The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

-= Discovery =-

As the sun rose after a peaceful night, weary travellers arrived at their destinations, and began to explore their new surroundings...

Day 1 has begun. You will be getting a PM about your new location (if you moved) within the next hour or so.

The poll will come up first. Those that voted for Prog will not be on the poll. One Civvie, one baddie, and one Indy role were told at the outset of the poll that this was a possible outcome of the Day 0 poll.

HELL YEAH.

Wikipedia says it's one of the most progressive songs ever.

Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.

HamburgerBoy wrote:linki: Siberian Khatru is awesome btw, definitely one of my favorite songs ever.

Close To The Edge is a great album. Rick Wakeman is my favourite keyboardist.

Are votes changeable?

Sorsha wrote:The talking heads game.

I was civ, he's still alive in the game so his role isn't known. He tunneled me from my day 0 vote for days. Adding pretty much everything I did to his list of "things that make Sorsha bad." he did the same thing to others. His thing is just coming up with completely outlandish theories that really only make sense to him and not letting go.

And I'm saying that if nothing else comes up as suspicious I could see myself possibly voting for Matt to spare us that in this game. It's entirely unpleasant and really ruins the game. I'm not sure how many other civvies were tunneled by Matt during that game (or others that he's done it in) can attest to that.

If he says he's not going to tunnel players and act like he did in the TH game then fine. I really have no problem with him. We'll see how this day goes.

I'm having trouble understanding the theory here. And having been a player that others vote for because I tend to focus on one player and become convinced they are bad for reasons that others don't get, I guess I'm having trouble with the concept of finding that suspicious. Also, if his allegience in that game is unknown, then it's certainly not necessarily suspicious to me.

I get that if he ruined your game earlier, then you don't want to play with him. But I'm having trouble with the suspicion, if that makes sense. If anything, it seems like those that suspect him are using his earlier play as an excuse to lynch a player.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Matt F

Why?

Sorsha wrote:Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.

Mac's term, so perhaps he'll answer. From what I understood, he meant it as every game he plays, he will vote for Matt no matter what. Which does not seem like a civ-friendly concept to me.

I think you and Rabbi was more a friendly rivalry kind of thing (although I never really thought it was useful to strategy, personally, but didn't object to it, per se) as opposed to I will always vote this person until one of us is dead because I don't like how they play.

Also, the policy vote concept is really easy to hide behind.

Sorsha wrote:Are votes changeable?

Votes are changeable in this poll.

Lorab, I just want to observe MacDougall.

Hosties - If someone loses their win condition, does that mean they are unable to win while they have no win condition - or does it mean that they have a different win condition?

Sorsha wrote:Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.

That's one of the ways to describe it.

But here's another example. In a recent game on RYM, MP07 roleclaimed as cop and listed 2 (or maybe 3) players he had checked and their alignment. The one player he listed as mafia counter-claimed, saying he was the real cop. This other player (bcornett) pointed out the bread-crumb trail he had laid out for his checks, and gave a solid case for his candidacy. MP responded with this pretty believable story that he was quite certain about his read on the real cop, and so he fake-roleclaimed. Both were actually civilian, but we had to lynch one of them after these events. It would have been foolish to leave them both alive, especially since one was obviously lying, and potentially mafia. So MP was policy-lynched.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Are votes changeable?

Votes are changeable in this poll.

Lorab, I just want to observe MacDougall.

Makes sense. Thanks for answering.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.

That's one of the ways to describe it.

But here's another example. In a recent game on RYM, MP07 roleclaimed as cop and listed 2 (or maybe 3) players he had checked and their alignment. The one player he listed as mafia counter-claimed, saying he was the real cop. This other player (bcornett) pointed out the bread-crumb trail he had laid out for his checks, and gave a solid case for his candidacy. MP responded with this pretty believable story that he was quite certain about his read on the real cop, and so he fake-roleclaimed. Both were actually civilian, but we had to lynch one of them after these events. It would have been foolish to leave them both alive, especially since one was obviously lying, and potentially mafia. So MP was policy-lynched.

I don't think that is how Mac is using the term.

I've satisfied myself as to Mac's motives in the Dune thread - I don't feel the need to rehash it here.

