The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:Llama, are you bad?

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Llama, are you bad?

Not yet.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy - Are Making Things Impossible also categorized under Unforeseen Forces?

Elizabeth Donner wrote:"Epig and MP, the worst of the bunch. Partners in crime, hungry for blood, and ideal for the first lunch."

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also MP, I noticed llama is not on the poll which is why I was teasing you. :P

Oh wait, I'm not? Cool. Take that, MP :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:
I definitely wouldn't call what I said a logical fallacy, or lunch me over it. I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

No, I respectfully disagree.

You're right, it does depend on how often you expect roles to switch. However, it also depends on how you're approaching the game: for your current alignment (i.e., for the benefit of civilians) or for your own self-interest (i.e., as an LMS), the latter of which you are doing.

I completely recognize your POV, and you are right, there is a point to be made with my exact argument as to preferring to lynch your teammates rather than defending them.

However, here's why the latter (your) viewpoint makes less sense:

1) Regardless of how often you expect the roles to switch, one has to make assumptions. The latter viewpoint makes many more assumptions than the former. The only assumption that one is making right now, if one is civilian, is that: I am civilian and my teammates are as well. This is a confirmed true assumption. Any other viewpoint is mere speculation. The problem with your viewpoint is that you're making several assumptions:

a) That roles are going to switch every night. We don't know this.
b) That everyone's roles will switch every night. We don't know this.
c) That, at some point, you or one of your teammates will be switched to a baddie role. We don't know this. See 2) for more detail.

The truth is, right now, we have no idea how often roles, and more importantly alignments, are going to switch. If one is going to play the game covering every possible contingency that one can never trust anyone else, even if one knows others are civilians right now, then the civilians have little to no chance of winning this game. Your viewpoint will essentially lead to the "random lynch" mentality, or rather, the "lynch my BTSCmates mentality". That's a dangerous mentality, especially at this stage where we have no idea how Rox planned these mechanics. In addition, you never explained why you believe the bolded and underlined above. What are you basing that on? Even if you believe you're basing it on solid information, is it not possible your interpretation is flawed?

2) Even if one expects the roles to cycle out every single night, with every player receiving a new role, it is still statistically likely that most players will be given civilian roles, just as it was at the start of the game. Even at the extreme of everyone's roles cycling out every night, it still very well could be possible for members of an original civilian BTSC group to never switch to a baddie role. That is possible. Naturally, it is even more possible the less that roles and alignments are switched.

3) Perhaps most importantly, mechanisms that assist one's original BTSC grouping in possibly rooting out future baddie converts, may hurt you, if you're the one that's switched alignments. What if you're one of the ones that hasn't, and you're still a civilian? Why would you argue against developing such a policy, and instead advocating lynching your BTSCmates? Developing ways to catch baddies in lies does not hurt the civilians one bit; in fact, it gives them an advantage, which they very much need this game. Why would you oppose that?

So, no, Llama, Russ is not "right". He has a valid and logical viewpoint, yes, but only if one cares only about him or herself, an attitude (LMS) that will very likely result in the civilians losing this game, and one that I think needs to be avoided at all possible cost.

thellama73 wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:
I do not wish to be lunched, I am a vegetarian and no threat to anyone

And yeah, Russ wanting to lunch his presumably civ teammates makes me wonder if they are indeed not civs.

Don't you know that herbivores taste much better and carnivores or omnivores?

Debatable.

Russtifinko wrote: I don't think I can say I've eaten carnivore before. But I will say ducks and lambs are probably my favorite meats. I think they're herbivores, unless ducks eat insects.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm going to say 3 spread sheets. Also whats up with Russ?

Roxy wrote:

Elizabeth Donner wrote:"Epig and MP, the worst of the bunch. Partners in crime, hungry for blood, and ideal for the first lunch."

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also MP, I noticed llama is not on the poll which is why I was teasing you. :P

S~V~S wrote:Also, MP, I guess I AM confused. I thought you agreed on what Russ said. Now that i am rereading it not on phone, I see that you do not. I was not trying to put llama in a spot. I just wanted it explained like I was in grade school, and I thought he would be better at that than you would.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Russtifinko wrote: However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Oh snap, Russ is right.

I don't totally get it; can you explain it like I am in kindergarten? (I am asking you to be condescending to me; make the most of it )

Russ's point was this, and I think it is a very good one: MP says he has a way to detect when his teammates rotate into bad roles. If this is true, his teammates should want to lynch him, knowing that he will be able to get them lynched later if they are on the other team. Anyone can become bad, so why would anyone want someone kept alive who can easily get them killed later?

I hope that makes sense, SVS.

