The Syndicate

Ok, I just want to know who killed me and why? It was so early in the game and I hadn't done anything that exposed any baddies so why me?

Snow Dog wrote:

juliets wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:And juliets, how did you do that cool swimming in coffee smiley?

Yeah I just clicked it off the smilies. My full name is juliets coffee, ergo, the coffee smilie.

Why are you named Juliets Coffee, and shouldn't your post be in dead red?

Hmm, I guess I should. I thought green was more appropriate. But anyway, I got the name from when Juliet was dying in LOST she said to Sawyer maybe they would meet for coffee sometime in the future. Thus, juliet's coffee. I just dont use the apostrophe and didnt register here with the coffee. You will sometimes see people call me JC and that's where it comes from.

Russtifinko wrote:And juliets, how did you do that cool swimming in coffee smiley?

Yeah I just clicked it off the smilies. My full name is juliets coffee, ergo, the coffee smilie.

Mongoose wrote:I'm somewhat tormented because I don't want to go after someone again just because they are eccentric or come across as quirky. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. I listen to Belle & Sebastian for goodness sake. I can hardly point fingers for that alone. I feel really bad about the A Person situation , so I want to try to get a better read on Vompers before we cast someone out again just because his/her persona is a little more sparkly.

I'm not at all saying that I'm crossing him off my suspects list, but just rather saying we should be cautious before picking him next go-round. Any thoughts on this?

My thought when I mentioned Vomps (I think I said this but not sure) is that bwt exempting Vomps from the early random voters has my eye but I'm not ready to lynch him yet. There is nothing in his behavior that I've found suspicious (I'll re-read his posts to make double sure) it's just bwt's actions concerning Vomps that draws my eye.

Does everyone know that if you want to randomize, there is a site called random.com that is really easy and used by a lot of us? I appreciate the art of the precise coin flipping methodology but there is an easier way...unless you are choosing between two in which case you can flip a coin.

Good points Epignosis. What do you think about Vomps? You can wait until day to answer if you feel more comfortable doing so.

Atavachron wrote:

Matahari wrote:Of all the cases I've read through, llamas case on epig makes the most sense to me. Epigs questioning of jc actually read like someone trying to start a landslide in a certain direction, and I don't mean bwt's direction either. And I'm running out of time so I'm voting there.

Or he's just a good provocative arguer, which I happen to know he is. But I have no idea what's going on, so bye bye.

What is with this game? Now we have on-topic non-players?

Well, bwt made that statement about random early voters being suspicious but he basically said Vomps was an exception. That makes it look to me like maybe Vomps was a teammate though I don't think I would vote for him based just on that evidence. It just makes me have an eye out for him.

Hmm I wrote out a post but its gone. Anyway, way to fool me bwt. I thought the typo stuff was nonsense. This makes me look differently at epig and at vomps, one looks good the other not so much.

RIP BWT, BIH Dr.

Ok, I'm voting for Lizzy. I see you being defiant and anti-establishment early and then dropping off the radar, keeping a low profile, which is how, in my book, you can do both.

vote Lizzy

thellama73 wrote:Great point about Dex, russ. I missed that.

I don't have anything on Nevinera, but I know his personality in real life and he thrives on logical analysis. I'm having a hard time believing that he's too intimidated by the game setup to participate. It is my believe that he is intentionally waiting for the ranks to thin out before diving in, shielding himself from scrutiny in the process. This doesn't make him bad, it is a perfectly valid civ strategy, but it is enough to make me want to keep an eye on him (and perhaps provoke him into posting more than he would like to.)

linki: I have come around to thinking Dex is probably good. That's just how he is. I don't trust Lizzy at all, though. Also, it's worth remembering that the mysterious G.O.B. STILL has not made a single post, and yet has voted.

llama, I don't trust lizzy one bit either. And I had not noticed the mysterious GOB voting but not posting.

Russ, great post, really helped me to organize my thoughts. Very nice catch on the 5 votes already for Dex. I am used to Dex being zany so that part doesn't bother me as much as his statement that he never said he was civvie. Maybe thats just part of the zanyness, hard to tell. So I end up agreeing with llama here.

The case for BWT seems weak so I don't think I'll be voting him today though it may not matter. Looks like there are a number of people who thought the case was strong.

I agreed with you on Aces but Aces just made a good point in his post if I'm understanding him correctly.

Also Russ I agree with you and llama about Lizzie. She has made me very nervous and I don't trust her. I may put in a vote for her today to let her know I have an eye on her.

Finally, llama I thought your case on Epignosis was good. I've had people push at me plenty of times before but this time it almost felt like he was intentionally not understanding me so he could push once again. It was very odd. I may put a vote here.

