The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?

You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?

I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.

Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.

reywaS wrote:

Dom wrote:I feel uneasy about voting Golden after his meltdown post, but... I still suspect him.

Is that what it was?

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

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.

Vote: TH

It's literally a question, one that was answered by multiple people, and I then stated I was proven wrong about all teams being equal.

I don't understand how any of this equates to you voting for me.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:That's nice, and I appreciate your honesty here.
I truly think you are bad. I think you are cornered and have freaked out. You also lashed out at me, saying you agreed with "others" (nutella) about my posting. When I addressed this with you, I don't recall a response.
Why is that?
Did I miss it?

No

I do think your posting had been - keeping things close to your chest, I would call it. Which is what I think nutella was seeing. I wanted to draw more out of you. When I've directly asked you questions, you've answered them completely. So while I think nutella was accurate in describing your style of play, I don't find you suspicious. Earlier on, I couldn't gauge whether or not your suspicion of me was sincere. Now I believe it is.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:SVS, the killing of epi derailed the thread. Are you telling me that what has occurred would not be a desirable outcome?

Also, if my goal was to kill epi so as to minimise the amount of attention on me in the thread (which has to be the reason, right?) then why do I immediately go and say something that will inevitably immediately reinvite that attention?

See.... it is NOT desirable if you're bad.

That's my point. Do you still think I'm bad having caught up today?

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Golden, where did the hosts indicate that?

I don't know, dom, I didn't go back and check whether it was day zero or day one. I was just posting from what I thought was the case, but you could just as equally be right. I still haven't checked, but I will do so now.

Sorsha wrote:This was from day 0:

Black Rock wrote:

Official Announcement

All PM's must now be directed to both hosts (the other one being Long Con) as I am leaving for work soon and he will be home.

ALL Leaders please submit a list of three players for options of your first recruit.

Golden wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Official Announcement

All PM's must now be directed to both hosts (the other one being Long Con) as I am leaving for work soon and he will be home.

ALL Leaders please submit a list of three players for options of your first recruit.

There will be 4 by days end. We are just waiting on something before the recruits will be officially told.

You are right, it was day zero. My bad. So your theory about my tone change is completely legitimate.

But the real reason my tone shifted is that when I went toe to toe with epi, it got me thinking about the nature of the game and what it meant to be neutral in a way I hadn't until that point.

I have tried to explain that I've never played a game like this before. I'm not sure that you or some others have recognised that this comes with growing pains and I was thrown into the spotlight very early while I was still figuring the game out (frankly, I still am figuring the game out).

S~V~S wrote: You have not played with Epignosis much. I think it is unlikely that it is a frame becasue if I were a baddie, an Epi/Golden thread derailment would be a major wet dream. Had Epi not died, we would have had 2 more days of nonstop, escalating sniping and talking about almost nothing but Epi & Golden. Any bad team would eat that up. UNLESS Golden or Epi was on their team.

Having played bad against Epi a zillion times, as soon as he mentions a teammate, I kill him, lol. I think most baddies do. But if he doesn't, then he's awesome alive. He's tenacious and always stone certain he is right regardless of whether that is true or not.

So I think either Golden is on Azuras team, OR Azura herself and her first recruit are someone fairly unfamiliar with our site player dynamics. And Goldens reaction to Epis death scotched that for me, tbh. I thought a frame was an outside possibility until golden started talking.

Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

Golden wrote:SVS, the killing of epi derailed the thread. Are you telling me that what has occurred would not be a desirable outcome?

Also, if my goal was to kill epi so as to minimise the amount of attention on me in the thread (which has to be the reason, right?) then why do I immediately go and say something that will inevitably immediately reinvite that attention?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Don't count DF out just yet. He may be quiet now but he almost always is, and he can be an absolute joy to scheme with in btsc because he's lethal when it matters. Still I think your general point here is an accurate one.

Quiet is an understatement. He hasn't posted for more than three days. I'll try to get his attention:

DFaraday, if you don't get involved then your eventual lynch will be close to inevitable. That's not a winning strategy, mate.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I don't know about The Syndicate, but in my experience appeal to emotion is a town tell far more often than an anti-town tell. That doesn't mean players should be exonerated for making emotional posts, but those emotional posts shouldn't be doubted simply for being emotional.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:How do you know when the recruits happened? I would imagine they happened on Day 0.

