The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:SRDJHNkoisrltjbgdkjgnv bisoduth;lfhkgg;hjsrngv

*asjkgrhikrthgfgnbldkh ros;ihjtuirth oruiytijygljh

I know random shit from a keyboard when I see it. It looks like this:

asdjflksjdflkjsaldfjsa

Which I think, in your current language, means, "you're not fooling anybody."

Bullzeye wrote:Wow. Hell of a night.

Boomslang wrote:Oh boy, things are about to get a lot deadlier up in here... RIP, DH.

People have mentioned INH as a possible target, but I'm not getting much of a bad read off of him. He was wrong about Dex, but so was I. His defense against Bullz feels legitimately frustrated as opposed to baddie posturing.

Interesting that his defense against me of all people would seem frustrated, don't you think? Maybe looking for sympathy after how annoyed I was at Dom/Nutella? The case on INH has nothing to do with Dex. In the first few days, he was demonstrably blendy and appeared to be trying to keep under the radar. Then he jumps onto the potential bandwagon against me claiming Bea made a solid case when she didn't even definitely think I was bad. He claimed I looked like I was being coached, which is an odd thing to say of someone who's been playing for as long as I have (or even a couple of months really, nobody needs coaching after their first few games). He never explained that comment despite me asking him to/implying he should do four times. Despite what he said on the matter, I also still think it's weird that he claimed to be following what Bea said and then used Dom's thoughts as the reason to vote for me.

Dom wrote:I think INH, Bullz, Snow Dog, and DFaraday are all good people to discuss today..

You've changed your tune. Again. I think there's more evidence on INH than any of the others you mentioned and will probably be voting for him.

Mongoose wrote:So who the heck killed me? Anyone wanna fess up to who shot the Mongoose? I'm looking for the man who shot my paw.

Russtifinko wrote:Ok, voting juliets. She was killed by a Big Daddy, and llama never said he thought she was bad (like he did with LT). Mongoose also seemed pretty civ to me, but in a game where we've been reading people wrong left and right I'm going to play the math.

Matahari wrote:
This is evidence of what? And what mind changing are you trying to do? I'm sorry, I'm just not getting your point. If previous concerns mean pings about a person, then possibly no one else has had any pings about me.

However, you are getting pings from me, is it because you feel that I am defending Dex? And the same about Bea, do you think I have defended her? I do give players the botd sometimes, but only when I absolutely have no idea about their affiliation. They go on my observe list.

Let me ask you what you think of Beas attempt to fight fire with fire? She was suspected based on a vote. She defended the way Bea defends, then she defended in a sarcastic way (funny, but sarcastic) now she is using vote patterns to defend. At this point, I'd say she has a baddie team backing her up, but I have no clue which baddie team. It would be very frustrating for a baddie, to get caught early based on their vote, when they are actually on an opposing team. I also agree with indiglo that it seems uncharacteristic of Bea to go so hard for a new player, although at this point, I agree that gob is not doing anything to defend.

Which brings me to dex. I will admit that I gave up trying to 'read' dex a long time ago. I am always wrong about him no matter what I think he is, so for me, he is comic relief. I think he is better at being a baddie than a civ, based on the fact that he gets lynched as a civ a lot, early on. So, would you mind saying whether you are advocating a vote for dex, or for Bea? I will reread you today, if you have already made cases on either of them, I might have missed it.

Matahari wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

bea wrote:ebwop - and boats. :faceplam: this is what mafia is like for me before caffine.

Ok - so my thought today was to see who, if anyone, has consistently voted for a civ, while not voting for teefies on day 2. Here's what i've come up with:

Day 1: A Person voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Devin, Insertnamehere, Bullzeye, Snow Dog and Mata.
Day 3: Llama voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Insertnamehere, Bullzeye, Devin and Mata. (Snow Dog voted Lizzy)
Day 4: Boo voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Mata, Devin, Bullzeye and Snowdog
Day 5: Boats voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Bullzeye, Devin, and Mata.

My main thinking here was that on Day 2 maybe the potential teammates didn't try to save teefies, but also maybe they didn't throw a vote their way. When I play as a baddie, I tend to vote the strongest case w/o much thought to it so that I can blend it. What I didn't expect to find was the same names pop up so often. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

I'd been leaning civ for devin.

