[END] Bioshock Mafia

#501

EBWOP: never mind, that doesn't make sense with the sentence that follows. Now I am confused.

#502

thellama73 wrote:EBWOP: never mind, that doesn't make sense with the sentence that follows. Now I am confused.

So what does EBWOP mean? I am seeing it a lot in this game.

#503

I wasn't confused (and was glad to see bwt's wasn't defensive), but now I am also confused.

#504

bwt's explanation, that is.

#505

EBWOP means Edit By Way Of Post - so you are editing your previous post with another post because you cannot change that previous post.
I join the confused.

#506

juliets wrote:EBWOP means Edit By Way Of Post - so you are editing your previous post with another post because you cannot change that previous post.
I join the confused.

Makes sense since you can't (aren't supposed to) edit a previous post.
Thanks for the explanation!

#507

BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

#508

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

I can see what you're saying but there are ways to state that much more clearly than he did. I would need him to verify this, though.

#509

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

I thought he just made a typo at first, but I could see him having meant that. I don't know that Dex or anyone else is in danger of a unanimous lynch at this point though, there's more people than just him being discussed.

#510

I've never claimed to be civvie

#511

So you're not a civvie then Dex?

#512

#513

thellama73 wrote:The way BWT worded it was confusing. I think most of us read "concern" as meaning "worry," but he seems to have meant it in the sense of "priority."

Yes, I meant it as "worry" moreso than "concern". I'm having a hard time struggling to word things clearly. The AC broke at our house yesterday and someone is coming to fix it this afternoon, so it's very humid and muggy and hard for me to focus.

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

Sort of. I just realized I have a very glaring typo in my original post. See if this makes any more sense now.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being good. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Dex confused me because I don't think I've seen anyone admit to jumping onto a bandwagon before. It definitely doesn't seem like the kind of thing a civvie says even if it was true.

[/quote]
That's part one of it. The second part you nailed down pretty well. Someone who gets lynched via bandwagon and gets all (or nearly all) of the votes leaves us with very little information in terms of potential teammates. I've seen this happen to Dex before, which is why I want to hear more from him before I decide to cast a vote his way or look elsewhere.

If any of you are still confused, please let me know. I'm not intentionally trying to muddle what I'm saying.

Dex linki: Wait, what?!?!

Now I'm feeling confused.

#514

Zany Dex wrote:I've never claimed to be civvie

Seriously though, could you clarify what you mean by this?

#515

I think Dex's explanation about jumping onto a bandwagon in voting for me was based on my accusation that he was doing that. Rather than defend himself, he just repeated verbatim what I said. The question is whether refusing to defend himself is more of a baddie or a civvie move.

thellama73 wrote:I disagree with almost everything you just said, Spaghetti, but I too am not sold on A Person being bad. I think Lizzy is a more likely candidate, but for today I have decided to give my vote to Dex. In my opinion, he saw a bandwagon forming against me and saw it as an excuse to jump on board without comment. He just got unlucky that the tide turned as it has.

Zany Dex wrote:I voted llama because I saw a bandwagon forming and I jumped on it.

And before anyone points it out, I know Dex was the first one to vote for me, but there were a lot of people mentioning my name at the time and claiming they were going to vote for me, so I didn't think it an unreasonable assumption.

**http://www.last.fm/user/nutella23** · #516

Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

#517

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

Seems so. There is definitely some strange behaviour this game.

#518

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

Yeah. I went back and read it, and I saw that immediately. No wonder so many people got confused!

I have no idea honestly. This seems like typical Dex behavior, and I always read him as bad. I'd prefer to hear something more concrete from him, but so far it seems like he keeps trying to dig a hole for himself.

Linki: Most definitely.

#519

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?
Yeah. I went back and read it, and I saw that immediately. No wonder so many people got confused!

I have no idea honestly. This seems like typical Dex behavior, and I always read him as bad. I'd prefer to hear something more concrete from him, but so far it seems like he keeps trying to dig a hole for himself.

Linki: Most definitely.

I just don't understand what his plan here is. He probably doesn't want to be lynched because why would he, but he really seems to be trying to get himself killed off, even implying he's not a civvie which is almost a confession of baddie-ness. I'd like to hear from slightly-less-Zany Dex if he's around

#520

Is this the llama gambit employed by Dex?

#521

Is there a certain role we don't know about that benefits from lynch votes at a certain time in the game?
Seems very unlikely and more likely that he is just being zany.
Still... Who knows in this game.

#522

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

This is what I assumed he meant as well. Very hard to learn anything from a largely unanimous vote. However, there are so many people being discussed I think it is unlikely at this point.

Zany- I just know what to make of you. Have you heard of the llama gambit? It seems like you might be trying this too. Just know that it ends with you getting lynched. Do you want that? Also as regards the bandwagon statement, I believe he stated this, because that is the wording llama used first.

#523

Snow Dog wrote:Is this the llama gambit employed by Dex?

Just missed this!

