The Syndicate

bea wrote:tbh - after mac was lynced as a baddie team we were always on the defensive. As hard as we tried we could never get back on the offensive. And that's the real lesson in the GOC game here. We were a great baddie team who should have done far better than we did. But we could never just get over our own paranoia enough to be offensive rather than defensive.

After Mac was lynched I was the worst proponent of that. Cuz then I was basically a nilla baddie with maybe a kill if we snuck it in while peeps thought I was good.

You played me like a harp.

Black Rock wrote:

bea wrote:tbh - after mac was lynced as a baddie team we were always on the defensive. As hard as we tried we could never get back on the offensive. And that's the real lesson in the GOC game here. We were a great baddie team who should have done far better than we did. But we could never just get over our own paranoia enough to be offensive rather than defensive.

After Mac was lynched I was the worst proponent of that. Cuz then I was basically a nilla baddie with maybe a kill if we snuck it in while peeps thought I was good.

You played me like a harp.

I'm positive this was the ONE TIME.

But still gonna run with it. Still better than a banner.

I adore you birhday sister. I'm happy you ladies won. You all earned it.

bea wrote:As for Quinn, I thought he played a GREAT game. I know I'm half biased. But shit. That boy was amazing. And really only got lynched cuz LC got lucky with the block. IF I had killed that night, again, things could have gone differently.

It wasn't entirely luck. It was PoE and instinct. Until Quin, I had focused on proving to myself thast Golden, S~V~S, and MM were good.

Quin wrote:LC told me in another game he caught me because of my timmer vote on Day 1, and I see how he could have quite easily.

More accurately, when you referred to the vote as a "pressure vote". That was just what I had said as a baddie in Phenon to excuse my baddie vote. That was after my blocking of you, which was the main reason I was seeking your lynch.

Bea, actually the whole llama Lynch was aimed at you. That was why I made a point of poking you specifically with the shitty case stick. I needed to know you were civ. You waffled enough to give me cause, but you fell in line quickly enough that I figured it was vapors on my part.

I am just glad I was gone when you died. Had I been alive I would have tunnelled Juliets hard.

You played an awesome game. And fwiw I personally hate nothing more than faux suspicion from teammates. The goal of a baddie, at least for me, is to look like a civvie and faux suspish compromises that for me. It works for some people, but not for me, although I have benefited from it, like in WWE. And I know that isn't your cup of tea either, and you played off of it really well.

Black Rock wrote:I was totally wrong about Timer and Boomslang. Had no real suspicions since then. I totality trusted Quinn up to his death. Even sent him a message telling him Sorsha was bad night 2. I asked SVS to check Sorsha after that. I hinted at that message and who it came from. She ignored me , leading me to suspect her.Otherwise I played this game with a lot of difficulty relying on juilets.

I didn't get the message.

bea wrote:oh - as far as "so and so would never do that as a baddie." - let me say it here and loud and proud.
IF I flip mafia I will do what I need to do to keep my advantage. There is no line I won't cross. As far as I can remember, I WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE SIG BETS.
And yes, if I'm bad and you belive for one second that I would never take a bet I can't loose, just that once I will fall on that granade. I will still use this when I'm civ.

IF you think I won't use the "if you lie to me now, I can never trust you again" and I'm mafia, I'm so going to stake my mafia rep on it. I will still use this when I am civ.

I WILL ALWAYS NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DEDICATE TO ANY GAME I PLAY. I WILL FOREVER BE AN EASY LYNCH AS AN UNINVOLVED CIV AND A EASY SLIDE AS A BADDIE.

Lots of peeps would have -pre this game - say that I wouldn't pull the trigger on SVS and that's a HARD trigger for me to pull. But in the end, the TEAM'S needs outweigh my personal needs. So I pulled the fucking trigger.

I was also waiting to use that exact thing against BR. Cuz that day will come.

In the end, the *very* thing that kept me last baddie hidden was the thing that - for my baddie team, I felt the most umbrage against.

When quinn got lynched it was a) LC luck - but when he first came under the firing line it was cuz "I trust everone else's meta and you are the only one left." That's the danger of POE. It worked for quinn - but you lynched ninjacoltraine twice both times a civ because of it. You lynched wigly twice - both times civ because of it.

I prolly could have skated - how many more cycles had sorsha not nked me? because of it?

Meta is kinda bollucks. If I'm a baddie - even if I know I can only do it once - Imma still do it that one time. Just cuz I can.

Actually, in the Wilgy and Coltrane lynches the second time around was due to them being cylons for me, not POE. POE allowed me to not suspect S~V~S, Golden, LC, and BR so I feel it worked for me. Also, I will know next time not to excuse bea if I have to push her to name suspicions and I won't excuse her on emotional appeals. And as for meta, it's what we used to get Mac and I feel it could have been helpful for ninja if I'd ever been able to find games where she was good or bad. I even went back to Rev and looked at Golden in King Arthur to make sure I was remembering his performance correctly.

