The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:
??? Casketjack The person who reported on social media to be in possession of the ALFOTHAD cassette, still alive after vanishing from the site. He actually got angered at the unreasonable requests from social media fans about distributing, leaking or sharing the content of ALFOTHAD. As such, he also does not want any player to know of Alfothad's (the player) identity.

Casketjack is listed as civilian, but begins as independent and knows Alfothad’s identity; Alfothad does not know the identity of Casketjack, but will search for him every night, in order to recruit him and gain BTSC. From that point, they can win as the last team standing. If Alfothad is lynched after recruitment occurs, Casketjack can replace him as the serial killer and keep their share win con active. Casketjack's vote for Alfothad in a lynch poll will be worth 0. If Alfothad unknowingly targets an unrecruited Casketjack with a nightkill, the action will fail, but only the first time it occurs.

If Alfothad never finds Casketjack and dies before doing so, Casketjack then reverts to a vanilla civilian. Casketjack's role description will be exposed if Motherfucker = Redeemer checks him, upon recruitment or if he is lynched or if Alfothad dies.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

timmer wrote:Random question... Epig, you and MM seem to both be pretty much in sync on the Boomslang-was-very-much-a-civ train. Does MM's view of Boomslang matter to you at all? What I mean is, you've suggested iirc that you want to reattack the same lynch targets as yesterday, but I'm wondering if the fact that you both seem to be in sync on this point changes things at all, or if you think it matters not? I'm just not used to seeing people who semi-think alike go after one another, I suppose.

MM, what do you think of Epig? Same question.

MM's opinion of Boomslang doesn't really mean anything to me (most of MM's opinions in general sound loose and superficial to me anyway). As I mentioned, the suspicion I have of him is circumstantial based on the outcome of Day 4, and he couldn't defend against it.

Nope.

timmer wrote:Random question... Epig, you and MM seem to both be pretty much in sync on the Boomslang-was-very-much-a-civ train. Does MM's view of Boomslang matter to you at all? What I mean is, you've suggested iirc that you want to reattack the same lynch targets as yesterday, but I'm wondering if the fact that you both seem to be in sync on this point changes things at all, or if you think it matters not? I'm just not used to seeing people who semi-think alike go after one another, I suppose.

MM, what do you think of Epig? Same question.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:At this point, I'm willing to accept that trice is civilian and Jay is bad.

I doubt the mafia would have the ability to survive a lynch. Also, Jay is a clever person who I think would target me on Night 3.

timmer wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:MM, at some point earlier in the game you seemed a bit more resigned to being lynched. Today either you or trice survived the lynch. Would you fault me for finding it more plausible that you are the player that survived?

My gut tells me that it involved a third party, tbh. Trice absolutely did not post like someone who knew he was safe, he was frantic, and oddly enough I feel like MM didn't act right either because he would have been looser than he was. He actually seemed to be hamstrung in retrospect.

Dom wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Fuck this game. Seriously. I don't even care if you other townies win anymore.

MovingPictures07

HETHZBEMADWDGFLMCECRSALOKYHNENMTEKTXEJSYVQOPXMHNCKBJRIBNJHBDITEUMGUBXUMD

This curse sucks.

Indeed. Anyone have an idea what the code for it is?

DBMNAHK

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Vote birdwithteeth

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Vote birdwithteeth

VLAKNI IXJDAK CXVQQ

Fake.

VLAKNI IXJDAK CXVQQM LPUZDJ IQIEHI XXPVPY TKQMTB W

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Vote birdwithteeth

VLAKNI IXJDAK CXVQQ

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Dom posting the same way I'm criticizing JJJ and epignosis for - deliberately misleading when not outright lies in their accusations. Wouldn't be surprised if all three are bad, civvies can and do play honest the way virtually everybody else has been

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It looks like Epignosis is working on the theory that Vompatti was Moya, and is looking for connections -- revealing an inordinate focus on Sloonei in his posts. Epi please confirm or deny in your code.

Vompatti wrote:Sloonei confirmed for civilian.

