigate some real Day 1 discussion. I believe I was successful. I had no suspicion of you then, nor do I have any of you now.

Per my comment on Mongoose, I was not distracting. I just wanted to point out that Mongoose has been logging onto the Syndicate and posting in other places, though she never bothered to check in on Day 0 even for this game.

To whom are you planning on changing your vote?

I don't plan on voting you, but I am certainly unappreciative with your approach today. You've maintained that voting early is suspicious, but somehow forget to bring up my name in that discussion. Players are bound to draw connections there. I do not want your vote, but being ignored is worse.

You didn't actually answer this yet, did you? Who are you planning on moving your vote to?

I thought that just the fact that I hadn't moved my vote would be answer enough. I don't know yet.

But I can assure you that by the end of the day, my vote will not be on you.

Really??? So, in essence, S~V~S is getting a pass today?

[S~V~S]

[FZ.]

For crying out loud, slow down, people! Every time I think I'm almost caught up, there's more.

My thoughts so far (I'm trying to recall what I read and wanted to comment on, and names are a bit sketchy, so I could be confusing some people):
1. The Federal case conversation was beating a dead horse. What was the point in everyone jumping in to comment on it? That's 10-20 minutes I'll never get back

2. I fully realize that LC could be fooling me, but his posts this last day seem like the response of a very annoyed and frustrated civvie. So even though I initially thought he might be a baddie, for now, he's convinced me otherwise. Also, LC, you told someone to ease up on the shrug smiley, because you were called on it last game and you were indeed a baddie. First of all, yay, I was right to call you up on it then Second, who did you say it to? I saw it before but I can't remember if it was meant for DH or someone else. Third, why'd you tell him to ease up if you think he was bad?

3. I don't remember who it was that said something about if SVS gets NK, we look at llama, but I disagree with those who said it makes him look bad. A baddie wouldn't be so stupid (I hope) to say it before. If anything, they'd kill her and then find something like that and twist it like they want. This would be a really bad and obvious tactic to use because it screams baddie, and baddies rarely have a neon sign above their heads. So at the moment, I'm not sure what to think about those jumping on that case. To be honest, I don't remember who they are. There's a reason I barely play the big games. I can't freaking remember who said what.

Not sure how to explain it yet, but INH is pinging me at the moment. I need to look back and see if I can explain why.
As for DH, not sure. He's being very bold, if he's a baddie, but I can't say I'm getting that feeling from him.

I probably have more to say, but I need to read

[Black Rock]

Well this is a hard one. I think I will vote for DH today. DH has been poking at things and waiting for something to stick. He has stated a few things as fact about LC that are just not true. TH believes DH's case and also used some excuse that was not true for believing LC was bad. I don't trust either of them today. So vote DH and watch TH.

[Marmot]

For the record SVS, my only goal with voting you the way I did was to instigate some real Day 1 discussion. I believe I was successful. I had no suspicion of you then, nor do I have any of you now.

Per my comment on Mongoose, I was not distracting. I just wanted to point out that Mongoose has been logging onto the Syndicate and posting in other places, though she never bothered to check in on Day 0 even for this game.

To whom are you planning on changing your vote?

I don't plan on voting you, but I am certainly unappreciative with your approach today. You've maintained that voting early is suspicious, but somehow forget to bring up my name in that discussion. Players are bound to draw connections there. I do not want your vote, but being ignored is worse.

You didn't actually answer this yet, did you? Who are you planning on moving your vote to?

I thought that just the fact that I hadn't moved my vote would be answer enough. I don't know yet.

But I can assure you that by the end of the day, my vote will not be on you.

Really??? So, in essence, S~V~S is getting a pass today?

Yes and yes.

Recall that I originally voted her for no reason. My purpose was not to get her lynched. It was an experiment to get conversation going. I think it worked.

Why, do you think she should be lynched?

[FZ.]

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

Not me. My vote for you was largely based on the Goldilocks approach.

