The Syndicate

Going ahead and voting for position 3. Let's get that shit show on the road and over with. My friends and I headed out much sooner than expected so I may not be around much this night phase.

Linki: Holy mfs MP.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Devin - I love the guy, but he's hardly posted any substantive content, and failed to deliver on questions I asked him from early in the game. What do folks think of him?

Yeah I'm sorry about this. I'm trying to go through and see if I missed anything I need to address before my friends and I head out for an afternoon full of activities. Please let me know what questions I missed or forgot to respond to. I am in way over my head in this game but I don't want to be replaced and I don't want it to be the reason that I skate by (hopefully people understand what I mean by this and don't put words in my mouth).

Golden wrote:Bass, put it like this.

You theorised that the recruiters were likely to be people who are known for always participating fully. That might take the heat of you as being a recruiter. I don't think you would be likely to make that statement if you were a civilian recruiter. You might if you were a baddie recruiter. I saw that statement as being likely neutral.

But, who is more likely to recruit the person admitting they aren't reading the thread?

It sounds a bit mean, but you've kind of admitted it yourself. You wouldn't make a great recruit. At least, not for the civilians who need to solve the game. But someone like that can also be very hard to lynch. Not a bad candidate for a baddie recruit.

In any event, with you I see a worst case scenario of being neutral, and that is ok with me. I'm trying to avoid lynching people who are civs. I don't think you are civ.

Before anyone asks, this is what I'm referring to.

I'm going to go ahead and place my vote on bass to help MP out. To me he sounds like genuine, frustrated, overreacting, emotional, explosive, f u MP (Don't take any of these to heart buddy ) and I'd hate to see him go out for it yet again. Also, I like Golden's "case" on bass. :parrotsmilie:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:MP is responding with threats now? "If you vote for me, I will vote for you"
That is atypical of him. Plus I don't like being threatened. Still some time left, assuming we actually have a 48 hour day, but MP looks no good to me.

You really think MP's response was out of character?
You think Alex being suspected, overreacting, and being rather unreasonable in the thread is unusual????
I would be suspicious if he DIDN'T do that!

1000% this.

forgot to mention this yesterday. I arrived in Pittsburgh last night to visit with some friends for the next 3 days. I'll try to take advantage of my time away from work to keep up

reywaS wrote:Can you get in front of or in the middle of it, though?

Sure

But this was just to mess with him and make light of the situation. I will not be voting for MP today.

thellama73 wrote:Why would MP go out of his way to say Daisy wouldn't make a good recruit? If course she would make a good recruit. His response was completely unnecessary. Looks like a massive over correction to me. Either he has already recruited her or he intends to. MP has a good chance of receiving my vote today.

I can get behind an MP lynch

@MP - I ended up going with bwt because I went back to read his posts that were pinging people. The more I looked over them the more they reminded me of Bioshock. I thought that this seemed like the best possibility for getting him early on as a baddie again.
That being said, on a friendly level I'm glad he made it past Day 1 (and Night 1 for that matter)

RIP Epig and Typh

Ricochet wrote:aww but da dragon

I have an approaching unhealthy love of dragons
AnywhoAnywho, Position 5 is looking nice and shiny to me.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Posting the poll tally would be good, but if voting will stay changeable, it won't be a fully accurate reflection of how votes evolved, especially if things get manipulated (granted, there won't be another early day end until we return to position 1).

I'm gonna double-check MM's list in a bit.

Please do. I'm confident in my checks through everyone's posts (those I needed to check), but the results weren't what I expected. There was so much chatter about BWT, I thought he would have had the most votes, not unfurl.

One thing I noticed when following along was how long it took for the remainder of the bet votes to pile on. I'm not surprised at all that mine was the only one to go through if the day ended at 5: something.

What do you mean by "bet votes" and what do you mean by your being the "only one to go through"?

My guess is that "bet" means "bwt" (w & e next to each other, and autocorrect for the lose) which was how I read it. The rest of it, I have no clue.

BWT is correct. Phone autocorrect is so irritating when typing in shorthand. For the rest: at the end of the shortened day BWT only had 1 vote on him that I saw. And that was mine. That was all I meant.