Vompatti wrote:

Sloonei wrote:are votes changeable?

didn't you read the rules?

Vompatti wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

timmer wrote:Yes

Epignosis wrote:No.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I note that Golden was killed by both the SK and Sleep. Sleep being one of them is curious, since the original killing mafioso is Moya. Sleep inherits the kill if Moya dies. This would seem to be an indicator that Moya is dead, which raises questions: who among the corpses could it have been? Only Vompatti has an unrevealed role, so if he's Moya that means the SK had a Night 1 kill.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If that's the case, perhaps the SK is activated by some manner of day phase mechanism (i.e. receiving a vote or something similar).

The only other explanation I can think of would be a seemer among the lynched townies, something which would seem to be discounted by the lack of a "[secrets]" attached to the Moya role. Otherwise perhaps there's an explanation in the [secrets] of the Sleep role.

Ricochet wrote:

Spoiler: show

Ricochet wrote:

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:Why are we criticizing the approach Epi is taking to the game when MP initially took the very same approach?

I can only speak for myself, but I am not criticizing Epi for playing POE. I think POE can be a very effective method. My concern with Epi is that his conduct late in lynches and immediately after lynches don't look entirely sincere: he is doing just little enough to ensure lynches don't change, and then casting suspicion upon those who voted in those lynches. I am unconvinced he has a sincere desire to move the lynches off of the people he has defended, because if he did truly want that -- he'd be providing names to move those votes to. Epignosis knows how to influence vote movement, I've seen him do it many times. This kind of half effort is not representative of that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I felt the splatter and new that feeling.

Sloonei wrote:

Epignosis wrote:WIIACIISSRVGAOZJOSERLMGRRUKSHOH

Fake.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I think we have plenty in common yes, I just don't like how he's playing this game

Object of the Game: Vote Out the People Who Are Playing in a Way You Don't Like

by "I don't like the way you're playing the game" I mean "I'm pretty sure you are bad and are constantly making idiotic posts like the one I just quoted"

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I think we have plenty in common yes, I just don't like how he's playing this game

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

timmer wrote:Yes, that's I'm asking. I see trice voted before MM had any votes, so is that what you meant? I'm guessing yes.

I also said this when I voted for AP:

triceratopzeuhl wrote: I'm voting for him until I see at least an attempt at finding mafia members

would have been easily correctable if he was playing the game

timmer wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

timmer wrote:@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

I Have Learned Not to Have Opinions About Marmots Because They Are Always Wrong...But Trice Voted First, so That Isn't the Impression I Get

By voted first, do you mean he voted before MM had any votes? If so, it certainly dilutes the idea, yeah. It doesn't kill it, though, as AP was definitely going to be a likely vote-getter, but dilutes...

timmer wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

timmer wrote:@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

I Have Learned Not to Have Opinions About Marmots Because They Are Always Wrong...But Trice Voted First, so That Isn't the Impression I Get

By voted first, do you mean he voted before MM had any votes? If so, it certainly dilutes the idea, yeah. It doesn't kill it, though, as AP was definitely going to be a likely vote-getter, but dilutes...

timmer wrote:@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

triceratopzeuhl wrote: baddie-like behavior

timmer wrote:Trice and JJJ? That's awesome to read.

Considering how the Wilgy lynch looks in the polls... do you think Boomslang is likely a civ, then? If I picture a baddie team with JJJ, and trice who voted B2B, it looks like that day's lynch was a gimme for them.

timmer wrote:I'll try one more time... Epig, what is to stop you from spending the day looking for civs, which is fine, and voicing that you think the vote leader may be civ, which is great, and then, when the day is at that crucial point when votes will start flying in... voicing who you would rather see lynched? There is nothing about POE that precludes you from doing this.

How is it more civvie to do it your way?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Do You Want to Pick Apart My Methodology or Do You Want to Find Mafia?

The purpose of this dialogue is to discern your true investment in preventing lynches you vocally opposed. The purpose of this dialogue is to discern if you're mafia.