#524

Can someone explain what the llama gambit was? I didn't play the Train game so I dont' understand what Dex's behavior is being compared to.

#525

Gambit is a true cuddle llama. He is perfect for families and for people who like to get out there and do things with their llamas.

#526

juliets wrote:Can someone explain what the llama gambit was? I didn't play the Train game so I dont' understand what Dex's behavior is being compared to.

It's a civ acting in an unusual or random way to draw baddie votes due to him being an easy and obvious target.

#527

Snow Dog wrote:
nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?
Seems so. There is definitely some strange behaviour this game.

Indeed! I think some players took crazy pills instead of plasmids.

#528

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?
Yeah. I went back and read it, and I saw that immediately. No wonder so many people got confused!

I have no idea honestly. This seems like typical Dex behavior, and I always read him as bad. I'd prefer to hear something more concrete from him, but so far it seems like he keeps trying to dig a hole for himself.

Linki: Most definitely.

As a fellow Southerner, I feel for anyone without A/C! Hope that is set to rights soon.

#529

I am extremely delighted that the Llama Gambit has gained such popularity. However, if Dex is attempting it, he's doing it wrong.

**http://www.last.fm/user/nutella23** · #530

Snow Dog wrote:
juliets wrote:Can someone explain what the llama gambit was? I didn't play the Train game so I dont' understand what Dex's behavior is being compared to.
It's a civ acting in an unusual or random way to draw baddie votes due to him being an easy and obvious target.

Interesting... idk, Dex's behavior is just too odd.

#531

On the llama gambit, I don't understand why a civ would do that - draw votes by acting abnormal. Why did llama do that? (I'm still trying to relate this to what dex is doing)

#532

juliets wrote:On the llama gambit, I don't understand why a civ would do that - draw votes by acting abnormal. Why did llama do that? (I'm still trying to relate this to what dex is doing)

It is to help fellow civs find baddies. I didn't say it was a great scheme.

#533

ebwop In Llama's case it led to his lynching. But some of the voters for him indeed were baddies.

#534

Juliets, here is the rationale I gave in the thread just before I was lynched if this helps.

thellama73 wrote:Now that all the votes have been cast, I can reveal the patented "Llama Gambit."

Knowing that most of the time baddies try to act helpful and logical to blend in with the civvies, I decided to act crazy and illogical. A baddie would have to be nuts to act the way I've been acting, and I was counting on the civs realizing that. Therefore, civs would be unlikely to vote for me, but baddies would see an opportunity. They could vote for a civ and when my affiliation is revealed excuse themselves by saying "well, he was acting really crazy."

However, by revealing my strategy in the thread, one of two things will happen: Either I get lynched, in which case the civvies have good info on who the baddies are based on who voted for me, or I survive and still have good info based on the votes for me. Either way, my team is aided substantially towards victory.

This is the "Llama Gambit." I hope you are as impressed with it as I was when I came up with it.

It was less successful than I had hoped, although it did result in one baddie lynch(Bullzeye) and would have resulted in another(Lizzy). I think it would have been more successful in a game with fewer newibies.

#535

Thanks llama, now i understand why that gambit has been mentioned in connection with Dex.

#536

thellama73 wrote:Juliets, here is the rationale I gave in the thread just before I was lynched if this helps.

thellama73 wrote:Now that all the votes have been cast, I can reveal the patented "Llama Gambit."

Knowing that most of the time baddies try to act helpful and logical to blend in with the civvies, I decided to act crazy and illogical. A baddie would have to be nuts to act the way I've been acting, and I was counting on the civs realizing that. Therefore, civs would be unlikely to vote for me, but baddies would see an opportunity. They could vote for a civ and when my affiliation is revealed excuse themselves by saying "well, he was acting really crazy."

However, by revealing my strategy in the thread, one of two things will happen: Either I get lynched, in which case the civvies have good info on who the baddies are based on who voted for me, or I survive and still have good info based on the votes for me. Either way, my team is aided substantially towards victory.

This is the "Llama Gambit." I hope you are as impressed with it as I was when I came up with it.
It was less successful than I had hoped, although it did result in one baddie lynch(Bullzeye) and would have resulted in another(Lizzy). I think it would have been more successful in a game with fewer newibies.

Here's my problem with it.

You're calling it the llama gambit. This is basically how Dex plays at least half the time (he kind of slips between making zero sense to me, and not posting much, sometimes in the same game), and it seems to be regardless of alignment.

Ofc, I also don't think the gambit makes much sense. If you act in a bizarre way, you're going to takes votes for it. From civvies and baddies. I'm not sure that employing WIFOM to say, "Aaha! I know I'm a civ, and I tricked you into voting for me by being so insane you would do so, but also being so insane to the point no baddie actually would act like this. So everyone who voted for me is bad!" makes no sense. You can bring on any bandwagon, and baddies will pile on it if they think it's safe. But in order for the bandwagon to be safe, civvies have to be voting there to, which the baddies know.

#537

I think I might vote for myself the case against me looks iron tight.

