The Syndicate

LoRab wrote:BWT: are you going to ignore the reasons that people voted for you? Or explain why your list of lowest 8 posters was missing several names?

Ricochet wrote:So my theory so far is shaping up like this:

if the stats are correct that a 1-vote 11-player tie took place and a player gets lynched through randomization, then it must mean the player who got lynched survived the lynch, according to his position 1

ergo any of the following players (BWT, Canuck, Epignosis, Golden, MP, Russ, SVS, Tranq, Unfurl, Wilgy - I'm not, but feel free to throw me in as well; I would have super dead and super pissed if I would have been lynched or if the Day would have ended with me having two votes) can be:

Ubzargan the Ruthless - Immune to NK/Lynch
Jilted Lover - Can’t die as long as ? alive

I don't believe that Lord of Thunder's +/-3 votes would have changed this situation, if he already manipulated something by the time the Day ended. either he added votes and then there is definitely a specific survivor, which Lordy may now choose to try to hint at; either he substracted votes and it's still a large pool of tied players and the theory above still applies, but with vague chances of pinpointing at anyone in particular

same with Windscout, we don't know how many votes he can take down, but I doubt it's up to 10

I'm not sure if The Immortal's random power can activate during the Day, but even if it can, it's really a stretch to imagine that he protected someone that early and the stars aligned so that the one person he randomly protected was the one person that randomly got lynched; plus, we haven't seen a second death

same with Terras. can he protect during the Day? if so, same stretch of the imagination

If I missed anything, let me know, but so far I believe this to be the conclusion: our non-lynched player today is Uzbargan or the Jilted Lover. unfortunately we have 11 candidates for this spot

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bold assertion:

The original recruiters have not pushed distinct agendas in this thread, at least not yet. They've done everything in their power to keep their names out of everyone else's posts.

I don't think this is too bold to consider.

Linki @BWT: well it didn't help that his mother was one of the four, and she created a mafia game that actually did involve eating other players. :P

I just want to know if they seasoned him first. I usually prefer salmon over a garlic butter sauce, but I'm sure it works with other fish too.

They probably used Old Bay Seasoning. Bass knows what I'm talking about.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bold assertion:

The original recruiters have not pushed distinct agendas in this thread, at least not yet. They've done everything in their power to keep their names out of everyone else's posts.

I don't think this is too bold to consider.

Linki @BWT: well it didn't help that his mother was one of the four, and she created a mafia game that actually did involve eating other players. :P

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:Time for me to disappear into RL for the weekend, so I have to vote now.

Of the 16 players who failed to register a positive or negative score on my newfangled setup, I took the 8 who made the fewest posts. From there, I removed the three female players because I am a gentleman. Of those five remaining players, I eliminated the one who hasn't posted yet during Day 1 because I am fair and want all players to have a chance to post during the day before I vote unless I have good reason to do otherwise. Of these final four, I voted for the player who had the least compelling content in their posts.

Voted Tranq.

That's sexist yo. Do you want me to remind everyone what happened in LMS 3 Mafia?

Here's what happened.

Everyboday lynched rabbit on Day 6. Bass was the only male left, along with SVS (his coalition partner), Black Rock, Roxy, Elohcin, and unfurl. SVS was nightkilled that Night. Then the rest of the women turned on Bass, devouring him in neat and orderly fashion. It was dreadful to watch, and Bass didn't stand a chance.

Lesson of that game, don't leave Bass alone in a room with four other women.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

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!

I HATE YOU SO MUCH RIGHT NOW WELL maybe a little not really at all

aapje wrote:Change of plan: the next person to change their vote will get mine for fucking with my spreadsheet.

Ricochet wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Linki: Then that makes me feel worse about his early vote. Unless their voting mechanics are significantly different from ours.

Votes are changeable and expressed in writing.