False- You Are Picking Apart My Methodology, Trying to Get Me to Behave Differently

I don't give a rat's ass how you behave. I give a rat's ass why. Answer my questions.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Do You Want to Pick Apart My Methodology or Do You Want to Find Mafia?

The purpose of this dialogue is to discern your true investment in preventing lynches you vocally opposed. The purpose of this dialogue is to discern if you're mafia.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis: did you believe that what you were doing stood a good chance of moving votes? Based upon all of the Mafia you have played in your time, did you feel that the sole necessary action for you to take to prevent an unwanted lynch was to mount resistance to that lynch?

I Believed it Would Have Been Enough to Get at Least You and MP to Reconsider, but I am Not Responsible Where Other People Vote Regardless of What I Do or Do Not Do

I've already discussed why I didn't reconsider. I don't assert you are responsible for other people's votes, but you are responsible for your treatment of other people's votes. You have lambasted those who've contributed to the lynches you don't like, and you've stood proudly upon the fact that you knew better.

Your correctness is not meaningful to me. What's meaningful to me is the investment you displayed in your effort to prevent lynches you didn't like -- perhaps lynches you outright hated given your conduct since their resolutions. Which of the following things is most likely to change the name of the player lynched:

1. Resist the current leaders in the tally

2. Promote an alternative option

3. Resist the current leaders in the tally and promote an alternative option

You've taken door number one. I am saying that most civilians out there, sometimes even including JaggedJimmyJay, might not be wholly inspired by the reasons for resistance you provide. Then even some civilians who are intrigued by the points you make inherently struggle to move their vote without a viable alternative -- unless one is promoted. The methods you employed were insufficient to move civilian votes. Do you reject that assertion?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:He's going Jay for voting the "low-hanging fruit" and for not being strongly involved in baddie-hunting. Jay read Epignosis as Good in his GTH reads Day 3, and didn't change that until Epignosis mentioned his suspicion of Jay.

Do you believe all three of these lynches have been low-hanging fruit? I don't care about a GTH read, I will change my mind in a moment if that's what I feel inspired to do. Epignosis has hanged three mislynches on my shoulders without discussing much the reasons I provided myself for contributing to those mislynches. Separatenly, I don't feel he took the steps necessary to change those results and he is saying that he did. That's a significant point of dissent and it relates directly to the sincerity of his content.

That last point requires that either Epignosis fundamentally doesn't understand how the civilian mind operates and believes that resistance to lynches alone is enough to change their course, or it requires him to be pretending to oppose lynches that he is in part facilitating through half-action.

Not necessarily. I still haven't read all of Day 1, so I don't know what happened there, but I would not consider inh a low-hanging fruit. A Person, absolutely. DrWilgy, when he plays like he did this game, then yes.

I know you will change your mind in a heartbeat. My point is that your most recent read of him is good, and that you only voiced suspicion of him after he claimed you are not a civilian. I do agree that Epignosis has been taciturn on who to lynch this game, but there's still the matter that he has been accurate on his civ-reads, and I believe some of his reads have been well-placed.

I think we're getting into mafia theory here, but the civilian mind is completely different from player-to-player. I just made a comment on this earlier, but my civilian mind is not your civilian mind is not Epignosis's civilian mind,and we need to be careful not to project our own ideals on another player.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis: did you believe that what you were doing stood a good chance of moving votes? Based upon all of the Mafia you have played in your time, did you feel that the sole necessary action for you to take to prevent an unwanted lynch was to mount resistance to that lynch?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

timmer wrote:Name your three most likely baddies, off the top of your head.

I Don't Have Three Because That's Not the Way I'm Approaching This

I've never seen someone employ a "POE" quite like this -- near total focus on town reads and minimal focus on baddies. When I use POE, I do work to find townies as a way of reducing the suspect pool, but I still work simultaneously to identify who in that pool is the best lynch option. The method you're claiming here is a rather radical extreme. It isn't necessarily a bad strategy, but what I struggle to understand is your inclination to pass sweeping negative judgment upon those who don't follow each your reads (or more specifically your contests of reads). In these lynches you've opposed, what would you expect [insert civilian] to do with your contributions?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Would you have accepted the lynch of any player at all who you haven't defended without concern over which one?

timmer wrote:Epig, to be fair here, and ti avoid any sense that I'm bugging you... I'm trying to help you, here. If indeed you are civ, I'm trying to help you see how what you are doing looks to those of us on the other end of it, to point out to you the deficiencies in your methods.

