The Syndicate

@Roxy: I still find BWT suspicious, although less so after his explanation.

Black Rock wrote:Team Caelia has recruited.

reywaS wrote:Well, ain't that dandy.

In my experience, "ain't that dandy," is generally said when someone feels something is, well, not dandy at all. In fact, I can't think of this phrase being used as an actual positive, outside of really, really dated tv shows and films--and I'm pretty sure you're not on Leave it to Beaver.

Anyway, my point is...uh....wouldn't a civ recruiter recruiting someone be a good thing? Why would you respond negatively?

Roxy wrote: Lorab - there are a lot of new players maybe they stopped the day bc they wanted try out their power? Odds were highest day one to take out a Neutral anyway. Feels like if they were unrecruited they would most likely be a new play to the Recruitment games.

But the timing of JJJ's post pings me.

Reposting this to see if anyone has thoughts on it, based on the thought that the judge was recruited, not seeing another good reason for the judge having stopped day on day 1.

LoRab wrote:Which, earlier statement about Judge having nefarious purposes (I like the word nefarious these days), makes this post ping my suspiciometer.

It was made at 6:06. Just 20 minutes after day was ended prematurely. Trying to sound innocent and remove oneself from the idea by encouraging people to vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.
Also, who is the "us" of whom you are speaking?

Ugh. Been under the weather all day and skimming, and my brain hurts too much to have much to add to conversation. Glad there's another day to the lynch. But, a fewthings to respond to:

Tranq wrote:My thoughts on the no lynch:

Golden wrote:
Dom wrote:
bea wrote: I'm currently unsure of which is more user friendly - collecting all my thoughts in one long post with no quotes or posting like 1000 times as I catch up. I welcome suggestions but doubt I will see them till I get to the end of this. I'm so far behind I don't know how teefies flipped yet.
Neither do we.
We don't even know IF teefies flipped.
This post stood out to me. Why would you assume BWT wouldn't flip? Note Golden posted this before the lynch post revealed BWT didn't flip.

aapje wrote:Let's look at the possible roles that could have cause no lynch to occur:
Caelia - Children of Serenity
Lynch Pardon
I think the first is very unlikely since the lynch ended early.
I wouldn't dismiss Caelia's pardon entirely. Caelia knows Supreme Judge can interfere with their power. What if Caelia ended up with the most votes, then decided to pardon the lynch only to find out Supreme Judge had already ended the Day? Caelia would be dead and pissed

LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote: I have no idea what inspired the Judge to turn it into a lottery yesterday,
I have to wonder if the judge has been recruited, tbh.
Also a possibility.

However, i feel like going with Occam's razor:

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

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
Who wants to do The Maths ?

I agree with Occam's Razor, but you seem to be ignoring that 2 things happened in lynch 1: the day was stopped early and the lynch didn't happen. As far as I understand from my simple reading of the text, that is pretty evident.

Which, earlier statement about Judge having nefarious purposes (I like the word nefarious these days), makes this post ping my suspiciometer.

It was made at 6:06. Just 20 minutes after day was ended prematurely. Trying to sound innocent and remove oneself from the idea by encouraging people to vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.

Also, who is the "us" of whom you are speaking?

I definitely get what you're saying. We're just thinking through the possibilities with a different conclusion. I also am assuming that the hosts will make it virtually impossible for us to avoid positions for very long. They want all of their roles used. And I'd rather get it out of the way on day 2, rather than day 3 or 4 or 5 or 6.

Ricochet wrote: I have no idea what inspired the Judge to turn it into a lottery yesterday,

I have to wonder if the judge has been recruited, tbh.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:From a previous thread lock experience, not only is the thread locked, but the poll is locked as well. So I think it can still be crucial at this point in the game, and Black Rock has already confirmed that both will be locked.

Crucial at any time, but I'd argue that it's less dangerous early in the game, when no one has as much to go on and nearly everything we discuss is speculation. IMHO. I think conversation becomes more important as the game goes on. And it's not like we can avoid position 3. But I'd rather the baddies have 2 to 3 people to discuss strategy on it than a whole lot more. I personally think it's a power whose danger increases as the game goes on.

Ricochet wrote:Anyway, I remember writing position 3 down as the nastiest, but apparently some really wanna go there. :P Quickly looking over the abilities, there's some advantages to it. The Judge is obviously active, so he might end the Night early this time and prevent a lot of night powers going through. I assume those Guardian rezzes might also be of assistance, in case the lynch goes bad. On the bad side, we'll get a lockdown (which I'm sure will translate into a thread and poll freeze at a point Uzbarglarg will see fit) and I'm already having anxiety from almost getting lynched , The Immortal tying 3 players with the same fate, a Firetrap (??) and a dragon.