MovingPictures07 wrote:So... Still haven't caught up properly. I will... but I want to get this all of this current PhD work done first. I promise you will see an MP-level catch up post but it probably won't be today either, probably tomorrow. Depends on how productive I am.

I'll vote position 4.

Oh dear God, now I have this to look forward to! jk bud. Hope all is going well for you.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Posting the poll tally would be good, but if voting will stay changeable, it won't be a fully accurate reflection of how votes evolved, especially if things get manipulated (granted, there won't be another early day end until we return to position 1).

I'm gonna double-check MM's list in a bit.

Please do. I'm confident in my checks through everyone's posts (those I needed to check), but the results weren't what I expected. There was so much chatter about BWT, I thought he would have had the most votes, not unfurl.

One thing I noticed when following along was how long it took for the remainder of the bet votes to pile on. I'm not surprised at all that mine was the only one to go through if the day ended at 5: something.

FYI I'm going to try and pop in once and awhile today to catch up. But my primary objective today is working on my new house

Caught up again. Now F U guys, I'm going to bed!It has been the longest 3 weeks of work for me in my life, and I've already nearly dozed off while reading several times. I'll post again when I'm not feeling cranky

I agree with your second statement Boomslang.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Right now the fore runner for my vote is probably bwt. The way he jumped on the JJJ thing about golden using the word but, then back pedaled out of it, followed by him jumping into MP's case for voting a low poster, I'm just feeling all kinds of sketch from him right now.

I went away from Golden because I felt the explanation he offered me when I questioned him about it seemed fairly reasonable, and I overlooked/missed an earlier post from him where he further explained his initial response to the whole SVS thing.

I think in a game this large, there's just too much unknown to really be sure we're going to hit a target on Day 1. So I feel more comfortable voting for someone who is not contributing to the game that significantly. I know it takes some people time to really get into games, and I understand that. But in a game this large, I'd rather it be more about people actively participating and trying to get involved early on.

Now Day 2 on the other hand, I would start to look for more concrete reasons to lynch someone than "a low poster".

You are not making me feel better about you, BWT. I agree that it is always the norm to have more concrete evidence to go on in Day 2. But there is now almost 30 pages of discussion to sift through on this Day 1, and that is just too much info to ignore and go with a random or a low poster.
Not only this, but I get the feeling that you are avoiding putting yourself out there into some of the more prominent discussions going on. Your "on-the-fence" (as someone other than you referred to it) comment RE:Golden is what pinged me immediately. That felt almost identical to something you said in Bioshock, and we lynched you Day 1 as a baddie. I wanted to get away from that and go after someone referring to this game as LMS (I still might if enough people vote that rout), but I just can't get this out of my mind. So I'm going meta for now and voting for you. I will check back in later before the day ends, but I have to disappear now that I've caught up. I REALLY need to work, as I am off for most of next week.

DON"T HATE ME DAVID!

Linki: Thank you for clarifying, Timmer. That makes me feel better about you individually for now. I understand that currently a huge % of us are neutral and that that type of game is typically LMS. I just feel that playing this game as if it is LMS could really fuck us when we're recruited. I could see the same being argued for playing it as good vs. evil, but I'll stand by that type of (familiar) game play

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok people this is clearly not a LMS game. Allow me to demonstrate...

From the hosts posts:
"Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1"

So Civvie group 1 can win with Civvie group 2, and they both share the same enemies. In fact their win cons are exactly the same which makes them one standard civ team in every sense of the word. The only difference is only ones of the baddie teams is out to kill them.

Additionally, they set the teams up like a traditional civ team, meaning the recruiters for the civ team get limited amount of btsc, see the below quite from the hosts posts...

"If someone gets recruited, do they gain BTSC with the Leader?

Some Civvies get BTSC with the Leader, but it is a very limited number because too much Civvie BTSC would ruin the game. Baddies always get BTSC with their recruits.."

I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

I agree 101% And I'm eyeballing most everyone who is trying to say that it is an LMS game and not a good vs. evil game. It clearly is. More on this and my suspicions later.

Golden wrote:After I'm gone, lynch epi please. Thanks.

I won't be voting for either of you.

Spacedaisy wrote:Two things:

1. I'm here but I have to catch up

2. I'm having trouble with my iPad the last couple days, so bear with me trying to post.

Off to catch up.