I think they happened when the host said they happened. That may have been the end of day zero, I thought it was the end of day one.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I feel uneasy about voting Golden after his meltdown post, but... I still suspect him.

Why does his "meltdown" post give you pause?

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:I don't understand your change in tone from Day 0 and wanting to find baddies to literally manipulating the thread to kill someone because you didn't want them going after you and you didn't think you'd be not he same team (with extremely flawed logic).

OK, and fair enough. I think I have gotten tangled in trying to explain what I mean by being neutral in the context of playing a game that I think is the same as my civvie-meta, and I can't complain if you feel I've been inconsistent.

As for the first mindset shift, I can say that I absolutely did have a mindset shift, from 'lets find baddies', to 'Gucking hell I can't believe this bullsuit'.



The mindset shift was not because I was suddenly recruited mid-day. In fact, I think that if you read back you will find that the mindset shift happened before anyone was recruited at all.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

I disagree 100%, have you been reading the same thread as me? Golden and I have been in hot seats for almost the entire game, and Golden barely made it out of the last lynch alive.

Meanwhile, we have TinyBubbles, timmer, and DisgruntledPorcupine, who are recently receiving a bit of heat, but have not come under near as much fire as those who have put their words on the line and posted much more.

I think your post here trying to further the divide, making this a hardcore v. non-hardcore fest, is troubling greatly. I think players with post counts of all sizes should be eyeballed with equal fervor, not lopsided, and it's entirely why I've been defending Golden because his posts have read completely reasonable as a neutral-aligned Golden. The only accusations against him legitimately fall into two categories: (1) fear mongering and (2) belief that neutral Golden would play like a civilian.

HE SAID HE WOULD

When did I ever say I would play "Like my civilian meta" - if anything, I've said the exact opposite - that I am neutral and don't know what team I'm on and am one of the few people overtly being clear that I am playing like that. I have literally never said I'm playing 'like a civilian'.

I am, however, saying that I do not believe epi was a civ, and I would not have made my move if I thought he was a civilian. I'm not playing anti-civilian.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote: Why the wishy-washy-ness on Bass?
When Epignosis pushed for his lynch, he had one vote, did he not? Golden was hardly in danger on Day 1.

Dom wrote:This does not address Golden's change in tone. This does not address Golden's change in actions since Day 0.

Dom, I'm confused. What wishy-washyness are you talking about? I feel I've been consistent on Bass.

I don't discount that fact; you raise a good point. Nonetheless, I've been pursued by Epignosis before on Day 1, and Day 1 always unpredictable. I suppose it's so easy for me to understand Golden's perspective because I was just feeling everything he seemed to be feeling here on Day 1 of Economics when Epi relentlessly attacked me because he thought I was lying about RL.

Regarding Golden, I do believe his tone changed rapidly once Epi started going after him hard, and I can completely understand why. I do not think Golden's change in tone is indicative of anything other than being under intense emotional fire. What do you think?

Golden wrote:Golden voters.

Dom: I feel is probably genuine, although I don't entirely understand why he suspects me. But it's been consistent and felt real. I'd like to understand what specific things I've done that have him suspecting me.

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:]
Bass was playing a bad/chaos-aligned neutral game... interesting...
What is Golden playing?

Why do you treat Bass' play as bad/chaos-aligned? Are therefore all Sorcerers bad for you or are they redeemable by recruitement?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm not saying RIP to Bass, and, at the expense of making enemies further, I'll echo nutella's thoughts a bit and say that I'm not that sad about Bass's death either. It would have been ideal to nab a mafia-aligned recruiter or recruited, naturally, but an unrecruited Bass is still at least a somewhat favorable result. That said, I'll dearly miss him on a personal level, as always.

Maybe you all are generally more OK with it because you weren't on the receiving end of his completely baseless attack against me, which, combined with other similar attacks yesterday, actually had me feeling as though I was a solid lynch contender for Day 2. My feelings were confirmed when I was tied for the lead in votes for quite a while, though later it died down. Bass's behavior was unpredictable, he wasn't willing at all to actually engage others in conversation and see things from my point of view. He could have easily been playing a mafia or chaos-aligned neutral game, regardless of whether people think his role seems dangerous on its own, which was sort of the feel I was getting from his posts up until the end there.