Remind me again what the options were?

I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.

I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.

I was looking for a reaction from SVS. The question was not shifty, nor was I trying to set llama up.

That may be, but as I don't have time to analyze this DH/LC stuff, I'll still vote you because it cricked my brow.

This bothers me. After playing with you last game and seeing your logic (and I know you were a baddie, but an independent one and was trying to look like a civvie by catching baddies), the fact that you're voting MM (I now remember) based on something like that, doesn't sit well with me

[juliets]

Really??? So, in essence, S~V~S is getting a pass today?

rey, what are you saying here? Do you think S~V~S should get votes today or are you making a comment that after all the discussion you can't believe metalmarsh isn't voting for her or are you saying something entirely different. I'm having a heck of a time trying to decide who to vote for but I'm getting pings from MM. I have to do some re-reading to see if I can untangle why that would be.

[Long Con]

LC, you told someone to ease up on the shrug smiley, because you were called on it last game and you were indeed a baddie. First of all, yay, I was right to call you up on it then Second, who did you say it to? I saw it before but I can't remember if it was meant for DH or someone else. Third, why'd you tell him to ease up if you think he was bad?

Yes, it was a good call, you said and it was , or the other way around, but I looked back at my posts and saw that you were right, and I was like . I believe I said it to reywaS... after saying it I thought that I could have let him go on doing it and used it to possibly pin him down as a baddie... but it felt cooler to just say it. And if I end up getting lucky and being right after the game, then he can say thanks. Eased up or not, the two shrugs in the short period of time is still something to remember, based on your detectively conclusions last game.

3. I don't remember who it was that said something about if SVS gets NK, we look at llama, but I disagree with those who said it makes him look bad. A baddie wouldn't be so stupid (I hope) to say it before. If anything, they'd kill her and then find something like that and twist it like they want. This would be a really bad and obvious tactic to use because it screams baddie, and baddies rarely have a neon sign above their heads. So at the moment, I'm not sure what to think about those jumping on that case. To be honest, I don't remember who they are. There's a reason I barely play the big games. I can't freaking remember who said what.

It puts a big target on S~V~S' head, if you ask me. If Llama is a baddie, then he could kill her with impunity, and the first person to point at him would probably be lynched, accused of a baddie ploy. And if Llama isn't the killing baddie, then the actual killer could just kill her in the hopes that it would cause a shitstorm (are we redacting in this game?) and sit back and watch.

On a personal note, I like S~V~S. And the last big game we played together, she made a bad decision (buying the Railroad) that got her predictably killed way too early. It would be nice if the killers would just kind of ignore this whole thing and not kill her... at least not so early, and not for these reasons. It would just make me sad if she were to go out the same way twice in a row, and to have her Champions game stolen from her due to another player's comment.

[thellama73]

YOu know all about other players' comments messing with your game, don't you, LC?

[DharmaHelper]

YOu know all about other players' comments messing with your game, don't you, LC?

I think you meant to say:

You WOULD* know

[Marmot]

I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.

I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.

I was looking for a reaction from SVS. The question was not shifty, nor was I trying to set llama up.

That may be, but as I don't have time to analyze this DH/LC stuff, I'll still vote you because it cricked my brow.

It sounds like you are admitting I'm right, but keeping your vote so as to not look shifty.

[DharmaHelper]

Since MM changed his vote to me, out of what I assume is self preservation, seems I must do the same.

[Long Con]

YOu know all about other players' comments messing with your game, don't you, LC?

Ha! Indeed I do. So do you trust me this time?

...

Don't answer that.

[thellama73]

YOu know all about other players' comments messing with your game, don't you, LC?

Ha! Indeed I do. So do you trust me this time?

...

Don't answer that.

Okay, I won't.

[Marmot]

Since MM changed his vote to me, out of what I assume is self preservation, seems I must do the same.

