The Syndicate

Elohcin wrote:Well, I still have no real suspects but I must vote now as my mornings are busy with schooling my children. I don't want to help create any kind of bandwagon. I hate to vote random. Doing so will make me a hypocrite, but I seriously have no ping to go on, so I guess it is what I have to do. *votes reywaS* Sorry dude.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: You're entirely right, but I don't think Mongoose or Elohcin have necessarily nefarious intentions in throwing out theories, do you? That's where I was confused because you seemed to be suspecting them.

I'm all for discussion; as I said previously, if it seems we've discussed the poll and there's nothing to be ascertained from such discussion, that's fine. I don't see why we can't talk about both items. I appreciate your initiative to attempt to bring up discussion on baddie hunting as well.

I don't know what their intentions are yet. I just thought I would explore the idea.

I feel a little bad now, because I really don't want to discourage conversation. I sincerely appreciate the level of contribution by Mongoose and Elohcin, and I hope they won't turn quiet now because of something I said.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Here's the thing about low posters. I largely agree with you; however, there are many reasons players could be low posters, especially so early in the game. I find the distinction between low and high posters, especially early on, to be decided often by circumstance, rather than alignment. For example, I've been there where I've signed up for a game and just don't have near enough time, and I've witnessed this happen to others as well, and they become an incorrect suspect just because of such fact.

In the lack of actual evidence, I can understand a Day 1 vote for that, and I may even vote for a low poster myself. But it's difficult to make inferences on that fact alone; it's also good to consider: whether anyone seems to parroting other players' ideas ONLY when they're posting or if they are not posting much but actually making insightful contributions; whether such behavior is normal for them to do so and whether they have provided substantive reasons for their absence; etc.

It's very unlikely we'll actually have solid evidence to find a baddie on Day 1, or even through Day 3, as the first few days can be like shooting in the dark, but I think we can both agree that it is imperative to avoid logical fallacies leading to bandwagons as well as outlandish, reckless behavior which will lead to civvie lynches and no leads.

Thus, suspecting Mongoose and Elohcin only because they threw out illogical theories tells me nothing about their alignment; suspecting you because you were the first to throw out suspicion on them likewise tells me nothing.

I'd much rather vote elsewhere and I refuse to vote randomly (only upon occasion, to prove a point, but it seems this point is too manipulated when I do so, so I'm not sure I intend on doing this again in the near future unless game circumstances support it being a likely way to vote a baddie instead of a civvie).

Yes, these are all good points. Thing I've noticed is that reywaS and Matahari have been participating quite a lot in the game over at RM, yet are quiet here. Could be that they only have time to focus on one game right now, could be a difference in tactics.

I also want to say something about bandwagons, a point I made over at RM recently. While, bandwagons can be dangerous things, a highly spread out vote on Day One basically guarantees a civvie lynch, because it only takes one vote for the baddies to tilt the balance away from one of their own. Whereas, if a bandwagon forms and we happen to pick a baddie, they have to either accept it or risk outing themselves by all voting the same way.