Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

[reywaS]

I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

So, how will you achieve this besides threatening to vote for them?

[birdwithteeth11]

Catching up, although my afternoon is almost up and I was busy throughout it, plus later I have an EoD on JMT as opposed to here (thank god for EoDs being on different days, at least).

I don't have anything original to contribute for the vanilla roles, but is every such contest gonna be announced at 5-6am my time zone? 'Cause if there will be any quick draw contests or such, I'll have virtually no change of participating.

Right now, my trigger is still on Llama, because he should at least get the same treatment for his statements as he considered that TinyBubbles (how should we nickname you, btw, if not TB?) should get for her statements. Is TinyBubbles bad for saying she's bad? Then so is Llama for saying he wants to side with the Sorcerers. Was TinyBubbles obviously joking, but is still suspicious for giving such answer? Then so can Llama have joked about it, but is suspicious for putting such a statement forth. Did TinyBubbles give in fact two contradictory statements, for which she shouldn't be trusted? So did Llama (coating his second statement as WIFOM that the Mafia will never pick him, now that he said he'd like to), for which he shouldn't be trusted.

To all this, Llama hunting or at least fishing TinyBubbles for reasons that make himself look bad is further incentive to suspect him.

I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

Llama's behavior strikes me as llama-y so far. But the way he's debated voting for TinyBubbles makes me feel you could turn his own questions on him. Because the way he's asking her leaves him open to allowing others to think he could be a recruiter.

Linkis. Going to finish catching up first, so I'll respond as I read along.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I don't know. Hence why I asked. It just seemed such a strange thing to suddenly come out with from nowhere.

It probably is strange. What do you think the implications might be of me making a post that could be called strange?

I just don't see how your intuition came about from such an unremarkable exchange. It's not that it tells me anything about you so much as I just can't figure out why you said it or what inspired such confidence.

Intuition is weird, man! It just happens, you know. You observe something and then the brain conceives it in some distinct way, surely based on some kind of actual cognition, but it's subconscious! I don't even know why I liked that bea post as much as I did. I'll mull over it and get back to you; maybe you'll agree. If I forget please remind me.

[birdwithteeth11]

Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

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?

Bea's post is astute. Leaving wiggle room is a baddie hallmark.

I wouldn't disagree.

However, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) Do you feel BWT's post is typical behavior for him regardless of alignment?
2) Do you think that a recruiter would have incentive to make the post that BWT made?

I also want to note that it seems that BWT didn't notice that DH was being tongue in cheek.

At the time, I didn't realize that about DH. Mostly because I was half-awake the entire time I was trying to catch up yesterday.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

It exist because I wrotte what if first came to mind and that was it
this is the first time we play together, so just you know I march to the beat of my own drum

Maybe you should read my previous response to bullz, to get to know a little bit of how I roll, and I will roll a lot different in this game, from previous games too

Hey I can dig it. I kind of do my own thing too, I suppose. We all have our unique styles and we play to them as our whims direct. But I must state: the post I referenced before truly did trouble me. It bore the appearance of something literally torn from the Baddie Code of Conduct -- commentary relevant to the game that does not go anywhere or progress any thought process.

For the moment my vote is on you in spirit. But do not despair; this is your opportunity to change my mind.

[birdwithteeth11]

I wouldn't disagree.

However, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) Do you feel BWT's post is typical behavior for him regardless of alignment?
2) Do you think that a recruiter would have incentive to make the post that BWT made?

1) BWT is always somewhat of a fence-sitter, so it pings me less than it would coming from another player. Still worth watching though.
2) Maybe.A recruiter is apt to be nervous early on and afraid of being discovered. Unlike in traditional mafia, he doesn't yet have a team to bail him out if he gets into trouble. I would expect this to result in more unforced errors than normal.

1) Yes, this is true. I won't deny I've done so in many games I've played. But since my break from mafia, I'm trying to make some changes to how I play. Especially with being more deliberate, because I think my general waffle-ness has bitten me in the butt a couple of time.
2) Well if you think I'm a recruiter, I'd refer you back to your answer to question #1.

[Bass_the_Clever]

I have so much to catch up on I will get to crackin asap.

[birdwithteeth11]

I actually feel goofy even scumhunting in this strange game, because I'm not a civilian. I'm not anything. Existential crisis!

But it's all I know so I'm gonna do it.

Might as well. Based on what the hosts have said, we have 4 baddies right now and 2 of them are recruiters.

[Roxy]

I have so much to catch up on I will get to crackin asap.

Hope you are feeling better, Son!