I did. i'm on my phone on the bus, so I couldn't explain it right away.

Given the choice, I would rather vote Mongoose, sawyeR, or even Boomslang.

[Marmot]

Just want to throw this out there, but I'd recommened that y'all don't lynch me.

[Boomslang]

Just want to throw this out there, but I'd recommened that y'all don't lynch me.

For those of you keeping score at home, there's the vague threat of retribution!

[Marmot]

Just want to throw this out there, but I'd recommened that y'all don't lynch me.

For those of you keeping score at home, there's the vague threat of retribution!

Wait, how did you know my role?

Also remember, the points don't matter.

[Marmot]

Er, that second part was directed at the masses.

[Dom]

*facepalm* Yes, INH, that's exactly what I'm saying. Justifying sexism from mathematical reasons... I'm disappointed you took my argument off the slippery slope right off the bat.

You very clearly missed the point of what INH said. He used your exact logic to reach that conclusion. He was showing how flawed your logic is.

You also have yet to respond to my points about your logic, but only seemed to have doubled down on your thoughts.

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

Do civs and baddies behave randomly or uniformly?

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

Here's the thing-- I asked if your group of players was likely to contain baddies and you didn't really answer it. You seem more concerned with showing why your logic isn't bad than justifying that there might be baddies in the group you seemed to have picked: people who did not vote Day Zero.

Don't know who to vote for, don't have time to re-read. Drugs are making me have an early night... so, I'll go for Dharmahelper. I don't like this back and forth going on and DH feels less passionate about the argument. Dunno, it's all I've got.

"Cue criticisms for poor vote reasoning*

I'll be back in the morning

I read this as you pick Dharmahelper to vote for and then looked for a reason to vote for him.

[Dom]

Just want to throw this out there, but I'd recommened that y'all don't lynch me.

For those of you keeping score at home, there's the vague threat of retribution!

Boomslang, what message were you trying to convey with this post?

[Turnip Head]

TH believes DH's case and also used some excuse that was not true for believing LC was bad.

What did I do?

[Turnip Head]

I don't think DH or MM are bad. I wouldn't call what DH has done as "mudslinging", I think he's just discussing things... Voting LC as he's been my strongest ping so far.

[Snow Dog]

This "Federal " thing seemed like a legit concern to me. These are the sort of minor details that normally get discussed day 1 as far as I remember. I think it was worth pointing out. The only reason i don't press it further is because i find it hard to understand how that term would crop up in chat.

[FZ.]

I don't think DH or MM are bad. I wouldn't call what DH has done as "mudslinging", I think he's just discussing things... Voting LC as he's been my strongest ping so far.

What exactly has he done that's pinged you that bad?

linki: I disagree. Do you know how many times I've seen people repeat a phrase I used and was pinged by it for nothing? Plenty. It's usually just like someone said, something that someone picks up when reading and it subconsciously gets stuck in their heads and used later.
These "slips" are interpreted badly too many times on this site (at least in my opinion), and 99% of the times, they are said by civvies.

[FZ.]

Not fond of the votes for MM. I think there's a baddie in those voters. I actually don't want to vote for any of the people who have votes right now. The only one I could consider voting for is Boomslang, but I really don't have any good reason for it. I'm trying to understand the votes for him. I'd rather vote for DF or INH who both gave quite lame reasons for voting who they voted for. Can't say I get TH either, but I'm waiting for him to answer me

[Elohcin]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

Any given group of players? What about the group of players whose roles state they have BTSC

I'm voting for Boomslang. Not because of the statement above per se, but because his overall gameplay has just seemed a little weird to me so far.

lots of linki

[Dom]

I voted

[DharmaHelper]

Well now the question is do I switch to Boomslang to give myself a better chance.

[DharmaHelper]

Unfortunate but necessary.

[S~V~S]

I think you are more likely to be bad then boomslang.

[DharmaHelper]

I think you are more likely to be bad then boomslang.