I agree that it's bet at this stage for Golden to drop the Epi issue completely, but it doesn't help that others (rey and S~V~S and Boomslang, etc.) have been just as insistent on bringing it up over and over as well as Golden has.

Make fun of me as his cheerleader all you want (actually, please do, since it's hilarious), but I have been only defending Golden with the fervor that I've had because I feel accusations against him have been driven by mere fear mongering ("he did that to Epi? What if he does it to me?!?!?!!?"), which is a silly sentiment in my opinion given that the vast majority of players in this game still don't know what side they're going to end up on.

Bass was playing a bad/chaos-aligned neutral game... interesting...
What is Golden playing?

I'm not alleging that I can read into Bass's brain and see what he was thinking as he played the game, so I really don't know if he was playing a bad or chaos-aligned game. That was the impression I received from his behavior, and the fact that he really didn't seem to care who received attention as long as it wasn't him.

As to what Golden has playing, I'd say he's been playing a 100% survival-aligned neutral game. He's been under such heat for most of his tenure in this game that honestly I think he's been doing whatever he can to ensure that he doesn't die immediately. I don't think that's necessarily unreasonable at this stage, mainly because I've been reading all of his thoughts as genuine, because he's been able to articulate himself in a manner that I personally find believable. Therefore, I also believe that Golden is not actively seeking recruitment, and that he'd prefer to be a civilian. Of course, if this game will proceed how the prior games did, I could very well be advocating for his lynch, since it's entirely possible Golden and I will end up with opposing interests. I do not currently think we have opposing interests. I honestly wouldn't care about Golden as much as any other neutral if I felt players weren't exposing him to a ridiculously unbalanced amount of heat when compared to other players who should be examined as well.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

I disagree 100%, have you been reading the same thread as me? Golden and I have been in hot seats for almost the entire game, and Golden barely made it out of the last lynch alive.

Meanwhile, we have TinyBubbles, timmer, and DisgruntledPorcupine, who are recently receiving a bit of heat, but have not come under near as much fire as those who have put their words on the line and posted much more.

I think your post here trying to further the divide, making this a hardcore v. non-hardcore fest, is troubling greatly. I think players with post counts of all sizes should be eyeballed with equal fervor, not lopsided, and it's entirely why I've been defending Golden because his posts have read completely reasonable as a neutral-aligned Golden. The only accusations against him legitimately fall into two categories: (1) fear mongering and (2) belief that neutral Golden would play like a civilian.

HE SAID HE WOULD

I don't understand the need for caps. I'm trying to be reasonable in my emotional demeanor going forward.

I'm aware; my intent was unclear, sorry. (2) should be supplemented with the phrase "but firmly believe that he is playing against the civilians", since that seems to be the sentiment of S~V~S and others when they say that they think Golden executed the kill.

I think Golden is, at worst, neutral, and he isn't worth my time. I'd rather catch a mafia-aligned. In before you ask about Bass, but I firmly believed Bass could be at best, neutral, and hopefully was mafia-aligned. He wasn't, which is disappointing, but I'm not upset over the former result one bit even though I wouldn't have campaigned against Bass if I thought he could be, at worst, neutral.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

I disagree 100%, have you been reading the same thread as me? Golden and I have been in hot seats for almost the entire game, and Golden barely made it out of the last lynch alive.

Meanwhile, we have TinyBubbles, timmer, and DisgruntledPorcupine, who are recently receiving a bit of heat, but have not come under near as much fire as those who have put their words on the line and posted much more.

I think your post here trying to further the divide, making this a hardcore v. non-hardcore fest, is troubling greatly. I think players with post counts of all sizes should be eyeballed with equal fervor, not lopsided, and it's entirely why I've been defending Golden because his posts have read completely reasonable as a neutral-aligned Golden. The only accusations against him legitimately fall into two categories: (1) fear mongering and (2) belief that neutral Golden would play like a civilian.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm not saying RIP to Bass, and, at the expense of making enemies further, I'll echo nutella's thoughts a bit and say that I'm not that sad about Bass's death either. It would have been ideal to nab a mafia-aligned recruiter or recruited, naturally, but an unrecruited Bass is still at least a somewhat favorable result. That said, I'll dearly miss him on a personal level, as always.