Oh sorry for the double post but i also remember the issue with why he exempted Vomps from his comments that he is suspicious of early random votes. Is there anything else?

Did someone make a case on bwt? I understand the part about the typo/explanation but I've forgotten or never understood what other evidence there is against him. There isn't any vote history since he didn't vote on day 1. So please, could someone point me back to a case or remind me what the problem(s) was from prior to the typo?

I'm really having a hard time deciding to vote this time around, I think because I have confused myself.

thellama73 wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.

Zuh? This game is nuts.

Can someone explain the voting for yourself thing? YOu know 100% that you are on your own team, whereas with anyone else there is at least a chance you get someone of the opposite team, so why do it? Ever?

I think one reason people do it is if they are just totally at a loss or can't catch up with the thread so they make a "safe" vote, that is not vote for anyone that might be an innocent civv but is still a vote, especially if there are penalties for not voting. They see it as hurting no one but themselves. There's one player i haven't seen around in a while who always votes for himself on day 1...

thellama73 wrote:
It's easy to criticize, but I don't hear anyone talking about the boo gambit.

Thanks llama, now i understand why that gambit has been mentioned in connection with Dex.

On the llama gambit, I don't understand why a civ would do that - draw votes by acting abnormal. Why did llama do that? (I'm still trying to relate this to what dex is doing)

Can someone explain what the llama gambit was? I didn't play the Train game so I dont' understand what Dex's behavior is being compared to.

EBWOP means Edit By Way Of Post - so you are editing your previous post with another post because you cannot change that previous post.
I join the confused.

I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing anymore Epignosis. Below is what BWT said originally about Vomps, then comes my question, then comes BWT's response. He is saying he didn't consider Vomps even though Vomps voted randomly and early because he knows Vomps very well and he is inane and a bit crazy, thus he (BWT) didn't think he (Vomps) would take that risk as a baddie. My question was why didn't BWT see Vomps in the same light as others who voted early and random and BWTs answer was the "why". Thus, my question was answered and i felt no need to question anymore. His defense of Vomps WAS his explanation of why he exempted him from the group - they are one in the same. (The last quote is screwed up but i think you will understand)

I am not, by the way, defending BWT as being a civv.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

juliets wrote:
Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

I know Vomps and talk to him a good deal online outside of here. For the most part he's very inane and a bit crazy, hence why I don't think he would take such a risk as a baddie. Unless he's completely pulling the wool over my eyes, in which case I would congratulate him.

Basically, I don't think the way he randomized warrants more attention from me at this time. Whereas I think some of the other people who have randomized or discussed randomizing (see: A Person) make me question their intent behind it.[/quote]

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:He explained it by saying he knows Vomps personally and understands how his personality impacts what he did. It didn't seem to me there was anything more to say - did you expect me to argue about Vomps personality and what it did or didn't mean?

I answered that. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 763#p23763

No, I did not expect you to argue about Vomp's personality. I expected you to press birdwithteeth11 for criticizing early random voters, and yet defending the one person who voted random early. You haven't done that. Why?

Because he already gave me his answer. Why would I press him more? He gave me his answer about how well he knew Vomps and I was satisfied.

He explained it by saying he knows Vomps personally and understands how his personality impacts what he did. It didn't seem to me there was anything more to say - did you expect me to argue about Vomps personality and what it did or didn't mean?

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Aces is shortly behind him for voting for a similar reason, and then saying he isn't going to bother explaining his reason for his vote. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the weirder games I've played so far.

Linki: That's why I'm looking at him as well, DH. It's not so much the reasons behind it, but rather the "if you're going to be quiet, I'm voting you". There's no logic behind it.

Linki2: We will sacrifice ourselves so that you might live. #Based #TYBG

All your suspicions sound great. I still want to know about my #1: You.

And it's funny how juliets was satisfied with your unsatisfactory explanation enough to vote for A Person.

What are you talking about? As far as I remember it was Elohcin's point I agreed with. I don't remember BWT having any impact on my vote. Can you pull up the quote you are talking about?

Lizzy wrote:So this just goes to show that there actually is an 'establishment'. People's reactions to Kev's (agealmfkf - what's with that name dude, anyway? :P) approach to the game which is not the norm (everyone more or less pretending to be a civ and going for 'educated' guesses and analysis when you basically have zilch. I mean come on, regardless how inexperienced you are, no-one is idiotic enough to make such slips,I would imagine people and especially baddies checking, double checking, triple checking what they've written before posting). I did my share of playing the baddie in civ clothes last time, yeah it was fun for a while, we won, but flying below the radar, or not giving an 'educated' opinion, is just another technique of playing this. Maybe it's a shred thing.