When do you not think that.

[juliets]

MM's warning about voting him has done just what he wanted it to do - it makes me very wary of giving him my vote. Boomslang is another I would consider voting for and the reasons are summed up quite well by llama:

I think Dom is right. Boomslang is the kind of player I've been looking for. Not too prominent, not too absent, and saying things that don't quite make sense. I'm very happy to vote for Boomslang today.

Oh, but now I see two people have voted him and a third is thinking about it while I've been writing this post. Makes me a little uneasy though I have no suspicions of any of those who just voted or might change their vote to Boomslang.

[S~V~S]

TH, what kind of reaction do you think MM was looking for?

TH, did you see this?

[S~V~S]

MM's warning about voting him has done just what he wanted it to do - it makes me very wary of giving him my vote. Boomslang is another I would consider voting for and the reasons are summed up quite well by llama:

I think Dom is right. Boomslang is the kind of player I've been looking for. Not too prominent, not too absent, and saying things that don't quite make sense. I'm very happy to vote for Boomslang today.

Oh, but now I see two people have voted him and a third is thinking about it while I've been writing this post. Makes me a little uneasy though I have no suspicions of any of those who just voted or might change their vote to Boomslang.

I am not thinking of Boomslang, tbh. Llama basically said he fits a profile. That is what you agree with?

And DH, I did not think it the last two games we played together. And you know that.

[DharmaHelper]

MM's warning about voting him has done just what he wanted it to do - it makes me very wary of giving him my vote. Boomslang is another I would consider voting for and the reasons are summed up quite well by llama:

I think Dom is right. Boomslang is the kind of player I've been looking for. Not too prominent, not too absent, and saying things that don't quite make sense. I'm very happy to vote for Boomslang today.

Oh, but now I see two people have voted him and a third is thinking about it while I've been writing this post. Makes me a little uneasy though I have no suspicions of any of those who just voted or might change their vote to Boomslang.

I am not thinking of Boomslang, tbh. Llama basically said he fits a profile. That is what you agree with?

And DH, I did not think it the last two games we played together. And you know that.

Misfits? :P

[S~V~S]

Also, JC, you have never sent a baddie hint that they were a valuable civvies? That is what it seemed to me that MM was doing. I would really rather lynch him. But the Boomslang push is making me nervous tbh.

Linki, that was one, it scared me how much we got along. I will check later for the other when I am not on phone.

[FZ.]

Damn, I really don't know who to vote for.

I'm going to vote for DF. If it's a wasted vote, so be it. But if someone feels like changing to him, that would be nice.

[Turnip Head]

TH, what kind of reaction do you think MM was looking for?

TH, did you see this?

I don't know what kind of reaction he was looking for. He doesn't suspect you it seems, so the reaction he got must have been one he feels is civvie.

FZ, I suspect LC for reasons I already stated. I think he took too much from Rey's early vote and I felt he was being opportunistic by suspecting Rey for it.

[S~V~S]

TH, what kind of reaction do you think MM was looking for?

TH, did you see this?

I don't know what kind of reaction he was looking for. He doesn't suspect you it seems, so the reaction he got must have been one he feels is civvie.

FZ, I suspect LC for reasons I already stated. I think he took too much from Rey's early vote and I felt he was being opportunistic by suspecting Rey for it.

I guess my question really is why do you believe him? I have no clue what he is talking about. Since you find him sincere I thought you might.

[FZ.]

TH, what kind of reaction do you think MM was looking for?

TH, did you see this?

I don't know what kind of reaction he was looking for. He doesn't suspect you it seems, so the reaction he got must have been one he feels is civvie.

FZ, I suspect LC for reasons I already stated. I think he took too much from Rey's early vote and I felt he was being opportunistic by suspecting Rey for it.

So everything else he's said since then has done nothing for you, in either direction?

[thellama73]

I'm super interested to see the results of this lynch.