I'm unsure about snowdog.

I forgot name was playing again.

I have no read on mata at all.

This is... actually rather excellent analysis. The clustering is definitely worth a look, especially for mata, who hasn't seemed to raise any previous concerns. I've been pointing out Snowdog's blendiness in thread posts before, and this corroborates that gut instinct with some poll results.

What do you mean by 'previous concerns'?

Matahari wrote:Nev, your logic may be dead on, but you said that Bea never addressed the vote thing? She actually did address that a few times. People who have played a lot with her know that she does have a horrible schedule, and frequently has to do a vote on her break. I've never understood why she doesn't quit that job, because mafia is way more important.

Could she be lying? Possibly, I can't remember ever playing a game with her when she was a baddie so I have nothing to base it on. About her post sounding OTT, I think many of her posts sound that way, because she's such a sweetheart in rl. Could she have been pretending? Again, that's possible.

But I'm having trouble with being positive she's bad. I'm not convinced yet, although I don't think you're bad either. I just wanted you to understand the reason why I'm not convinced yet.

I'm also wondering if indiglo has explained yet what the 'plenty of other good reasons' for voting Bea are. I wonder if she just meant what you said in your post, or if there was something else and I missed it.

Matahari wrote:I also don't see zany dex responding like he is, as a baddie thing either. As far as the role that gets to change if he gets five votes, I'm not sure dex would reveal himself as that role. Maybe he would, but why would he?

bea wrote:ebwop - and boats. :faceplam: this is what mafia is like for me before caffine.

Ok - so my thought today was to see who, if anyone, has consistently voted for a civ, while not voting for teefies on day 2. Here's what i've come up with:

Day 1: A Person voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Devin, Insertnamehere, Bullzeye, Snow Dog and Mata.
Day 3: Llama voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Insertnamehere, Bullzeye, Devin and Mata. (Snow Dog voted Lizzy)
Day 4: Boo voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Mata, Devin, Bullzeye and Snowdog
Day 5: Boats voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Bullzeye, Devin, and Mata.

My main thinking here was that on Day 2 maybe the potential teammates didn't try to save teefies, but also maybe they didn't throw a vote their way. When I play as a baddie, I tend to vote the strongest case w/o much thought to it so that I can blend it. What I didn't expect to find was the same names pop up so often. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

I'd been leaning civ for devin.

I'm unsure about snowdog.

I forgot name was playing again.

I have no read on mata at all.

Zany Dex wrote:No u spaghetti

Epignosis wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Epi, to be honest I kind of dismissed the entire Dom-Snow Dog thing at the time, having been more occupied with other lynch candidates. I still think it's not Priority #1. I tend to believe Snow Dog when he says he posted in annoyance regarding agleaminranks. I shared his frustration with the strange in-game behavior of agleam and others, and if I'm being totally honest I think it colored my opinions of some players (Lizzy comes to mind). So I see where Snowie was coming from there, and nothing else he's done has drawn my attention particularly.

Dom did go after Snowie pretty hard for that, which I disagreed with, but he can play how he wants. He's only posted 16 times in this game, I believe, so there's little material to go on, and I think I only played with him in MOTU and had trouble reading him there. I guess if I had to pick one, I'd say he looks slightly less civ to me than Snowie. I'll take a look at their voting records though.

What are your thoughts on Boomslang? I think his contributions today have been noteworthy.

8

Boomslang confuses me. There's no indication of good BTSC on page one, and his explanation that he apparently thought Ryan sending a name to Sullivan was code-speak for BTSC makes absolutely no sense. I don't see why anyone would read it that way.

There's also this that I've been mulling over:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 730#p23730

58

bea wrote:I think more than one person has mentioned it, but I could be wrong, I've tried to go back and find it and i'm the suck at searching threads.

I think though, there might be something in the idea of people that have mentioned civ bts I know it's come up around the edges by more than one person. Since - as far as I can see, there isn't any. I'm frustrated for the night so I'm off to bed. It's just something I'd like to explore further and if someone else could help me with it, I'd be forever thankful for them for helping me follow my theory.