Hahahaha - whether you can imagine it or not Lizzy, baddies make slips all the time. Even experienced baddies.

agleaminranks wrote:
So those are my thoughts. But I dislike idle speculation, and I especially dislike much of the nonsensical and amateur pseudo-psychological warfare that happens in the mafia threads. I post very seldomly.

Instead of posting seldomly, why don't you post more frequently and show us how it should be done.

RIP A Person.

Lizzy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Bullz, a gambit is a tactical move with a concrete objective. Not a random act of senseless madness. I'm waiting to see which Lizzy's falls under (but I have a hunch)

Shoot! I'm rather curious myself.

juliets wrote:This ^^. I've played a lot of mafia and I have never been in a game where two people voted for themselves. It's just usually not done for the reason llama pointed out above. I just don't understand the logic that is being used to arrive at the conclusion that voting for yourself is a civv move. Lizzy, are you by chance new to mafia (by new i mean under 5 games)?

I suppose you could call it new, won 2 out of 3, but last time I pretended and lied so much it now seems boring as hell, strategy wise at least. And I'm actually disappointed that people are not opened to new approaches. I personally find the game more entertaining this way. Alas, you can finish me anytime if it's against the establishment.

There is no "establishment" in mafia. People change things all the time. I'll just chalk this up to you being new.

thellama73 wrote:I just want to point out that the civs are at a severe information disadvantage at the beginning of the game. Therefore, any info we manage to acquire through the thread posts or votes benefits the civs more than the baddies. Random trolling and voting for yourself or voting with no stated reason is not helpful to the civ cause.

This ^^. I've played a lot of mafia and I have never been in a game where two people voted for themselves. It's just usually not done for the reason llama pointed out above. I just don't understand the logic that is being used to arrive at the conclusion that voting for yourself is a civv move. Lizzy, are you by chance new to mafia (by new i mean under 5 games)?

Ok, I've decided to vote A Person too, but I'm watching Dex out of the corner of my eye.

If this is G.O.B.'s first game ever then I agree it could be that he just doesn't know the etiquette. With that, my vote is narrowed down to either Zany Dex (who someone pointed out does know the etiquette) or A Person.

I'm likely to vote A Person or for one of the people that didn't explain their vote but I would rather see what develops during the day before voting. I'm not used to games where everyone votes so early (except for work reasons).

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Here's my summary of today's events:

I tend to agree with llama on randomizing. I've said my feelings on it ad nauseum however so I won't beat on a dead horse here. I will however say that people who justify randomizing today when there has been a decent amount of discussion (especially the ones who have done so with another 24+ hours to go) definitely ping me.

LT, I'm sorry but I just don't see a case on llama yet. That being said, I'm quite tired right now. So that might be why I feel you're grasping at straws. I will re-read what you said tomorrow and see if my mind absorbs it a bit better.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Nev, I agree with you, but like I said, I've seen this discussion go this route many, many times before. So that's it. I'm done talking about randomizing on Day 1. Some of us won't do it. And some will. End of story.

Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:^Are you Juliets Coffee?

No, I'm Juliets Coffee. Juliets is ZRFTS.

lol llama, sorry SD i missed your post - yes, I am Juliets Coffee - I just registered with juliets but i still answer to JC (or jules).

Thank you bwt! The wiki looks to be very helpful.

Thank you INH - I don't know how I missed that! Maybe from scanning on my phone. So I'm thinking it's bad to collect plasmids at every opportunity because somewhere the insanity switch could flip. For anyone who has played or knows the game, let me know if I am thinking about this wrong or if there is something more I should know.

Dom wrote:YAY Game!

And Imma pass on the plasmid... I don't trust socky

Epignosis wrote:Pros and cons here.

If MP follows the story (so far he is), then the Plasmid to be gained is Telekinesis. The upshot of Telekinesis, despite the description of the Plasmid, was not throwing grenades back at grenadiers, it was bringing helpful items to yourself that were out of reach.

The downside is that I recall very vividly what went on in those dentistries (there were three in one section of the Medical Pavilion, not one), and that as soon as you picked up the shotgun you were required to use it... a LOT.

boo wrote:It's a trap.

Would you kindly tell me why you think it's a trap?

I think it's been explained that there are negative side effects to using plasmids in the game, it's a socky game and there's always negatives to every positive in a socky game, and such

Someone explained there are negative side effects to using plasmids in the game? I didnt' see that anywhere. And regarding what Epignosis said, it seems those of us who know nothing about the game are at a distinct disadvantage here. Socky please don't make this too game dependent - like we should know something based on the way the game works.

I'm beginning to wonder if these plasmids are limited so I'll jump in and say I'll take one. No telling what getting a root canal entails though - I expect it to be nasty.

And hi everyone! Woot game!