I also learned this game to just be me and to stop playing like other people play, or want me to play.

I do not like naming my suspects in the thread. I like watching them, watching other people relate to them, and then using that to force an issue. That was what I did this game, I suspected Llama somewhat before the Cheerleader thing. But only enough to watch him, not to name him. Naming him would have put him on the defensive and would have changed his game play.

So from now on, I will just get lynched, I guess, than be forced to name suspects as some sort of civ litmus test. We all can't play the same game as JJJ and Sloonei, nor should we want to. If we all did things the same it would be boring. I just got mis lynched in another game for insufficient suspect naming, and really, that is just my process. Watching and poking people with sticks to see what happens.

I just had a big old post ready to go, and when I clicked "post" my wi-fi hiccuped. Now it's gone.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I just had a big old post ready to go, and when I clicked "post" my wi-fi hiccuped. Now it's gone.

No, check your History! It may still be there!

Having the viewed the game and the mafia BTSC discussion from a neutral perspective, these are my thoughts on the POE debate:

~ The method itself was not an issue to criticize, as it clearly worked well for the civilians. It has actually been very positive in a number of recent games. *directs smug expression upon the critics*

~ I can understand on some level, however, why it peeved the mafia team. The method itself was fine, but the means by which some of the civilians cleared each other (spousal night kill assumptions, fierce/personal emotional appeals, signature bets, etc) aren't exactly the sort of purely game-relevant indicators that a hypothetically neutral Mafia platform would be built upon -- it'd work based upon the content of posts relative solely to the game at hand and nothing but the game at hand. The problem with this is self-evident: it's a fantasy world. I have never seen a Mafia community anywhere, in person or on a message board, that fits within that idealistic frame. Instead, we all play with people we know, and the effects of that are going to be seen in games. That's just how it is, and I don't think that's something to frown upon. We play as friends, and sometimes that opens doors to unique angles for making reads.

~ There are two obvious negatives that I can identify though for civilians operating this way (crediting and identifying one another based upon unique and marginally relevant appeals or tells):
~~~ 1.) Eventually, someone is going to take advantage of this mindset as a non-civilian and make a number of people look silly.
~~~ 2.) When civilians come to rely too much upon these sorts of tells to progress their POE perspectives, they make a significant sacrifice to their own ability to play the game as anything but civilians. If a player struggles to attain civilian trust without special appeals or tells of this nature, it exposes them when they don't have the proper framework in their roles or mindsets (i.e. when they're mafia-aligned) to meet that criteria. They becomes victims of their own game -- isolated by the POE of other civilians who don't see the tells they're looking for. The only way around this, other than revamping the civilian approach, is to make concessions as a baddie which might not feel morally permissible (and in my opinion, fierce emotional appeals as a baddie are sometimes outright unsportsmanlike). A player is left deciding whether to compromise their values or to compromise their chances to win the game.

S~V~S wrote:We all can't play the same game as JJJ and Sloonei, nor should we want to. If we all did things the same it would be boring.

Not only would it be boring, but the thread would be unreadable. Too many posts.

I think a civilian team is at its best when a number of players choose a role (not to be confused with their role card roles) for themselves in the hunt. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of clones all doing the same things -- I want to see players complementing each other with a variety of different approaches and concepts. I think there's a place for the Slooneis of Mafia (obviously given my own methods), and I think there's a place for a ton of other styles too.

I also like to continuously adapt my game over time as I see other players employ certain methods more effectively than I do. I want my style to be influenced by other people who don't do what I do. It makes the game more interesting too, because I am not the same guy I was when I first played Economics here. Many of the core methods remain, but I feel I have grown in that time because of what I've seen from other players. That's the best part.

Well, for instance, this game broke my interpersonal reads on bea, and the expectations for our game to be defined by our friendship. I doubt I will ever rely on them again.

I think alot of this falls to the wayside as our individual games evolve, and we develop new reads on each other. I came back from break playing a very different game than I used to because I started paying more attention to the impact my actions had on other people as individuals, not just in game.

Linki x2

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

S~V~S wrote:We all can't play the same game as JJJ and Sloonei, nor should we want to. If we all did things the same it would be boring.

Not only would it be boring, but the thread would be unreadable. Too many posts.

I think a civilian team is at its best when a number of players choose a role (not to be confused with their role card roles) for themselves in the hunt. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of clones all doing the same things -- I want to see players complementing each other with a variety of different approaches and concepts. I think there's a place for the Slooneis of Mafia (obviously given my own methods), and I think there's a place for a ton of other styles too.