I will only say, that I will not be voting MattF for policy reasons, and I would never vote for anyone because I had decided they were unhelpful for the town. Even if I could make that judgment, for all I know, in any given game, that person is the cop and they will be very helpful and nail the entire baddie team. I just don't agree with the logic. I agree with those who say it feels unproductive.

I haven't seen anything which leaps out at me yet, but I'll put a preliminary vote on Sorsha since votes are changeable. I'm not sure what is going on with her posting that same thing in both threads but it gave me a bad vibe, like it's covering for something in one game or the other. The problem is I have no reason to determine which one.

Also, I probably won't vote for Epi, just for saying 'man titties'.

Hey LoRab, you are twirling early. I assume that means you have nothing to hide?

Golden wrote:I've satisfied myself as to Mac's motives in the Dune thread - I don't feel the need to rehash it here.

I will only say, that I will not be voting MattF for policy reasons, and I would never vote for anyone because I had decided they were unhelpful for the town. Even if I could make that judgment, for all I know, in any given game, that person is the cop and they will be very helpful and nail the entire baddie team. I just don't agree with the logic. I agree with those who say it feels unproductive.

I haven't seen anything which leaps out at me yet, but I'll put a preliminary vote on Sorsha since votes are changeable. I'm not sure what is going on with her posting that same thing in both threads but it gave me a bad vibe, like it's covering for something in one game or the other. The problem is I have no reason to determine which one.

Also, I probably won't vote for Epi, just for saying 'man titties'.

Epignosis is off the poll sillypants.

I posted it on both games because he said the same thing in both games! Lol.. I don't get how that's suspish but ok!

I have the feeling if I hadn't said it in both games someone would say "why'd you say that here but not in the other game?"

Golden wrote:Hey LoRab, you are twirling early. I assume that means you have nothing to hide?

I mean, it was relevant to discussion. But indeed, I have nothing to hide.

Golden wrote:Hosties - If someone loses their win condition, does that mean they are unable to win while they have no win condition - or does it mean that they have a different win condition?

Someone without a Win Condition cannot win the game. No new Win Condition is provided to someone who loses theirs.

LoRab wrote:

Sorsha wrote:The talking heads game.

I was civ, he's still alive in the game so his role isn't known. He tunneled me from my day 0 vote for days. Adding pretty much everything I did to his list of "things that make Sorsha bad." he did the same thing to others. His thing is just coming up with completely outlandish theories that really only make sense to him and not letting go.

And I'm saying that if nothing else comes up as suspicious I could see myself possibly voting for Matt to spare us that in this game. It's entirely unpleasant and really ruins the game. I'm not sure how many other civvies were tunneled by Matt during that game (or others that he's done it in) can attest to that.

If he says he's not going to tunnel players and act like he did in the TH game then fine. I really have no problem with him. We'll see how this day goes.

I'm having trouble understanding the theory here. And having been a player that others vote for because I tend to focus on one player and become convinced they are bad for reasons that others don't get, I guess I'm having trouble with the concept of finding that suspicious. Also, if his allegience in that game is unknown, then it's certainly not necessarily suspicious to me.

I get that if he ruined your game earlier, then you don't want to play with him. But I'm having trouble with the suspicion, if that makes sense. If anything, it seems like those that suspect him are using his earlier play as an excuse to lynch a player.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Matt F

Why?

Sorsha wrote:Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.

Mac's term, so perhaps he'll answer. From what I understood, he meant it as every game he plays, he will vote for Matt no matter what. Which does not seem like a civ-friendly concept to me.

I think you and Rabbi was more a friendly rivalry kind of thing (although I never really thought it was useful to strategy, personally, but didn't object to it, per se) as opposed to I will always vote this person until one of us is dead because I don't like how they play.

Also, the policy vote concept is really easy to hide behind.

I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for Matt f until one of us are dead. Nor that I'm going to vote for him in every game we play. I'm considering him for my day one vote here in this game period, if nothing else comes up. That's actually a pretty big if too, tbh.....There is quite a bit going on.

I'm also thinking of how early in the TH game Mac wanted to lynch seaside just for the sake of getting him out of the way early because Mac thought seaside would be useless in endgame. So if I go with that train of thought I'd be more likely to vote Mac, since this could be seen as the same type of situation, I think.