As for you, MP, what am I meant to be aggressive about? There is literally no information to go on. We haven't had a kill and we haven't had a lynch to analyze. I think you going after Russ is ridiculous. I think you eyeing me now because I am not quixotically tilting at windmills is ridiculous. I agree with you that we are not likely to see complete role switches every cycle, so I am waiting for data. I don't currently have any suspicions to speak of, but your scattershot approach this game is not productive, or at least I don't think so. A game like this requires some circumspection.

Epignosis wrote:The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Russ, I appreciate your response, and I think your elaboration made here is more logical than your previous exposition. I still disagree. I'm playing the game as a civilian now, so I might as well try my darnedest to accomplish a civilian win. I think you saying: "The only point right now is to stay alive until we get a better handle on how we can actually win." could be true regardless of what point we're at in the game, and I contend it's dangerous thinking for those who currently have civilian roles.

Dom, why do you agree that Epi and I are legitimate candidates for today's lynch? On that note, I have no idea why Elizabeth Donner thinks that, but whatever. If someone wants to make a point as to why they think I'm bad, other than all the usual confounding and contradictory reasons I get eyed every game, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

LC, I appreciate it. I believe the same is true of my plan as well.

THANK YOU EPIG. Jeeze.

MovingPictures07 wrote: I find it odd (not necessarily suspicious) that you have no suspicions or real thoughts; wouldn't you agree that's uncharacteristic?

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

Please point me to where that has been said.

No one has proposed this.

Dom wrote:And if this were the case, you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder if you think MP and yourself are the only two players we should "fear" getting baddie roles.

Dom wrote:wat

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

Please point me to where that has been said.

No one has proposed this.

No one?

Man, I stink at Mafia.

Dom wrote:And if this were the case, you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder if you think MP and yourself are the only two players we should "fear" getting baddie roles.

I'm holding a grudge because I think lynching current civilians before they get a new role is a lousy idea and therefore I think that MP and I should be feared?

Dom wrote:wat

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So I realize now that there will be at least some semblance of evidence, even on D1. Because there is so much BTSC, obviously players will be hesitant to lynch anyone else in their own BTSC group. Typically, civilians would be hesitant to defend teammates, but in a game such as this where roles and alignments could switch, there is less incentive to worry about being NKed as a result of defending a civilian teammate. Of course, baddies will be doing this as well, but even if roles are switching, we should still be able to compile information at snapshots, rather than over time.

As to the first part of this post, MP, why not? If were all switching anyway, I can't see any reason at all not to push for the lynch of my current teammates.

Unless of course they would all turn and vote for me for voting one of them, but that assumes they ascribe to an unwritten code of not lynching BTSC mates that really holds no value for them, and that they have arbitrary but strong and misplaced senses of justice.

Russtifinko wrote:I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Epignosis wrote:I really don't see how what I said has anything to do with people needing to fear certain people getting evil roles. My record alone shows that I'm far more dangerous as Mafia than as a civilian, but that's irrelevant.

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So I realize now that there will be at least some semblance of evidence, even on D1. Because there is so much BTSC, obviously players will be hesitant to lynch anyone else in their own BTSC group. Typically, civilians would be hesitant to defend teammates, but in a game such as this where roles and alignments could switch, there is less incentive to worry about being NKed as a result of defending a civilian teammate. Of course, baddies will be doing this as well, but even if roles are switching, we should still be able to compile information at snapshots, rather than over time.

As to the first part of this post, MP, why not? If were all switching anyway, I can't see any reason at all not to push for the lynch of my current teammates.

Unless of course they would all turn and vote for me for voting one of them, but that assumes they ascribe to an unwritten code of not lynching BTSC mates that really holds no value for them, and that they have arbitrary but strong and misplaced senses of justice.

Unless Russ admitted to being bad in this post, then he suggested lynching civilians because "we're all switching anyway."

Russtifinko wrote:I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

And Russ double-downed on that position.

Am I reading Russ' suggestion incorrectly?

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

Please point me to where that has been said.

No one has proposed this. And if this were the case, you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder if you think MP and yourself are the only two players we should "fear" getting baddie roles.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Russ, I appreciate your response, and I think your elaboration made here is more logical than your previous exposition. I still disagree. I'm playing the game as a civilian now, so I might as well try my darnedest to accomplish a civilian win. I think you saying: "The only point right now is to stay alive until we get a better handle on how we can actually win." could be true regardless of what point we're at in the game, and I contend it's dangerous thinking for those who currently have civilian roles.

Dom, why do you agree that Epi and I are legitimate candidates for today's lynch? On that note, I have no idea why Elizabeth Donner thinks that, but whatever. If someone wants to make a point as to why they think I'm bad, other than all the usual confounding and contradictory reasons I get eyed every game, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

LC, I appreciate it. I believe the same is true of my plan as well.