I've noticed I emulate you more when you're not in the game. I've come to rely on a lot of the content you generate, but I don't usually need to be the one who generates it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Having the viewed the game and the mafia BTSC discussion from a neutral perspective, these are my thoughts on the POE debate:

~ The method itself was not an issue to criticize, as it clearly worked well for the civilians. It has actually been very positive in a number of recent games. *directs smug expression upon the critics*

~ I can understand on some level, however, why it peeved the mafia team. The method itself was fine, but the means by which some of the civilians cleared each other (spousal night kill assumptions, fierce/personal emotional appeals, signature bets, etc) aren't exactly the sort of purely game-relevant indicators that a hypothetically neutral Mafia platform would be built upon -- it'd work based upon the content of posts relative solely to the game at hand and nothing but the game at hand. The problem with this is self-evident: it's a fantasy world. I have never seen a Mafia community anywhere, in person or on a message board, that fits within that idealistic frame. Instead, we all play with people we know, and the effects of that are going to be seen in games. That's just how it is, and I don't think that's something to frown upon. We play as friends, and sometimes that opens doors to unique angles for making reads.

~ There are two obvious negatives that I can identify though for civilians operating this way (crediting and identifying one another based upon unique and marginally relevant appeals or tells):
~~~ 1.) Eventually, someone is going to take advantage of this mindset as a non-civilian and make a number of people look silly.
~~~ 2.) When civilians come to rely too much upon these sorts of tells to progress their POE perspectives, they make a significant sacrifice to their own ability to play the game as anything but civilians. If a player struggles to attain civilian trust without special appeals or tells of this nature, it exposes them when they don't have the proper framework in their roles or mindsets (i.e. when they're mafia-aligned) to meet that criteria. They becomes victims of their own game -- isolated by the POE of other civilians who don't see the tells they're looking for. The only way around this, other than revamping the civilian approach, is to make concessions as a baddie which might not feel morally permissible (and in my opinion, fierce emotional appeals as a baddie are sometimes outright unsportsmanlike). A player is left deciding whether to compromise their values or to compromise their chances to win the game.

Yes, the siggy bet thing only comes up once in a great while (I can't remember the last time it came up in fact, I think it might even have been on rev mafia) and for me is only really relevant to S~V~S. And I agree I would at times consider fierce emotional appeals unsportsmanlike. I don't always rely on emotional appeals, I don't think I did in Phenom for example, but this time it is what it is or was what it was.

I've come to try to play as close to the same regardless of alignment. That's my goal. When I play there is only bea. Not bad bea or civ bea. I think newt and lc are exceptionally good at that sort of play where you want to trust them. You hope you can. But you are never quite 100 percent sure.

I know I have a long way to go. But you know, reducing the tells ect. But that is the goal.

Jules, I asked you if you would change your avatar since that was the only way I would know for sure, that bea connection was SO tenuous, and I felt knowing for sure about one of you would (incorrectly) lead me to know about both of you. I don't particularly love the bet thing, BUT if we are going to use meta in games, that is a form of Meta as far as I am concerned. It is the same as married people who won't kill each other night one, and using that when their spouse dies night one. As far as I am concerned it is the same as "I would never do *X*". Meta is Meta, even if it is in a silly form. And if I have a person I don't want to see mislynched, I will do what I can to clear them, even if others may find it distasteful.

When I am bad, from now on I will never NK anyones spouse night one, lol.

But I know someday you will flip it on me, and that will be then end of it. Like this game was the end of any meta connection I have to Bea.

bea wrote:I've come to try to play as close to the same regardless of alignment. That's my goal. When I play there is only bea. Not bad bea or civ bea. I think newt and lc are exceptionally good at that sort of play where you want to trust them. You hope you can. But you are never quite 100 percent sure.

I know I have a long way to go. But you know, reducing the tells ect. But that is the goal.

If I didn't have a role that I could easily hint at and that wasn't obviously civilian, I probably would have been lynched this game. I don't know if I have the meta attachments that some players do. I was just fortunate to have that as a backup plan.

Marmot wrote:

bea wrote:I've come to try to play as close to the same regardless of alignment. That's my goal. When I play there is only bea. Not bad bea or civ bea. I think newt and lc are exceptionally good at that sort of play where you want to trust them. You hope you can. But you are never quite 100 percent sure.

I know I have a long way to go. But you know, reducing the tells ect. But that is the goal.

If I didn't have a role that I could easily hint at and that wasn't obviously civilian, I probably would have been lynched this game. I don't know if I have the meta attachments that some players do. I was just fortunate to have that as a backup plan.

That was a really good plan Marmot. I didn't get it until you specifically pointed it out but once you did, it left no doubt you were the horoscope guy.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The only way around this, other than revamping the civilian approach, is to make concessions as a baddie which might not feel morally permissible (and in my opinion, fierce emotional appeals as a baddie are sometimes outright unsportsmanlike). A player is left deciding whether to compromise their values or to compromise their chances to win the game.