DrWilgy wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: DFaraday: I forgot he was even playing.
Devin: He's posted a bit more, and I know he's behind, but I'd still like to hear something from him that's.....well, kind of his idea.
DrWilgy: The early vote thing may or may not mean anything. Can anyone answer if he's new to mafia or if he has played on another forum before?

BWT, this has been explained previous. Actually this has been explained previous multiple times now. I'm from JTM, and the fact that you somehow missed multiple accounts of that explanation bothers me.

I have a new angle. We have information, it's the contest. Does anyone know if anyone else here would be considered artsy? If so who would that artsy person find the challenge to be more enticing to participate in for strictly the compitition? I suppose what I'm asking is, who would want to enter that challenge? Who has a history of wanting to be a baddie?

Can people verify if SVS is artsy in specific for me as well?

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.

bea wrote: I would also like to add here, IDK if teefies is bad or not yet. I DO know that there is something inside of me that always thinks he could be bad and wants to question him like an inquisitor from the beginning of the game. I know this is MY gig based on my play and hosting of and with him. But like SVS, he is someone I try to develop a read on as soon as I can. And I will question him and ask him hard questions till I feel I can be ok with him. It's just a thing I have. I'm tough cuz I love you David

nutella wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'm probably voting for BWT today. He's not playing like I think he would if he were still neutral. Feels like something is already on the line for him.

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.

But you don't seem to be having any fun.

I am not currently having fun.

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

Anyone in particular catch your eye? Is there someone you expect to talk more who hasn't? DP and DF are always "low posters" Bass is honestly a runner up here - SD has tech issues if I remember correctly, Sorsha's out town at a funeral. Devin is hella busy like us all, but maybe also is able to spend time with his wife (unlike myself. I miss my hubby)

I don't know dr wiggly

And typh is typh he will not comment off topic and he won't talk about things he finds redudent. Which given his Dutchie mentality is most everything.

Who exactly in the low posters do you want us to look at? And why?

You and MP both can feel free to answer that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Question:

Is Day 1 about ridiculing others' reasons for finding suspicion?

OR

Is Day about articulating your own suspicions and following through?

Day 1 is about scratching your butt, eating potato chips, and finding some time in between to vote for someone for a bullshit reason.

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.

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

Golden wrote:Maybe, bwt...

Are you saying, effectively, that you think I might be lying about not knowing SVS was a recruiter, and I was trying to cover my tracks about my knowledge of that?

Golden wrote:BWT, I do think you should take my response to JJ into account, and ask yourself whether you think your interpretation is more likely. What I have laid out below is an explanation of not only what I meant, but also the actual plain meaning of the sentence as I originally wrote it. I'm having trouble equating the word 'but' to 'because'.

JJ said they should be causally linked, my point is they were - both are relevant halves of the sentence and are causally linked.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

Yes, that should have been in pedantic pink, I encourage everyone to use it appropriately

But a more accurate statement of what I mean to imply is that "I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but the concept of SVS having played previous recruitment games and potentially having her view informed by that (whether recruiter or otherwise) was not a factor in me asking her."

Golden wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:But I doubt you'll get enough of a majority today.

That's confidence! How much is 'enough of a majority'? Should I be trying to understand whether the use of the word 'enough' is a role hint? What does that one word mean?

I don't actually think those kind of slips happen at the best of times, but the fact you say 'you think it is A SLIP and still believe it is A SLIP' is actually patently ridiculous to me and I do not buy it. I don't think anyone could possibly think the use of the word 'but' is a slip. Especially when the sentence has a plain meaning which makes perfect sense with the word but there.

So, you apparently it "makes it look like you're trying to cover your tracks depending on what happens down the road." Ok. Explain to me how the use of the word 'but' in that sentence does that? Explain it to me convincingly, like as if this is something you actually believe, because I do not think you believe it, not for a second.

Golden wrote:I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her.

Golden wrote:I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter because that played no factor in why I asked her.

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.