#538

boo wrote: Ofc, I also don't think the gambit makes much sense. If you act in a bizarre way, you're going to takes votes for it. From civvies and baddies. I'm not sure that employing WIFOM to say, "Aaha! I know I'm a civ, and I tricked you into voting for me by being so insane you would do so, but also being so insane to the point no baddie actually would act like this. So everyone who voted for me is bad!" makes no sense. You can bring on any bandwagon, and baddies will pile on it if they think it's safe. But in order for the bandwagon to be safe, civvies have to be voting there to, which the baddies know.

It's easy to criticize, but I don't hear anyone talking about the boo gambit.

#539

thellama73 wrote:
It's easy to criticize, but I don't hear anyone talking about the boo gambit.

#540

In any case, there's also a Llama Meta-Gambit which is to name a gambit after myself that will be remembered and talked about after I'm gone. So far it is working beautifully.

#541

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Is there a certain role we don't know about that benefits from lynch votes at a certain time in the game?
Seems very unlikely and more likely that he is just being zany.
Still... Who knows in this game.

Sander Cohen's alignment/win conditions change if he gets five or more votes and doesn't die. But other than that, I don't see the type of role you describe.

I will post more later. I'm at work on my phone and typing long posts out is a real pain.

#542

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Devin the Omniscient wrote:Is there a certain role we don't know about that benefits from lynch votes at a certain time in the game?
Seems very unlikely and more likely that he is just being zany.
Still... Who knows in this game.
Sander Cohen's alignment/win conditions change if he gets five or more votes and doesn't die. But other than that, I don't see the type of role you describe.

I will post more later. I'm at work on my phone and typing long posts out is a real pain.

But would the new condition be benefitial? I have to read that one again.

#543

Snow Dog wrote:
Dom wrote:
AceofSpaces wrote:By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.
How fatalistic of you. And on a furhter note, i'lll be looking at you

Snow Dog wrote:
agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.
This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?
Yes. Let's just lynch players because they play quiet and are honest about it. I'm looking at you, Snow Dog.

Is what lizard tongue man said very strange? Yeha, I think so. he basically said don't look at me I Don't like being looked at. That's not quite the way I would play, or how I think most civvies would play, but I don't think it made him bad. Now you're saying, let's lynch him no matter if he's civvie or not.

That's very bad, SD. It's basically saying that we should lynch people who don't like to talk because they aren't contributing. And that's something baddies like to do because they usually don't fight back too much because they are... by definition of the plan, quiet.

LINKI: Boo

Same opinion as you on Aces. Not as convinced he's abd as you seem to be, but I do think he's being strangely suspicious.
I admit my post was a bit hasty but I said it as a player of mafia. I thought his attitude was all wrong but you know that's just my opinion. In the end it might have come to nothing depending if others wanted to lynch him.

Anyway he was killed by a civ.

Snow Dog is seeming a little back-peddly here... If you believe it, stick to your guns, man! Also, this whole "llama gambit" thing sounds very WIFOM to me. If you vote for the obvious target, you're a baddie, if you don't, what's wrong with you?

#544

"If five or more players ever cast a vote against Cohen during the same lynch, despite Cohen’s ability as a Houdini Splicer as difficult to kill, he begins to grow paranoid of all the “doubters” and can no longer win with any team. He consequently can only win by outliving everyone else as a normal baddie, with the assistance of his dancers."

It definitely doesn't seem like a benefitial outcome. Unless you just want to go rogue and win as the last team standing. The only person I can see being crazy enough to try that right now is Dex.

#545

I will go ahead and admit that I've fallen a bit behind due to goofing off today. I will reread and post more tomorrow for sure though.

#546

I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.

#547

insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.

Zuh? This game is nuts.

Can someone explain the voting for yourself thing? YOu know 100% that you are on your own team, whereas with anyone else there is at least a chance you get someone of the opposite team, so why do it? Ever?

#548

thellama73 wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.
Zuh? This game is nuts.

Can someone explain the voting for yourself thing? YOu know 100% that you are on your own team, whereas with anyone else there is at least a chance you get someone of the opposite team, so why do it? Ever?

It's a gambit.

#549

thellama73 wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.
Zuh? This game is nuts.

Can someone explain the voting for yourself thing? YOu know 100% that you are on your own team, whereas with anyone else there is at least a chance you get someone of the opposite team, so why do it? Ever?

I think one reason people do it is if they are just totally at a loss or can't catch up with the thread so they make a "safe" vote, that is not vote for anyone that might be an innocent civv but is still a vote, especially if there are penalties for not voting. They see it as hurting no one but themselves. There's one player i haven't seen around in a while who always votes for himself on day 1...

#550

See, you say "not vote for anyone that might be an innocent civ." But he would KNOW whether or not he is an innocent civ, so the self-vote increases the chances of that happening. It makes no sense to me, especially since it is the third time it has happened this game (only Day 2!) It seems like there are an awful lot of people not at all interested in winning this one.

You and Bioshock: Which have you played and would you be interested in my upcoming sequel?