[Turnip Head]

BWT is pinging me but I can't figure out exactly why.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Llama's behavior strikes me as llama-y so far. But the way he's debated voting for TinyBubbles makes me feel you could turn his own questions on him. Because the way he's asking her leaves him open to allowing others to think he could be a recruiter.

Linkis. Going to finish catching up first, so I'll respond as I read along.

Could you describe what you mean exactly by the bit I have highlighted?

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I would use my first recruit or two on people who fly under the radar early on, at least in terms of players who have not attracted any or much attention. I'd then start to go after players who I felt complimented my skill sets well, or made up for skills I lacked. After a team of about 4-5 players, I'd probably do an alternate mix of the two groups I mentioned.

[birdwithteeth11]

I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

Or, if you're on the side of the fence of trying to catch potential recruiters for slip-ups or tiny mistakes, the wording in Golden's initial sentence would seem to fit that bill.

I hadn't really seen the early suspicion on Golden before, but after the way you've worded your statement, I can see it now.

[Bass_the_Clever]

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.

[birdwithteeth11]

Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I'm saying the whole idea of making a case on someone because of "adverb usage" is more based on context, rather than whether or not someone uses adverbs.

Could you provide an example (even if you just make one up) of an instance in which you'd find an adverb or someone's tendency to use them suspicious?

Not sure how well I can this early on, but I can try. I feel like it would have to be a case where I already suspect someone, have questioned them about it, and some of their responses in the discussion fall to using adverbs to either:

1) Boost their word count and make overly wordy statements to try and hide behind larger posts (I.E. "...especially since I obviously was trying to...")

2) Make exagerated statements (I.E. "Well I obviously wouldn't do that if I were bad and...")

Does that answer your question?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Does that answer your question?

Beautifully.

[birdwithteeth11]

Maybe if we keep up a discussion of low posters and their potential lynchable status they will all come crawling out of the woodwork to explain why they shouldn't be voted for, and the least satisfactory answer gets votes?

Well ideally, yes, that would be what I'd want to see occur. If we get less people who are inactive/not very active and posting and sharing thoughts and ideas more often, it gives baddie recruiters a smaller pool of players to pick from that are hiding in the background.

Linki: I aim to please. Ask your mom, she still owes me $10.

[birdwithteeth11]

I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

So, how will you achieve this besides threatening to vote for them?

Well nothing else for now. But I think the possibility that a baddie recruiter would want to target low posters early or that a recruiter would consider laying low early on is a strong possibility.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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.

A few questions spring from this post, Bass:

1.) Do you think BR and LC would be willing to forego the true randomness of role selection that is generally necessary for the game of Mafia to even make sense?

2.) How is your theory affected by the fact that MP did not actually state low posters wouldn't get recruited and instead that they might be more likely candidates (as well as being potential recruiters)?

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

The bolded part is EXACTLY why I think a recruiter would target a low poster initially in this game. And possibly even for the second round of recruitment.

[Scotty]

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.

A few questions spring from this post, Bass:

1.) Do you think BR and LC would be willing to forego the true randomness of role selection that is generally necessary for the game of Mafia to even make sense?

2.) How is your theory affected by the fact that MP did not actually state low posters wouldn't get recruited and instead that they might be more likely candidates (as well as being potential recruiters)?

What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

I don't follow. Why would previous leaders be more likely to be leaders in this game?

[birdwithteeth11]

Actually, on the topic of recruitment, I've heard several players state in this game that the recruiters may or may not have full control over who they recruit. Is that just based on abilities of certain roles or did I miss something in a host post?

Linki: Somehow I doubt that. I don't see the hosts painting a large target on peoples' backs as early as the signup stage. I just took the difference in the poll to mean one option was for people who'd never played any of Recruitment 1-3, and the other for people who had.

[Typhoony]

I think in the last game, recruiters could only pick their first recruit. They had to send in a list of three and one of them would become the recruit iirc.

Everything after that was either through contests in which they would not be told who sent in what or through other means that were completely out of their control.

Also I remember BR/LC saying the roles were randomised, lemme see if I can find that.

[thellama73]

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.

[Black Rock]

Actually, on the topic of recruitment, I've heard several players state in this game that the recruiters may or may not have full control over who they recruit. Is that just based on abilities of certain roles or did I miss something in a host post?

Linki: Somehow I doubt that. I don't see the hosts painting a large target on peoples' backs as early as the signup stage. I just took the difference in the poll to mean one option was for people who'd never played any of Recruitment 1-3, and the other for people who had.