I think I get where you are coming from. So thank you for clarifying. Makes more sense. I'm still having trouble with Mac.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:I've satisfied myself as to Mac's motives in the Dune thread - I don't feel the need to rehash it here.

I will only say, that I will not be voting MattF for policy reasons, and I would never vote for anyone because I had decided they were unhelpful for the town. Even if I could make that judgment, for all I know, in any given game, that person is the cop and they will be very helpful and nail the entire baddie team. I just don't agree with the logic. I agree with those who say it feels unproductive.

I haven't seen anything which leaps out at me yet, but I'll put a preliminary vote on Sorsha since votes are changeable. I'm not sure what is going on with her posting that same thing in both threads but it gave me a bad vibe, like it's covering for something in one game or the other. The problem is I have no reason to determine which one.

Also, I probably won't vote for Epi, just for saying 'man titties'.

Epignosis is off the poll sillypants.

Well, I definitely won't vote for Epi, primarily for saying 'man titties', but also in part for not even being competent enough to get himself on the poll.

Sorsha wrote:I posted it on both games because he said the same thing in both games! Lol.. I don't get how that's suspish but ok!

I have the feeling if I hadn't said it in both games someone would say "why'd you say that here but not in the other game?"

It's not the fact you posted it in both games that is suspicious. It's the fact you posted it at all. I think it sets you up for an easy MattF lynch, which could be to your advantage. In at least one game.

Sorsha wrote:So if I go with that train of thought I'd be more likely to vote Mac, since this could be seen as the same type of situation, I think.

I completely agree with this. The irony of Mac's original stance was strong and virtually was begging for a vote. But in the Dune thread I drilled down a bit more, and was satisfied with Mac's answers, and so my final thinking was that I wasn't going to go for that train of thought at all. If Mac had continued to avow a desire to vote for MattF on every day of every game until MattF died, rather than simply expressing a policy lynch concept and looking for reactions, I would have been very likely to vote for Mac.

self vote Day 1

If I'm here Night 1, then we can put this ugly business behind us and rock 'n roll. If not, just as well.

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Epignosis and MattF in this game. This will be a hoot.

Listen to the song I posted. Tell me what you think.

I think it's an eerie spiritual coincidence that two of the songs that have been posted in this thread (Sheep and Siberian Khatru) are the same two songs that have ended up on one of my recent mix CD's, that featured no other Pink Floyd or Yes songs. Just had to say that.

Anyway, could someone explain to me how any of the suspicions/pings stated so far make any sense at all?

I don't like discussing what Mac's doing here because it's effecting two games, and I don't like being in a position where it feels necessary for me to talk about what's going on in another game (unless it's OT) to justify anything I have to say about the one I'm currently posting in. Of course, Matt F himself is in a much worse position for the same reasons and then some. That being said, I believe that a self-vote is a mortal sin in any mafia game. As long as Matt F's vote remains on himself, so will mine.

Matt F

Voting for a guy for being unhelpful to a game where we don't even fully know how right or wrong he was that game? Beyond ridiculous. Policy lynching is only valid for players that routinely break rules or habitually stop playing halfway through, and I imagine that isn't too common on this site (on RYM it can be, although policy lynches are usually discouraged anyways).

I don't know if what you're saying is directed at me or not, but if it is, I suppose I should make it clear that I am not advocating a policy lynch. What I am advocating is for civilians to not vote for themselves unless they truly want to be lynched.

I am on holiday now so feel free to policy lynch me for wanting a policy lynch.

Maybe we'll policy lynch you just for being on holiday.

I have a huge scum read on MacDougall.

Inconceivable!

Get it? Because WIFOM?

So when is the game actually starting?

Typhoony wrote:So when is the game actually starting?

Now. Games don't start until you arrive to get the party started.

Golden wrote:

Typhoony wrote:So when is the game actually starting?

Now. Games don't start until you arrive to get the party started.

Too bad I was not around for all the pre-game entertainment though.

Golden wrote:I've satisfied myself as to Mac's motives in the Dune thread - I don't feel the need to rehash it here.

I will only say, that I will not be voting MattF for policy reasons, and I would never vote for anyone because I had decided they were unhelpful for the town. Even if I could make that judgment, for all I know, in any given game, that person is the cop and they will be very helpful and nail the entire baddie team. I just don't agree with the logic. I agree with those who say it feels unproductive.