With position 5, the Judge might restart the Day if the lynch goes bad, which can be a good thing; or he might restart it even if the lynch goes well, in which case we'll hunt his ass. There's a rezz here as well. Manipulation of votes and power corrupting seems high (although some of them may be night abilities, hence transfering into D3), plus there's a punisher, a competition of some sorts and an immolation in eventuality.

Overall, I don't think it's the right time to head into the belly of the beast with either position 2 or 3, so I'm going to go with position 5.

linki

DrWilgy wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
A penny for your thoughts?
Yeah, wondering if you're really playing it obvious about something or it just appears that way.

Potentially dangerous, sure. But at this point in the game, fewer players are evil, so less likely that those powers will be used for evil. Also, a thread lock, I'd think, is less dangerous at this point in the game as later on in the game, and I'd like to know how that and other ambiguously named things happen, to the extent we see them. Like, what does mean when a player turns into a dragon?

Oh, and voted 3. I think I voted 3 last time, figured I'd stick with it.

Thank you, BWT, that makes sense, as GMan's list from earlier had not included players who had made him feel good or something (can't remember his language). Still have an eye on you.

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?

DharmaHelper wrote:Can someone Cliff Notes what the fuck happened to give BWT the votes?

I can't speak for anyone else. But I voted for him because he posted a list of the lowest 8 posters, and left off several of the actual lowest posters. Which seemed suspicious to me.

He was also in this thread for a while, after I had posted about it, and never commented (or even posted).

Others will have to say why they voted for him.

Kadajski wrote: This post seems suspicious to me, lynch aapje for being a nubling!

Nub Daj. :P

In my mind, for what it's worth, Golden is sounding frustrated. Whether that's civ/bad/neutral is unknown to me. But the emotional nature of his frustration sounds honest to me.

Turnip Head wrote:
Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.
I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

And that role will now, in my brain, look like a night vale character who is a scientist with perfect hair.

@JJJ, I described the role in my last post.

And I don't think we have roles around our mafia culture that are taboo. LC/BR are both hosts that like to come up with creative role ideas. And in LC's game where he created the seemer, there were a lot of really interesting roles. I'm actually trying to figure out how to use Yin and Yang, who switched allignment with each other each day, as a role concept again.

LoRab wrote: Unless the person is bad, we actually will theoretically learn nothing regardless because of the seemer being a position 1 action--at least the first time, the seemer role (which I had, so I remember it well), was able to show up as they wanted in a check and as they wanted if lynched. It was really quite fun to have--and is a pain to have if you are not on that team, lol. LC could have tweaked the ability for this game, and probably has, but we can't know ot what degree.

I mean, we learn that the person lynched is either X role or a baddie alligned/playing as a baddie even though neutral Seemer--so the chances are a person really is as they appear. But we won't actually know that as fact.

I'll also throw in that BWT was here for a while and did not respond to the votes on him or my point about his not posting an accurate list. That increases my suspicion.

Tranq wrote:
LoRab wrote:EBWOP: Screwed up the ticking off who he had named. I think I started ticking off the ones he didn't name and then changed part way through. It is fixed below.
Do you think BWT intentially left people off his low-poster list because he either already has BTSC with them/plans to recruit them later? Is this why you voted for BWT?

Essentially, that's my thought. For day 1, it's a strong enough reason. Unless he answers and convinces me otherwise, or something else happens to ping my suspiciometer.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.
I'd rather kill a neutral than end the day in a no lynch. We'd learn nothing.

Unless the person is bad, we actually will theoretically learn nothing regardless because of the seemer being a position 1 action--at least the first time, the seemer role (which I had, so I remember it well), was able to show up as they wanted in a check and as they wanted if lynched. It was really quite fun to have--and is a pain to have if you are not on that team, lol. LC could have tweaked the ability for this game, and probably has, but we can't know ot what degree.

I mean, we learn that the person lynched is either X role or a baddie alligned/playing as a baddie even though neutral Seemer--so the chances are a person really is as they appear. But we won't actually know that as fact.

EBWOP: Screwed up the ticking off who he had named. I think I started ticking off the ones he didn't name and then changed part way through. It is fixed below.

LoRab wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I've reached a verdict.

First though, I want to go back to the 8 lowest posters:

Boomslang
DFaraday
DrWilgy
LoRab
nutella
TinyBubbles
Tranq
Typhoony

I had narrowed this list down to 3 people last time: DFaraday, DrWilgy, and either Tranq or Typh (I forget now). Tranq and Typh have both contributed during Day 1, so cross them off. DrWilgy made me suspicious with his vote at first, but he offered up a reasonable explanation so he's off the list. Which leaves us with the one person I honestly do not remember posting at all during Day 1 (and didn't last time I checked)...