In the past we have used several different ways to recruit including contests in thread. A recruitment contest will happen during Day 1 in fact so watch for it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

DrWilgy, could you explain why you voted for unfurl please?

[Ricochet]

Actually, on the topic of recruitment, I've heard several players state in this game that the recruiters may or may not have full control over who they recruit. Is that just based on abilities of certain roles or did I miss something in a host post?

Linki: Somehow I doubt that. I don't see the hosts painting a large target on peoples' backs as early as the signup stage. I just took the difference in the poll to mean one option was for people who'd never played any of Recruitment 1-3, and the other for people who had.

In the past we have used several different ways to recruit including contests in thread. A recruitment contest will happen during Day 1 in fact so watch for it.

Will it take place at a convenient time?

[Black Rock]

Actually, on the topic of recruitment, I've heard several players state in this game that the recruiters may or may not have full control over who they recruit. Is that just based on abilities of certain roles or did I miss something in a host post?

Linki: Somehow I doubt that. I don't see the hosts painting a large target on peoples' backs as early as the signup stage. I just took the difference in the poll to mean one option was for people who'd never played any of Recruitment 1-3, and the other for people who had.

In the past we have used several different ways to recruit including contests in thread. A recruitment contest will happen during Day 1 in fact so watch for it.

Will it take place at a convenient time?

What is a convenient time? Great Elder

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

True. Not a bad idea to put on the backburner.

Do you think MP would try to recruit Spacedaisy?

[Ricochet]

Actually, on the topic of recruitment, I've heard several players state in this game that the recruiters may or may not have full control over who they recruit. Is that just based on abilities of certain roles or did I miss something in a host post?

Linki: Somehow I doubt that. I don't see the hosts painting a large target on peoples' backs as early as the signup stage. I just took the difference in the poll to mean one option was for people who'd never played any of Recruitment 1-3, and the other for people who had.

In the past we have used several different ways to recruit including contests in thread. A recruitment contest will happen during Day 1 in fact so watch for it.

Will it take place at a convenient time?

What is a convenient time?

One when I'm awake.

[thellama73]

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.

True. Not a bad idea to put on the backburner.

Do you think MP would try to recruit Spacedaisy?

I don't know, it's a bit on the nose. I kind of doubt she would be his first choice.

[Ricochet]

What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

Scotty, the second yes option in the sign ups was "Yes, I have followed a leader in the past", not "Yes, I have been a leader before". Probably a way to indicate they have prior experience with this type of game. Of course, some of the 19 who signed up that way have actually been leaders in the past, but I doubt all of them have.

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

True. Not a bad idea to put on the backburner.

Do you think MP would try to recruit Spacedaisy?

I don't know, it's a bit on the nose. I kind of doubt she would be his first choice.

I guess I'm curious as to if you think he would consider doing it, given that so many people would think he'd shy away with it being too obvious of a choice.

Basically, I wonder if he could get away with it simply because so many other people think he wouldn't do it because he couldn't get away with it.

Yes, that's confusing. No, I don't know how to word it better.

[reywaS]

I think in the last game, recruiters could only pick their first recruit. They had to send in a list of three and one of them would become the recruit iirc.

Everything after that was either through contests in which they would not be told who sent in what or through other means that were completely out of their control.

Also I remember BR/LC saying the roles were randomised, lemme see if I can find that.

This is correct as I remember recruiting in RM3.

[thellama73]

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.

True. Not a bad idea to put on the backburner.

Do you think MP would try to recruit Spacedaisy?

I don't know, it's a bit on the nose. I kind of doubt she would be his first choice.

I guess I'm curious as to if you think he would consider doing it, given that so many people would think he'd shy away with it being too obvious of a choice.

Basically, I wonder if he could get away with it simply because so many other people think he wouldn't do it because he couldn't get away with it.

Yes, that's confusing. No, I don't know how to word it better.

It's inherently WIFOM. He could do it because no one would expect him to, because everyone would expect him to, but there's no way to tell. However, the odds of MP being a recruit are low, from a statistics standpoint, and a lot of people would be likely to recruit Daisy, I think.

[reywaS]

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.

True. Not a bad idea to put on the backburner.

Do you think MP would try to recruit Spacedaisy?

I don't know, it's a bit on the nose. I kind of doubt she would be his first choice.

I guess I'm curious as to if you think he would consider doing it, given that so many people would think he'd shy away with it being too obvious of a choice.

Basically, I wonder if he could get away with it simply because so many other people think he wouldn't do it because he couldn't get away with it.