I don't see the difference between fierce emotional appeals as a civvie or baddie. If all you have to do to clear yourself in the game is just swear up and down that you're civ, and that gets you off every time, that feels cheap and out of the spirit of Mafia, imo.

I feel like I don't take Mafia credibility nearly as seriously as some other players do. In this game there was a lot of "He wouldn't throw away his entire Mafia cred like this" or "If you're lying I'll lose all respect for you." Things like that seem like an extreme reaction to me, especially considering this game is at its core about deception. So we're saying some deception is okay, but you can't deceive too far?

For the record, I play to win. I don't always put in a great effort towards that end, but that's my goal. I don't care if I have perceived cred, and from here on out I'll try to double my attempts to make my civ and baddie games indistinguishable. I don't like being lynched because of meta, but I also don't want to win because of meta.

I understand, DF. In the moment it makes a bad guy feel like there's no fair way to play it. What this enables though is for you to demand these tells from those who use them in future games. If they can't deliver, lynch 'em!

If you're mafia, just kill them. You don't need that hanging around at endgame.

I just got accepted as a Civ by acting Civ, I think. After I was already declared Civ almost universally, I assured Juliets that she wouldn't be disappointed at game's end.

Sloonei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

S~V~S wrote:We all can't play the same game as JJJ and Sloonei, nor should we want to. If we all did things the same it would be boring.

Not only would it be boring, but the thread would be unreadable. Too many posts.

I think a civilian team is at its best when a number of players choose a role (not to be confused with their role card roles) for themselves in the hunt. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of clones all doing the same things -- I want to see players complementing each other with a variety of different approaches and concepts. I think there's a place for the Slooneis of Mafia (obviously given my own methods), and I think there's a place for a ton of other styles too.

I've noticed I emulate you more when you're not in the game. I've come to rely on a lot of the content you generate, but I don't usually need to be the one who generates it.

That's it for me. I think my best skill is almost an independent eye on the logic of others, rather than creating the case myself (I have too much tunnelling instinct).

By the way df, I already think you're unreadable. I couldn't name a single meta tell I have on you (for any affiliation).

But, in the end, why I think these kind of meta tells are fair game is that, like others have said, meta shifts and can be used against people. Where one game I might feel like something is a lock clear, if I then see the same behaviour from that player in a game not long afterwards I'll suspect meta might be being used against me.

It can feel dirty in the moment and there are not always ways to turn it around, but I actually think in a way it forces me to get smarter with my baddie game... pay attention to who is trusting who, and why, and who might trust who in the future and why... taking note of the little things might help choose the right nks.

In this game the town was really very effective and the baddies quite likely could have struggled no matter what they did. But their choices did contribute to town meta reads in ways they quite possibly didn't expect.

I don't realky believe there are any two people who would never kill each other. But there are times and places where it's plausible and times when it isn't. That's some tough stuff to work through.

Why these kind of meta tells are essentially balanced is that they can be used against you. This mafia team may have struggled with it because it was so correct. But if juliets or br was actually bad? The feeling might have been very different.

I've been looking through my past posts and games and legitimately forgot this game even existed. I can see the reason is because I died on like, Day 2.

In voting for this year's Sockys I found that I couldn't remember a lot of the details of this game. I remember being on the Prisoner sockpuppet account and I remember the Beach/Hatch threads, but I don't recall very many specific events of the game or even the final outcome.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:51 pm In voting for this year's Sockys I found that I couldn't remember a lot of the details of this game. I remember being on the Prisoner sockpuppet account and I remember the Beach/Hatch threads, but I don't recall very many specific events of the game or even the final outcome.

Brief synopsis:

~ 25 players, 4 of which were in sock accounts (Donna Meagle [Dom], Prisoner 27385 [Sloonei], Professor Farnsworth [DFaraday, mafia], John Coltrane [nijuukyugou])
~ On the second or third day, Quin (mafia) activated a role ability that split everyone into Beach and Hatch threads.
~ The mafia team got off to a rough start, losing MacDougall and thellama73 in the first three lynches.
~ They recovered admirably and stayed alive until a final five scenario (not to be confused with the "Final Three" revived players stemming from Battlestar Galactica).
~ The game culminated in a final three face-off featuring juliets, Sorsha, and Black Rock. Sorsha was lynched, revealed to be ALFOTHAD the pseudo-serial killer, and the civilians won. Sorsha also won because I was dumb and worded her role card poorly; Spacedaisy and I determined that she deserved it for getting to very end.

MovingPictures07 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:17 pm Thankfully, JaggedJimmyJay was also able to provide links to the role list and his host spreadsheet, so at least that information has been retained, as follows:

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Role list

Actions spreadsheet (includes players and role names)

These also survived.

I remember the serial killer win condition controversy as well. It's all coming back to me.