Nevinera wrote:

bea wrote:I think more than one person has mentioned it, but I could be wrong, I've tried to go back and find it and i'm the suck at searching threads.

I think though, there might be something in the idea of people that have mentioned civ bts I know it's come up around the edges by more than one person. Since - as far as I can see, there isn't any. I'm frustrated for the night so I'm off to bed. It's just something I'd like to explore further and if someone else could help me with it, I'd be forever thankful for them for helping me follow my theory.

I don't know of any civ *roles* that grant btsc, but there is a plasmid that's capable of doing so. I think it's a little unlikely at this point though.

boo wrote:Well, prepare for the most clever of defense cases that you will ever read.

1. As has been pointed out, I was not happy about taking a single vote. Perhaps it's because I perceive my role as one that no one (well... maybe a few, there are secrets and I may have missed a few things in a few roles) should want lynched, and certainly shouldn't be putting votes on. No one likes the threat of a lynch switch... among other things.

2. My lynch would almost certainly set the civvies back another lynch, probably even 2, from the position you currently sit at.

3. Even if I am not lynched today, if you don't look to better cases and I am within a certain number - that I already have in mind - of votes to the top vote getter, you can expect me to go out trolling (as I would expect to be killed not long after this lynch if I am within the number of votes).

Now, a few people will probably decide I'm a liar. A few may even take a risk and try to call me out on it, continuing to push for my lynch. If they got their way, I would in exchange for my foolish lynching expect you to lynch off most (not all, certainly there will just be some who do not understand what I am saying and decide to vote for me anyways, but most) of them in the near future, as you figure out who simply was ignorant of my meaning, and who knew exactly what I meant but decided to try and kill me anyways (I think it would be reasonably easy to get it figured out, for the most part).

Do with that what you will.

And: in before 'clearly he has some kind of protect and knows even if he is the top voter getter he will not be lynched'. If I have the most votes, I expect to be lynched like anyone else would, I have no lynch pardon, switch, or ability to end the day early (or anything else you may be able to think of).

Lastly, I feel no need to hold my vote to save myself. Either I won't be near the top of the votes, I will be near the top but not lynched, and then show you why that was a bad idea not long after, or I will be lynched and you'll understand why it was such a bad idea. So, I am once again voting Aces. I like the Boats case, but if it winds up being my last vote, I just want it to feel right, you know?

Snow Dog wrote:

Nevinera wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: I disagree, he could have got the whole update from his team mates even before he logged on here. So Boats is definitely one candidate I will be looking at. Him and Vomps for trying to screw us up in posts counts. A possible baddie tactic.

That timeline actually hadn't occurred to me, and it does make sense.
Your second point is just silly though, the impact of that kind of shenanigan is really low,
and vomps is like that normally.




10

Yes you maybe right about Vomps. Not totally into him being bad. But if I was bad it might be something I would do. get a possible civ kill or penalty with very little effort. It is worth bearing in mind at the very least alongside other evidence.

10

Zany Dex wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Zany Dex wrote:Hahaha. There is no chance in hell I'm being lynched today!!!

Mwahahahha

We'll see about that. *votes Dex*

I think your bad

Zany Dex wrote:Hahaha. There is no chance in hell I'm being lynched today!!!

Mwahahahha

Mongoose wrote:

Matahari wrote:Btw, Bea- I think your outlook regarding Gob is understandable. It does seem a bit convenient that he just shows up when you pushed a bit.

I agree. Is it enough to vote for him though this time around? I'm not sure.

bea wrote:
GOB still hasn't made a post in the game (unless I missed it?) . Day 2- I almost voted for him. Day 3 and I'm still wtf? I can't help but thinking that if he had teammates, someone would be screamming at him bts to JUST GO POST SOMETHING! PLAY THE NOOB CARD!!! - but then again, the silence seems to be working for him, so maybe they are just letting it go while it keeps passing under the radar. IDK. I really don't know. I wish I did. I hate falling for the "quiet players" thing, but for the love of god, it's Day 3. I know nothing and even I've got something to say. If he's lost, then he can't hurt anything by coming into the thread and saying he's lost. His total silence seriously breaks my brain.

nutella wrote:@ Boomslang / general public interest: Referring to page numbers is unhelpful for those of us who set the posts per page differently from the forum default -- if it's really important link to the post(s) in question. thanks

juliets wrote: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.

thellama73 wrote:I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries anymore, but I think it makes sense to look at late voters for Aces, since they might have been trying to save a teammate. That includes bea, boo and Bullzeye. Maybe everyone on the baddie team has a name that starts with a B?