Golden wrote:In the mean time, BWT continues to ping me more and more - take these two posts...

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

Or, if you're on the side of the fence of trying to catch potential recruiters for slip-ups or tiny mistakes, the wording in Golden's initial sentence would seem to fit that bill.

I hadn't really seen the early suspicion on Golden before, but after the way you've worded your statement, I can see it now.

I didn't like this one in the first place. I'm always worried when someone says 'I didn't see the suspicion on x before, but this one minor point has me seeing it'. That is a specific form of flip-floppiness that I find common amongst mafia.

I didn't flip. I changed my opinion when I realized the way you worded that post made it look like a slip to me (it still does). You saying you didn't know SVS was a recruiter but it not factoring into your decision makes it look like you're trying to cover your tracks depending on what happens down the road. JJJ just happened to explain it in such a way that I understood what the fuss was about. And that alone doesn't mean I'm going to go ahead and put a vote on you.

Then:

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

1) I've already stated my feelings on llama, especially in regards to Bubbles, quite a bit. So I won't repeat myself there.

2) Probably MP if I had to pick anyone else right now. I feel like he started going after unfurl mostly because of how she was playing the game. Seemed to me like a quick jump from "You need to post more" to "You're my highest suspect now and I might vote for you". Although maybe he read her response differently than I did, given he feels she's contributed without really contributing anything.

I don't feel like I've fully absorbed the Epig vs. Golden stuff yet. Either that or I don't get it. Although I'd like to hear more from Epig on his case against Golden before I decide on that one.

Which I feel doesn't follow through the earlier post at all, feels like there is a disconnect here indicative of not having fully formed thought processes and genuine opinions sitting behind the statements made.

I'm feeling fairly comfortable with a BWT vote right now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:*gets lynched for asking questions*

Lynchlynch Jimmy.

Are you that white rapper, Vanilla Lynch?

No, but I did sing Roll the Bones at the wedding.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Looking at MP's list again, I could see someone recruiting Spacedaisy early. She is rarely lynched, reliable, well-liked, and flies under the radar. An ideal first recruit.

True. Not a bad idea to put on the backburner.

Do you think MP would try to recruit Spacedaisy?

I don't know, it's a bit on the nose. I kind of doubt she would be his first choice.

thellama73 wrote:Looking at MP's list again, I could see someone recruiting Spacedaisy early. She is rarely lynched, reliable, well-liked, and flies under the radar. An ideal first recruit.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

reywaS wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

So, how will you achieve this besides threatening to vote for them?

Bullzeye wrote:
Maybe if we keep up a discussion of low posters and their potential lynchable status they will all come crawling out of the woodwork to explain why they shouldn't be voted for, and the least satisfactory answer gets votes?

Ask your mom, she still owes me $10.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I'm saying the whole idea of making a case on someone because of "adverb usage" is more based on context, rather than whether or not someone uses adverbs.

Could you provide an example (even if you just make one up) of an instance in which you'd find an adverb or someone's tendency to use them suspicious?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

I suspect this mindset will be different for everyone, but I do think there could be value in pooling our individual perspectives.

Hey everyone! Please tell us here in this very thread how you think you would go about choosing recruits in this setup if you were recruiters. What factors would be most important in your decision? Least important? If enough of you help me out with some delicious answers, I might even compile a CHART. Who wants a chart? We love charts, don't we? Seriously, this might be a good way to get a grip of early choices -- and perhaps even influence how future recruitment choices are made. We could in part dictate how the baddies recruit. I think this is appealing.

My answers, most important numbered and least important lettered:

1.) My perception of their skillset -- I would favor someone that I feel has a diverse array of mafia skills that can function cross-alignment and long-term.

2.) Complementary talent within The Syndicate -- I am newer here than most and do not boast a lot of experience in setups as complex as this. Someone who can fill that void would be a big help.

3.) Less inherently likely to attract thread attention -- I wouldn't select myself, essentially. Loud players are a dangerous choice.