I haven't seen anything which leaps out at me yet, but I'll put a preliminary vote on Sorsha since votes are changeable. I'm not sure what is going on with her posting that same thing in both threads but it gave me a bad vibe, like it's covering for something in one game or the other. The problem is I have no reason to determine which one.

Also, I probably won't vote for Epi, just for saying 'man titties'.

i am a bit confused with this. Are you saying that becasue his answers in the Dune thread were to your liking, that you think he's good in THIS thread?

But you're voting for Sorsha for posting the same thing in both threads, although Mac did the identical thing?

After my early faux pas of misposting, I planned on putting time and space between the two threads so an not to conflate them. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.

As for me, having read both threads I feel somewhat differently about Mac here. He started out saying his "I'm voting for Matt day one every game" thing was a joke, then he backtracked that. I am unlikely to vote for him or Matt without more substance (although i am not thrilled with Matts self vote) but I hope we can base our opinions on THIS thread.

@zebra~ one should post Sheep at every applicable opportunity

S~V~S wrote: one should post Sheep at every applicable opportunity

I hate all this other game talk. Other games should be left in other games, and anyone who votes based off it at this point is being oppurtunistic. When I first read it I felt like Sorsha was really quick to jump on it, but I also feel a bit that she might have felt forced to comment on it as it is dominating conversation (like I have to do here).

Epignosis wrote:G-Man, either sign up for a game and play it, or stop posting man titties, You can't have both.

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't intend for that post to be so huge (or posted in the wrong thread ) but it just took off like a wild fire. I'll try to limit myself to the off-topic threads and the Don's Hideout section until I'm ready to play again. And if I do feel compelled to be disruptive in game threads, I'll keep it simple from now on:
Though I must say that, for an English teacher, the composition of your post was pretty hideous.

I'm going to policy ignore MacDougall every time he policy votes for MattF.

I'm voting for juliets until she responds to my fantasy football trade offer. Come on jules, I'm dying for a running back here and Ronnie Hillman is rotting away on your bench.

Obviously not something I can act on toDay, but this post by Bullz caught my hindsight eye. It feels like the least genuine vote for Prog.

Bullzeye wrote:Voting Prog not because it's my favourite. Nor is it my least favourite. It's the only option in the poll I have absolutely no opinion on either way and that makes it noteworthy to me.

Everyone else voted for their favorite option on Day 0. Bullzeye voted for a "noteworthy" one.

Turnip Head wrote:Obviously not something I can act on toDay, but this post by Bullz caught my hindsight eye. It feels like the least genuine vote for Prog.

Bullzeye wrote:Voting Prog not because it's my favourite. Nor is it my least favourite. It's the only option in the poll I have absolutely no opinion on either way and that makes it noteworthy to me.

Everyone else voted for their favorite option on Day 0. Bullzeye voted for a "noteworthy" one.

I also noticed this as we went through Day 0 because the instructions were to vote for your favorite. Why didn't you just follow the directions Bullz?

Also TH I'm sorry I forgot about the trade. i will go answer that right after this post.

Matt F I truly don't understand why you voted for yourself. Can you give us the reason you did that? It's too early to give up and by voting yourself you are likely to attract others to vote for you (in fact I think you have). So, why did you do it?

Banana why did you vote for buglabush? He or she hasn't said a word. Neither have you for that matter. Please explain.

Turnip Head wrote:Obviously not something I can act on toDay, but this post by Bullz caught my hindsight eye. It feels like the least genuine vote for Prog.

Bullzeye wrote:Voting Prog not because it's my favourite. Nor is it my least favourite. It's the only option in the poll I have absolutely no opinion on either way and that makes it noteworthy to me.

Everyone else voted for their favorite option on Day 0. Bullzeye voted for a "noteworthy" one.

Do day zero votes have to be genuine now?

Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

Bullzeye wrote:Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

It doesn't. It just caught my eye because it was different. No thoughts of voting you for it or anything.

Can we just play this game independent of every other game going on right now?

That includes fantasy football games.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm going to policy ignore MacDougall every time he policy votes for MattF.

I'm voting for juliets until she responds to my fantasy football trade offer. Come on jules, I'm dying for a running back here and Ronnie Hillman is rotting away on your bench.