Votes DFaraday
Even accounting for timing, that list is not at all accurate. The current (or when I pressed the count button) list of lowest posters (ding next to the ones BWT named):

Sorsha (3)
DF (3) -
Bass (4)
DP (5)
Wiggly (7) -
Russ (8)
LoRab (9) -
Boomslang (9) -
Tiny Bubbles (10) -
Typh (11) -
Tranq (11) -
Devin (11)
Knuk (12)
SD (13)
LA (13) -
Scotty (14)

So...uh...why not all the names. Even if someone has made a few posts since you checked, the lowest portion of the list certainly wouldn't have changed. I think you just earned my vote.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:@JJJ (can I call you JJJ?) I'm not sure I get what you find suspicious about Bass's post. Could you elaborate?
He proposed a "crazy theory" that would implicate two of the most vocal players in the game (MP and llama) for reasons that are either outright incorrect (such as Bass's reference to MP's point about low posters) or make no sense in a Mafia game (suggesting the mods manipulated the roles to ensure the recruiters were/were not specific people) -- and he hasn't followed up on it or said anything at all since that point. I think MP is a very easy target right now and he was then too; Bass might have been opportunistic with that in mind.

I think it was not a great theory, but I don't see it as necessarily nefarious, personally. People are wrong/misremember all the time. And I actually have seen hosts tweak randomized results for roles. Many times, actually. That he hasn't followed up is a whole other story. I don't see it as being obviously baddie, though. Just crazy and misguided. Eyeworthy, but not voteworthy, to me.

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'd say that's likely true for some of them, but probably not all of them. Depends who has the roles.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I've reached a verdict.

First though, I want to go back to the 8 lowest posters:

Boomslang
DFaraday
DrWilgy
LoRab
nutella
TinyBubbles
Tranq
Typhoony

I had narrowed this list down to 3 people last time: DFaraday, DrWilgy, and either Tranq or Typh (I forget now). Tranq and Typh have both contributed during Day 1, so cross them off. DrWilgy made me suspicious with his vote at first, but he offered up a reasonable explanation so he's off the list. Which leaves us with the one person I honestly do not remember posting at all during Day 1 (and didn't last time I checked)...

Votes DFaraday

Even accounting for timing, that list is not at all accurate. The current (or when I pressed the count button) list of lowest posters (ding next to the ones BWT named):

Sorsha (3) -
DF (3)
Bass (4) -
DP (5) -
Wiggly (7)
Russ (8) -
LoRab (9)
Boomslang (9) -
Tiny Bubbles (10)
Typh (11)
Tranq (11)
Devin (11) -
Knuk (12)
SD (13)
LA (13) -
Scotty (14)

So...uh...why not all the names. Even if someone has made a few posts since you checked, the lowest portion of the list certainly wouldn't have changed. I think you just earned my vote.

nutella wrote:
LoRab wrote:I'm just going to throw out there that The Seemer is a position 1 power. Which really might make for interesting lynch analysis or lack thereof the possibility for.
shit. I hate seemers.

They are certainly annoying.

--hey look! It's a Purple Woman!

*votes BWT*

I'm just going to throw out there that The Seemer is a position 1 power. Which really might make for interesting lynch analysis or lack thereof the possibility for.

@JJJ (can I call you JJJ?) I'm not sure I get what you find suspicious about Bass's post. Could you elaborate?

Tranq wrote: As for the LMS debate, i really disagree with Spacedaisy's post. Especially the first couple of Days you're going to find players with this sort of mindset, yet people keep getting lynched because of it (i think myself in RM1 or RM2, and as Typhoony pointed out Timmer in RM3). It's a fun way to play early in the game. I'm not voting for someone that's clearly enjoying and embracing a different setup.

I think what SD was trying to get at (or what I took from it and agree with) is the people who seem to be insisting that this is not a Good vs Bad game at all. Commentary on and enjoying the setup is something different. But there could be some nafarious goal in those pushing that there are no baddies and civies (TH comes to mind). Or that there are just factions not teams (Roxy comes to mind).

I'm not sure I want to vote for either of them, because I think that in a complex game, with the added idea of clans, it's not impossible to be confused. I do, however, think that it's possible that a baddie might want to perpetuate the confusion and get people to believe that there aren't baddies.

I agree with daisy's analysis of people trying to push the this isn't a civ c bad game. It clearly is. Most of us don't know what team we will be on yet, but we will be either bad or good.

I think golden is mistaken to assume he and epic will definitely not be on a team together. especially assuming they are both neutral at this point, the could both be recruited by one of the civ recruiters. And because many of the recruitments happen in ways that are not necessarily the choice of the recruiter or even a contest.

and la and Dom are all grown up. Which I guess I knew intellectually. But yes, is old feeling making. And it's so hard to believe how young they were back when they both started. La especially (she started sooner I think)

Linkitis: one does not need to be artsy for a contest like this. Ability to google search images is just as useful.