///

A.) Fun -- I'd probably be a party pooper in this regard. While I do love fun, I'd also think choosing based on fun would be more transparent to others and less likely to progress me towards a victory.

B.) Reputation on The Syndicate -- I only have a cursory knowledge of this anyway, but I probably wouldn't care much whether someone is perceived by others to be elite or something else.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I actually feel goofy even scumhunting in this strange game, because I'm not a civilian. I'm not anything. Existential crisis!

But it's all I know so I'm gonna do it.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: I wouldn't disagree.

However, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) Do you feel BWT's post is typical behavior for him regardless of alignment?
2) Do you think that a recruiter would have incentive to make the post that BWT made?

1) BWT is always somewhat of a fence-sitter, so it pings me less than it would coming from another player. Still worth watching though.
2) Maybe.A recruiter is apt to be nervous early on and afraid of being discovered. Unlike in traditional mafia, he doesn't yet have a team to bail him out if he gets into trouble. I would expect this to result in more unforced errors than normal.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

Bea's post is astute. Leaving wiggle room is a baddie hallmark.

I wouldn't disagree.

However, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) Do you feel BWT's post is typical behavior for him regardless of alignment?
2) Do you think that a recruiter would have incentive to make the post that BWT made?

I also want to note that it seems that BWT didn't notice that DH was being tongue in cheek.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Catching up, although my afternoon is almost up and I was busy throughout it, plus later I have an EoD on JMT as opposed to here (thank god for EoDs being on different days, at least).

I don't have anything original to contribute for the vanilla roles, but is every such contest gonna be announced at 5-6am my time zone? 'Cause if there will be any quick draw contests or such, I'll have virtually no change of participating.

Right now, my trigger is still on Llama, because he should at least get the same treatment for his statements as he considered that TinyBubbles (how should we nickname you, btw, if not TB?) should get for her statements. Is TinyBubbles bad for saying she's bad? Then so is Llama for saying he wants to side with the Sorcerers. Was TinyBubbles obviously joking, but is still suspicious for giving such answer? Then so can Llama have joked about it, but is suspicious for putting such a statement forth. Did TinyBubbles give in fact two contradictory statements, for which she shouldn't be trusted? So did Llama (coating his second statement as WIFOM that the Mafia will never pick him, now that he said he'd like to), for which he shouldn't be trusted.

To all this, Llama hunting or at least fishing TinyBubbles for reasons that make himself look bad is further incentive to suspect him.

I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Frankly, in a game such as this more so than any other, low posters will be a liability. They are easy tools for the mafia-oriented recruiters to recruit, since finding a recruited low poster or, more importantly, a recruiter out of a group of 10+ low posters is like finding a needle in a haystack, as we saw recently in Bullets over Broadway.

On the flip side, any low posters that happen to be on the civilian-oriented teams, whether recruited or a recruiter, may be more apt to miss a PM than a player who is actively posting.

I don't intend on insulting any player who has yet to get into the game, since it's still early, but this is what I think, and I think starting this discussion gives all of us another topic to discuss. I find the current topics boring.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Golden wrote:BWT, technically not all of those 6 things are definitions of sarcasm.

thellama73 wrote:I'm half joking, but only half. Some players, newer players especially, are uncomfortable flat out lying to direct questions, and so they dodge them or make a joke instead. It sounds stupid, but sometimes it works.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Here is the relevant post.

So you think she's bad because she said she's bad? That seems reaching to me.

You've gotten awfully cynical. I prefer to take people at their word.

thellama73 wrote:Here is the relevant post.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?

How about if we should lynch you for already deciding who you're voting for with little explanation?

Also, I completely forgot who you said you're voting for so yeah there's that...

Would you like an explanation? I would be happy to provide one.

linki Golden: I don't think the lynch save should be used on the person I will be voting for, because I think that person is bad.

thellama73 wrote:Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?