THANK YOU EPIG. Jeeze.

I want to vote you because you literally just said people always suspect you for stupid reasons.

If you're suspected so often-- maybe you act suspiciously.


Anyway, I think you're trying WAY too hard. It's not much, but it's a ping. I don't actively suspect you or anything.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Where did I say the word stupid?

MovingPictures07 wrote:The civilian self-voting needs to stop.

At least randomize your vote, for goodness sake. Who would have ever thought I'd be saying THAT?

Then I will vote the first person who does it because I think it's ridiculously stupid.

Epignosis wrote:I really don't see how what I said has anything to do with people needing to fear certain people getting evil roles. My record alone shows that I'm far more dangerous as Mafia than as a civilian, but that's irrelevant.

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So I realize now that there will be at least some semblance of evidence, even on D1. Because there is so much BTSC, obviously players will be hesitant to lynch anyone else in their own BTSC group. Typically, civilians would be hesitant to defend teammates, but in a game such as this where roles and alignments could switch, there is less incentive to worry about being NKed as a result of defending a civilian teammate. Of course, baddies will be doing this as well, but even if roles are switching, we should still be able to compile information at snapshots, rather than over time.

As to the first part of this post, MP, why not? If were all switching anyway, I can't see any reason at all not to push for the lynch of my current teammates.

Unless of course they would all turn and vote for me for voting one of them, but that assumes they ascribe to an unwritten code of not lynching BTSC mates that really holds no value for them, and that they have arbitrary but strong and misplaced senses of justice.

Unless Russ admitted to being bad in this post, then he suggested lynching civilians because "we're all switching anyway."

Russtifinko wrote:I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

And Russ double-downed on that position.

Am I reading Russ' suggestion incorrectly?

thellama73 wrote:

Russtifinko wrote: I don't think I can say I've eaten carnivore before. But I will say ducks and lambs are probably my favorite meats. I think they're herbivores, unless ducks eat insects.

Alligators are carnivores and delicious. So are most fish. Yes, most of the animals we eat are herbivores, but bear in mind that they have been bred for hundreds of years to be delicious, whereas alligators have not. I bet if we farmed alligators for food the same way we do cows, they would stack up favorably against most anything.

Snowman wrote:I'm new to this, but I'm not new to social deduction games, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this version works. I see four possible perspectives:

1) I don't know what team I may be on during the final round, so the best strategy would be to eliminate the most potent competitors, regardless of what team they may currently be on,

2) I will role play my current affiliation, and behave in a manner that is completely loyal until I'm told that loyalty has changed,

3) we've been told that affiliation/powers may not change every night, so I should remain loyal to my current group because there is a chance that they will remain my group the following day,

4) the pre-determined alternation of groups can't be predicted or planned for, so there is no reason not to simply fire blindly into the crowd, because as long as you remain alive personally, you have no influence over who will be on your team the following day.

Personally, I'm leaning toward strategy #3...or am I?

Snowman wrote:Llama, do you have big plans for post #6666? I expect it will be epic!

Roxy wrote:Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

Long Con wrote:Epig's not on my Civvie team either.

Snowman wrote:I'm new to this, but I'm not new to social deduction games, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this version works. I see four possible perspectives:

1) I don't know what team I may be on during the final round, so the best strategy would be to eliminate the most potent competitors, regardless of what team they may currently be on,

2) I will role play my current affiliation, and behave in a manner that is completely loyal until I'm told that loyalty has changed,

3) we've been told that affiliation/powers may not change every night, so I should remain loyal to my current group because there is a chance that they will remain my group the following day,

4) the pre-determined alternation of groups can't be predicted or planned for, so there is no reason not to simply fire blindly into the crowd, because as long as you remain alive personally, you have no influence over who will be on your team the following day.

Personally, I'm leaning toward strategy #3...or am I?

Long Con wrote:I thought a game like this was designed to require infodumping, given the random nature of people's roles and alignments. If there's a 'no infodumping' rule in place, then... I guess the plan I thought of off MP07's idea won't work, because it requires signalling which Group you're in to your former Group-mates.

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

Well, there go my plans to lynch Dom. Guess I'll have to come up with something else.

Ricochet wrote:So fill me in on the concept of infodumping. Is it what FZ. did?

Even if he's statistically right about Epig's alignment odds, how do we know what kind of group is FZ. in? And why trust FZ. at all? I didn't hear him suspect Epig of anything so far, either.

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

Well, there go my plans to lynch Dom. Guess I'll have to come up with something else.

There goes your 6666th special post as well.