[Boomslang]

Yeah, I'm not dying tonight. *votes DH*

[S~V~S]

We need a popcorn smilie.

[Roxy]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Are these Maths a joke too?
I disagree with a good portion of this.
Tbf a lot of your posts make my nose twitch.

No. I was logically proving that Boomslang's theory is inaccurate.

So you disagreee with llama and agree with Boomslang?

Linki: ture

Did I state anywhere that I agreed with Boom? Nope.

I said I disagree with your posts.
First off is your vote for SVS to get convo going seems like a bit of a stretch. bc A) you never stated any reasoning to, ya know, get convo going. b) bc when asked who you were changing your vote to you ignored and acted like we should have deduced ourselves who you were voting for.

As far as the quoted post goes your interpretation of how behaviors are not important then go on tosay yes they are important. You rode the fence in your entire post. you say this is important but then say its not as important as this.

I say behavior is a big part of locating baddies. You telling people what is right or wrong in hunting baddies is more or less telling them don't play your own way bc it. is wrong. I super disliked it when inh called boomslang stupid which is the #1 reason I do not like your or his reactions to one post boomslang made. I realize YOU did not call him stupid but you still argued with inh against boomslangs post. (Which may be wrong but who am I to judge how boom plays?) yes its worth noting but is it worth a vote I do not think so.

I do think your behavior this game is quite different than other games. You seem much more into it than before - more in your face - though thats not quite it either.

I do think I will be voting for you.

[reywaS]

For the record SVS, my only goal with voting you the way I did was to instigate some real Day 1 discussion. I believe I was successful. I had no suspicion of you then, nor do I have any of you now.

Per my comment on Mongoose, I was not distracting. I just wanted to point out that Mongoose has been logging onto the Syndicate and posting in other places, though she never bothered to check in on Day 0 even for this game.

To whom are you planning on changing your vote?

I don't plan on voting you, but I am certainly unappreciative with your approach today. You've maintained that voting early is suspicious, but somehow forget to bring up my name in that discussion. Players are bound to draw connections there. I do not want your vote, but being ignored is worse.

You didn't actually answer this yet, did you? Who are you planning on moving your vote to?

I thought that just the fact that I hadn't moved my vote would be answer enough. I don't know yet.

But I can assure you that by the end of the day, my vote will not be on you.

Really??? So, in essence, S~V~S is getting a pass today?

Yes and yes.

Recall that I originally voted her for no reason. My purpose was not to get her lynched. It was an experiment to get conversation going. I think it worked.

Why, do you think she should be lynched?

No I do not think she should be lynched as of right now....but you "assured" SVS that you would not be voting for her. I asked if you were giving her a pass....as in she gets a pass regardless of what happens from that point until the end of the lynch.

[Roxy]

I went ahead and voted as I do not have much time.

I am unsure about dh/lc. if forced to pick one over the other as more likely civ it would be lc.only bc I am so often wrong when I trust dh.I also do not think boomslang is bad.

Thats all I have time for right now as my son nic would like to spend q-tiime with his mommy.

[Lizzy]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 10 pages! It's past 1 a.m. here and I am kaputt. I'll try to catch up, but i won't be doing it properly.

[juliets]

OK S~V~S, you're right of course, MM could be a baddie hinting at a big civ role to keep additional people from voting for him. It just spooked me but I turned right around and got spooked by the boomslang voters. I hate day 1's.

[Turnip Head]

I guess my question really is why do you believe him? I have no clue what he is talking about. Since you find him sincere I thought you might.

He was maybe just seeing how defensive you got, or what you were defensive about. It's a tactic I've used as a civvie so it rings sincere to me.

So everything else he's said since then has done nothing for you, in either direction?

Nothing he's said has made me suspect him less, no, though now he's in a tiff with DH who I'm not feeling is bad. LC vs DH could be civ on civvie but I've been pinged by LC and not DH. Do you think LCs other comments should make me change my mind about him?