Yes, that's confusing. No, I don't know how to word it better.

I do. WIFOM

[reywaS]

Damnit. Late twice in a row. I suck

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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.

[thellama73]

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 agree with this, which is why TinyBubbles is still my top choice.

[Typhoony]

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.

Yeah this.

I have a hard time believing there is an actual discussion going on about MP possibly recruiting SD which started with SD being, generally, a good recruit.
It's Recruitment Mafia Day 1, so I shouldn't be surprised, but still.

[Golden]

Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

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 like bea's post was insightful and it put BWT on my radar as a candidate for a vote.

Also, as of where I'm up to in catching up, I think MP is looking pretty good to me, although I disagree with his views on unfurl.

[Ricochet]

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.

Yeah this.

I have a hard time believing there is an actual discussion going on about MP possibly recruiting SD which started with SD being, generally, a good recruit.
It's Recruitment Mafia Day 1, so I shouldn't be surprised, but still.

What do you mean by "SD being, generally, a good recruit"?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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?

[Canucklehead]

I like JJJ's idea of having everyone state how they would approach recruitment, and it is veryveryvery interesting to me that everyone seems to be saying some version of "I'd recruit a good player who is generally under-the-radar". That is almost precisely the opposite of how I would approach the task. Here are the main (and possibly only) factors I would consider as a baddie recruiter:
1) Will the person be fun to hang out with/play with in baddie chat?
2) Does the person have a history of/reputation for big moves and skilled play?
3) Does the selection of the person make for meaty WIFOMing? (for example, I would be very likely to pick loud, well-known players over under-the-radar players purely for the WIFOMability; likewise, I'd be veryvery tempted to recruit players that seem antithetical in style to each other or who have a history of rivalry simply because no one would expect it, therefore everyone would it expect it, so no one would actually expect it, so everyone would it expect it.....and on and on into WIFOMy infinitum)

As a CIV recruiter, however, my choices would be based on a different criteria set, mostly because as a civ leader I'd feel more of an obligation to play a smart game since more other people would have their winning chances affected by my recruitment choices. Also, since BTSC wouldn't be a factor (I assume the civ recruits don't get BTSC, and the baddies do..... but maybe that's an unwarranted assumption), my #1 criteria of chatroomfuntimes would be essentially moot, so I'd be more likely to recruit based on perceived skill, track record, and history of not stirring drama (and thus getting themselves lynched).

Lots of linkitis. Posting now, reading after.

[Typhoony]

Yeah this.

I have a hard time believing there is an actual discussion going on about MP possibly recruiting SD which started with SD being, generally, a good recruit.
It's Recruitment Mafia Day 1, so I shouldn't be surprised, but still.

What do you mean by "SD being, generally, a good recruit"?

This:

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.

[Black Rock]

Public Recruitment

Zeromus

The roles on the front page are lacking in pictures. Please send the hosts a picture of your role. Ubzargan will choose the best picture to join his team.

You have until tomorrow at 11am EST

[Golden]

Irrational does not equate to suspicious.

Civilians act irrationally all the time. I find his statements mostly irrational, but they're typical Llama that I've seen for years now. He's trying his best to start discussion on Day 1, and I think he firmly believes he has a better chance at catching someone using his line of thinking (that someone who is lying is uncomfortable with a direct yes/no question) than he does at randomizing or any other method or current lead, so I believe he is being sincere. I have no reason to believe he is anything right now other than just plain old Llama.

Wrong. All actions are by definition rational, in the sense that they are designed to move the actor from a place of lesser satisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, based on the subjective preferences of the actor. Whether or not they succeed is not relevant.

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.

Fair enough. I suppose rational isn't the best word to describe what I think of your arguments (although I will emphasize that I used the qualifier "mostly", since I can understand why you feel the way you do); rather, they aren't convincing to me.

Not fair enough. Llama IS irrational. And Vompatti isn't even playing!

[Ricochet]

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 agree, the recruitement talk (encompassing meta, mechanics, tactics) sounds like something that would happen during D0 mechanics debates and banter, except that in this case it will seep through the game, because it's an essential part of it. Nevertheless, right now, we still have a window of four mafia players to hunt down. It's not really different from starting an average sized regular full (or even speed) game with a four-player mafia team, except that it's perhaps slightly more daunting that it's 4 out of 36.

[Black Rock]

Contest!

We have two players still stuck with a Vanilla role. This is your chance to shine and win a prize. PM both me and LC with your best role for this game. Keep with the theme and style to win. Help these Vanillas out

This contest will run until tonight at 10 pm EST