Waiting until someone has 4 votes against them, and then saying "no, not that guy, the case is crap" just isn't enough. Because the people voting that player clearly don't have a better alternative, if they are civ, and if they are bad, have not been given an alternative choice to be forced to comment on. All I'm asking you to do is offer alternate choices at the time you say a case is bad,rather than simply saying that a case is no good alone. If you genuinely are civ and want to help, that's my advice to you. I don't like arguing with you, or the sense that I'm bugging you. But if you don't so this, eventually you WILL start to seem bad.

Linki: then I'm sorry, man, but you are the last person I'm going to follow.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Way to Characterize My Contributions

in a 50 page game you can only point to 3 counterexamples, my characterization stands completely

I Have Accurately Pegged Three Civilians in Three Days And Pleaded Against Their Deaths: How Are You Doing?

No, you voted to lynch a civilian on day 2. Boomslang is also not necessarily civvie, AND your only reason was that you think it would have been a misplay to do what he did (which rules out nothing)

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Way to Characterize My Contributions

in a 50 page game you can only point to 3 counterexamples, my characterization stands completely

How many successful examples would convince you? Five? Ten? This doesn't change the fact that he was right. Also, trying to assess post value by density in this game is ridiculous given the ballooning that occurred in the first couple of days.
Also, literally laughed at loud at the (0:23) tag on Epi's last post.

It's not the number, it's the fact that most of his claims of who's a civilian were without any reason (like I said earlier).

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote:If You Think I'm Gloating Here, I'm Not- I'm Pissed That People Are Running Lynches on People For Stupid Reasons (Like to Punish Them for Saying High Posters Should be Killed or For Having a Snarky Change of Tone), But I Suppose You Could Lynch Me Next to Punish Me for Being Right and Not Doing Enough to Stop People From Making Poor Decisions

Offer an alternative theory then, you haven't done so in the last 2 lynches. Of course, if you were bad you would know who is good and bad, so you could do what you've been doing for civvie cred without ever threatening your teammates.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote:The Tricycle Could Interact With Me in One of Several Ways- He Could Ask Me to Clarify Something, Expound Upon Something, Offer Alternative Explanations for My Observations, or Disagree With Me for His Own Reasons...Instead His Activity is to Outright Discredit Me, and if He's a Civilian, There is No Good Reason for Him to Do That Unless He's Convinced I'm Bad

But I have several times, you ignore most of them because it would require acting like a good player

timmer wrote:Name your three most likely baddies, off the top of your head.

timmer wrote:Epig, all people want out of you, and I don't get why you don't get this, are some alternatives. I mean, I said just like you dI'd that many of the cases yesterday were problematic. But that's where it ended for you. You are stubbornly refusing to take the lead in finding better choices and until you start to, just saying that you were right is going to go nowhere.

Linki: your refusal to find baddies is discrediting you, man. Take some responsibility for your lack of finding bad guys and stop blaming everybody for not seeing you as the uber-civ you claim to be.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I'll admit that I have no suspicions that are particularly strong, though. I feel like I have a lot more town reads than I do baddie reads.

Generally agreed. Even without a concerted effort to employ POE, I find myself doing it by accident. The suspicions I have voiced lately are my most substantive, but I don't boast the confidence in those reads I would like for a Day 3. Even still the town reads aren't extremely confident; I get the impression that reads are more likely to gravitate toward the gray center in a survival-oriented game. That mindset permeates the thread in a tangible way. I have only played in a couple like this though.

This Fellow is Not a Civilian

How does the text you've enlarged lead you to that conclusion?

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Way to Characterize My Contributions

in a 50 page game you can only point to 3 counterexamples, my characterization stands completely