Anyone else think that MP should give SD a better title now that they're hitched? Henchman just doesn't cut it in my book anymore

Whelp, I feel pretty current right now. Only thing I have to add is that I have a list of people I will not be voting for today. No idea who I will vote for though

Linki: I've been feeling out a genuine Golden, so I'll be intrigued to see where this goes tomorrow.

Triple linki

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Golden wrote:MM is voting for me, dontcha get it yet?

How do you know that?

I see reasons to vote for Golden, but I'll let things play out. I also have a reason not to vote for him.

Same.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:If I was a recruiter, I would self-recruit every night.

Why do you all love being so... transparent.

Are you only going to vote for a transparent person?

Now there's a thought. I will not be voting for S~V~S today.

I've already ruled MP out though.

Oh great, now I have to open a separate sheet for the players you intend not to vote.

What did SVS say about Day 1's being clusterfucks again?

Right? It is quite literally impossible for me to catch up at this point. So I'm going to try my best just to stay current and relevant.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Devin, I understand. Like I noted before, I'm not trying to say that I think people don't have lives. I also realize that the game just started and that it's a behemoth. I also have a life, quite a busy one at that... I have a lot to do today, yet I'm here, against my better judgment. It's a fun ass game and I wanted to be involved in at least some of Day 1, since I knew I'd be gone a lot of today and tomorrow.

I just am hoping to get all of the players who have yet to contribute, whom I'm not faulting for any reason, to do so, that's all. I also have specific reasoning that you may or may not have seen here for why I think low posters are more relevant to hunt in this game than in other regular mafia setups.

I didn't mean for that to sound accusatory or anything harsh, bud. We all know that everyone playing this has a life outside of this. That's the primary reason I don't want to go after low posters. Secondly, there's now 15 pages worth of reading for me to do in order to catch up. I know I'm not the only one there, so it may be just that we have a ton to catch up on that we're not able to post as much. Thirdly, there are now 15 pages of discussion. Surely we can find something better to go on than just low posters

No hard feelings here, man
I will elaborate further when I can. For now, I have a Paul project to work on

MovingPictures07 wrote:At this moment, the players that I'm eyeballing the most are:

unfurl, for 13 posts that contribute practically nothing (no offense intended) to the hunt or game mechanics discussion, and for an attitude that seems very cheeky, sarcastic, and nonchalant. It's possible that she is a recruiter or recruited that isn't willing to open up the low poster discussion for the reasons I mentioned, although it seems clear that she has no intention to open up any avenue of discussion. Even if she isn't recruited or recruiter of a nefarious nature, that is a dangerous mindset, and considering 28 of us are neutral, she may receive my vote purely for that unwillingness.

Ricochet, for a starting suspicion on Llama that seems forced and out of character with regards to his typical analysis-driven self. However, I admit it's possible that his feelings are arising purely from clear bias, which he also seems willing to even admit. Nonetheless, I have not seen the same Rico this game that I saw in Watchmen, who was just a purely analytical machine.

Any players with 5 posts or less at this time (I'm widening my field), who are:

Russtifinko 5
Tranq 5
LoRab 4
nutella 4
Scotty 4
DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Canucklehead 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

You know I am busy, and that this is why I couldn't join Angry Bird Mafia, too. I will do my best to stay on top of things, but it will be difficult with such a high posting game.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ludwig von Mises wrote: The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.

Now, regarding low posters: My feeling is that they are less likely to be recruited, and therefore more likely to remain unaligned. Not ideal choices for lynches, especially later in the game. On Day 1, however, they are just as likely to be a recruiter as anyone else, so if we're going to go after them, we should do it sooner rather than later.

Being a low poster right now, I have to disagree. There are already 14 pages of discussion (for me, at least), and from what little I've read so far there are too many good points being brought up to just go after low posters.

RE BWT: I've seen him leave wiggle room plenty of times before this. I've even done this myself lots of times in previous games, especially as a baddie (and as a civvie-attacking indie). That last part being said, I do agree that BWT does get lynched a lot regardless of alignment for stating wiggly-roomy type statements such as this. But I do want to keep an eye on going forward.

Linkie: MP and llama beat me to this

Keeping this first choice simple and going with position 1

Yay game!