Linkitis 2: I'm not accusing you of anything but I do want to point out that random ozone and voting someone for a reason are not the same. They are kind of opposites.

DharmaHelper wrote:Foul Four?

There are currently 4 baddies. I wanted alliteration.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
LoRab wrote:Can we make semantic salmon a color? How about WIFOM wine? We can make colors for all of the things!!

Golden wrote: linkie to everyone enjoying epi vs golden. Last time it happened, I was good and epi was bad. Then I get into it with LC. LC is bad, golden is good. When people get into it like this with me, anyone who still is pretending to genuinely believe they think I'm bad is worth lynching imo. Epi knows full well he is wrong. He is enjoying it as much as you.
I did not suspect you at all until this. It's as if you are saying--last time I had back and forth I was good, therefore, duh, I'm good. It doesn't work that way. And, claiming good seems disingenuous, unless you're role claiming, since 28 out of 36 players are neutral, and only 4 players are civ--I don't think you're actually claiming one of those roles. But I do think you might be one of the foul four.

Especially with the: anyone that suspects me must be eevul.
I will not vote for LoRab today.

Woot!!

@Goldent: I get your frustration, but I recommend stepping away from the game and sleeping on it. Epig is being epig, and trying to rile you up to figure you out. Which is a legit strategy. And lies are part of the game. You're frustrated, I realize. But breathe and remember it's a game. I mean, I still suspect you a bit, but want you to remember it's a game.

Can we make semantic salmon a color? How about WIFOM wine? We can make colors for all of the things!!

Golden wrote: linkie to everyone enjoying epi vs golden. Last time it happened, I was good and epi was bad. Then I get into it with LC. LC is bad, golden is good. When people get into it like this with me, anyone who still is pretending to genuinely believe they think I'm bad is worth lynching imo. Epi knows full well he is wrong. He is enjoying it as much as you.

I did not suspect you at all until this. It's as if you are saying--last time I had back and forth I was good, therefore, duh, I'm good. It doesn't work that way. And, claiming good seems disingenuous, unless you're role claiming, since 28 out of 36 players are neutral, and only 4 players are civ--I don't think you're actually claiming one of those roles. But I do think you might be one of the foul four.

Especially with the: anyone that suspects me must be eevul.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
unfurl wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?
I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing
Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Why do you think that is the goal. Also, 2 of the recruiters are civ. and they all recruited during day 0. So, wouldn't we be looking for only 2 recruiters or the people they have recruited? And, frankly, it's probably easier to figure out who has been recruited than who is recruiting. By easier, still near impossible, but rather than venture to guess who is recruiting and had been thinking that way from their first post, we can think about who might be on a recruitment list or who seems like they may have gained btsc mid way though the thread. I don't have anyone in mind, but I don't think your strategy is sound here.

How has no one posted this yet?

Also, voting 3.

G-Man, the trouble with your thought process is that you assume that everyone will be playing civ-friendly from the beginning of the game, which I think is a dangerous assumption. The vast majority of players are neutral at this point--and are not necessarily going to play for the civ side. Especially knowing that most of us will be recruited at some point in the game, and not necessarily by the good guys. The roles themselves are not civ-friendly or not--they benefit the player and what side that player is playing for.

Boomslang wrote:
Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll
For those of us who haven't, care explaining why? What's wrong with picking the position you believe in?

As LA said, in one of the other Recruitment games, there was essentially a witch hunt based on which players voted a certain option (the day 0 options were tied to the recruiters). If I recall, something similar happened in the other recruitment game, as well.

So excited for this game. And I forgot how much I like LC's writing. And I just read through everything, and my brain is full. A few thoughts:

Adverbs tell us nothing as a general concept. Adverbs could be instructive for a particular player's writing style. And reactions to accusations really tell us more than the accusations themselves.

Sarcastic orange was actually a democratic process--it was between orange and grey. There's a whole thread on it on LP. So happy that orange won.

This player list is frigging amazing and so happy to see some old friends/nemesises back.

The Evil Role Power that Cannot be Named is terrifying.

Someone said something about potentially avoiding position 2. I am guessing, having played several Rock Con games, that they have a failsafe/balancer in effect so that such cannot happen. They both like their roles too much (especially insane ones) that they wouldn't make it systemic for any of the role functions to not be used.

Similarly, it would not surprise me at all if The Evil Role Power that Cannot be Named were actually an entirely innocuous power that Rock Con is just taunting us with so that we're all terrified. Same with other recycled role names.

And have now edited, remembering (I think) that there was a role in a Rock Con game that gained power the more it was mentioned. Or something like that.

No idea what option to vote for.

Host question: If someone is unrecruited at end game, what happens?

The Syndicate

Search found 126 matches

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 2)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 2)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Night 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Night 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Night 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Night 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Night 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Night 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 0)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 0)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 0)