Snow Dog wrote:

Dom wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.

How fatalistic of you. And on a furhter note, i'lll be looking at you

Snow Dog wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

Yes. Let's just lynch players because they play quiet and are honest about it. I'm looking at you, Snow Dog.

Is what lizard tongue man said very strange? Yeha, I think so. he basically said don't look at me I Don't like being looked at. That's not quite the way I would play, or how I think most civvies would play, but I don't think it made him bad. Now you're saying, let's lynch him no matter if he's civvie or not.

That's very bad, SD. It's basically saying that we should lynch people who don't like to talk because they aren't contributing. And that's something baddies like to do because they usually don't fight back too much because they are... by definition of the plan, quiet.


LINKI: Boo

Same opinion as you on Aces. Not as convinced he's abd as you seem to be, but I do think he's being strangely suspicious.

I admit my post was a bit hasty but I said it as a player of mafia. I thought his attitude was all wrong but you know that's just my opinion. In the end it might have come to nothing depending if others wanted to lynch him.

Anyway he was killed by a civ.

nutella wrote:RIP gleam.

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

...wait what

am I seeing a possible slip up here or am I not reading this right

Snow Dog wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

Matahari wrote:

Zany Dex wrote:I voted llama because I saw a bandwagon forming and I jumped on it.

Hedgeowl wrote:

Boomslang wrote:
I think I'm going to vote Zany, as I haven't gotten a response, and if he had real world stuff, he would have defended his choice with the single post.

Zany Dex wrote:

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

Was this the response you were looking for Boomslang?

Russtifinko wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I realize we have the randomizing argument every game, and it really comes down to a difference in play style, so it doesn't really ping me about the randomizers. I still think they are wrong though, but I'll leave it at that.

Well, this game is a bit unique in that there are so many different win conditions. Usually, randomization is going to kill a civvie, as there are more of them than there are baddies. Here, however, there are effectively three teams of equal size: Ryan, Morally Ambiguous Civs (MACs, for short), and Fontaine/ADAM/Cohen (baddies). There's a lot of individual differences, but I believe I am correct in saying that each of these groups would be happiest if the other two groups were dead. Infighting can happen among the baddies, but it's not going to get them closer to victory than killing civs would. Long story short, I don't think randomization is as bad a way to go for the first vote this game than in other ones. However, I'd prefer to be more informed.

Boomslang, I wanted to ask you about this since you seem to have understood the win conditions differently from me. Doesn't infighting among the baddies get them closer to winning, since they need each other dead to win? And isn't Cohen's team indie and able to win with anyone for now? As long as Cohen doesn't get 5 votes at any time, if I remember correctly.

Epignosis wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:
Also, sorry I didn't check in sooner! I'm moving back to the US on Tuesday, so things have been a bit hectic. My participation will be very limited until Wednesday, but after that I'll be all in.

Moving sucks. I've moved four times in the past ten years. Where are you moving from and where are you moving to?

All Eloh talks about is rabbits. I told her that if we can work up a stake, we'll get us a nice place with lots of rabbits and she can feed them alfalfa from the garden.

Eloh, thanks for asking! I moved from Gothenburg, Sweden back to Cincinnati, Ohio, to do a Master's degree.

And Epi, was your post a reference to Of Mice and Men? If so, jolly well done!

Linki: Boomslang, I also think Nev's post about random voting possibly disguising very UNrandom voting was insightful. I'll also be looking more closely at the randomizers.

Zany Dex wrote:votes llama

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

Quashing discussion again?

Shh! No talking!

thellama73 wrote:I realize we have the randomizing argument every game, and it really comes down to a difference in play style, so it doesn't really ping me about the randomizers. I still think they are wrong though, but I'll leave it at that.