Maybe you all are generally more OK with it because you weren't on the receiving end of his completely baseless attack against me, which, combined with other similar attacks yesterday, actually had me feeling as though I was a solid lynch contender for Day 2. My feelings were confirmed when I was tied for the lead in votes for quite a while, though later it died down. Bass's behavior was unpredictable, he wasn't willing at all to actually engage others in conversation and see things from my point of view. He could have easily been playing a mafia or chaos-aligned neutral game, regardless of whether people think his role seems dangerous on its own, which was sort of the feel I was getting from his posts up until the end there.

I agree that it's bet at this stage for Golden to drop the Epi issue completely, but it doesn't help that others (rey and S~V~S and Boomslang, etc.) have been just as insistent on bringing it up over and over as well as Golden has.

Make fun of me as his cheerleader all you want (actually, please do, since it's hilarious), but I have been only defending Golden with the fervor that I've had because I feel accusations against him have been driven by mere fear mongering ("he did that to Epi? What if he does it to me?!?!?!!?"), which is a silly sentiment in my opinion given that the vast majority of players in this game still don't know what side they're going to end up on.

G-Man wrote:I won't be back before the poll closes, so here goes:

VOTES TURNIP HEAD

He's on my list of players who I don't have a read on and lynching him could be a test of whether or not to ignore future messages from the Speaker of Serenity.

nutella wrote:Dom, thanks for clarifying -- I was indeed the second player to vote for Bass today, after MP, but I still don't get why that is suspicious. Can you elaborate on why my vote warranted an ? And no I wasn't upset about you eyeing me specifically, it's more that your general pattern of opportunistically badgering people about little things is bothersome and imo unproductive. Maybe you have some success rate of catching baddies with stuff like that, I don't know, but to me it really seems like fluffing up your posts with trivial "pings" rather than discussing more substantial thoughts./quote]
It seemed rather bandwagon-y? Although, in retrospect, for this game, that would not make a whole lot of sense, you are right.
I rather disagree with you. Your definition of opportunistic seems rather shallow and I would hardly qualify my posts as such. I thought I saw something in Scotty's posts. I was wrong (in regards to that specific example). I thought I saw something in yours. I don't think it was fruitful. However, I will say-- when other players make similar claims about people to see how they react, gauge reactions, and collect data-- you don't seem to mind that at all.

Golden wrote: I agree with others who think Dom is being shady about his thoughts, and I tihnk people should be asking him to explain them more.

Who are "others"? Where did they say these things?
If you want me to explain my thoughts more, why not ask? You have not asked me to expound on anything thus far, I believe. All of a sudden, you're interested? Is that because I think you're playing a rather suspicious game? Are you talking about nutella's posts-- if so, I am not getting the same reading from her posts at all.

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, to elaborate, I suppose I just feel as though you're putting Golden up to an expectation that is unreasonable, considering he has been quite open about playing a neutral game, and that Epi was a serious threat to Golden's immediate livelihood. I think it's key to note how emotionally-charged Golden's play has been this game, due to being under constant defense for his well being, and from Epi for a while at that.

Sorry, my friend, but that is a load of BS. I can't find the link at the present time, but Golden opened the game by saying he would have a hard time lynching someone he doesn't feel could be bad.
That's entirely different from neutral.

Golden wrote:
SVS, if later in this game I'm civ and decide I think you are bad, then I am deciding you are incompatible with me, but I'm doing so in a civ/baddie context. What is the difference for epi?

There are two civ teams who don't need each other dead-- that's the difference.

Ricochet wrote:Bye Bass. The Sorcerers don't have it easy, it seems.

I have pages to catch up with, but right off the bat I found something interesting in nutella's posts. I'll post it chronologically

nutella wrote:RIP Epi and Typh. I am like many others surprised and saddened to see Typh go so early and hope he gets a rez since he is quite a fun/intense player to have around. I somewhat agree with MP's assessment -- I would certainly not kill Typhoony so early, I would be hoping for the chance to end up on a team with him, but I wouldn't necessarily discount that someone else familiar with his gameplay could want to eliminate him early on.

Also, it's revealed that he was killed by the Brutal Executioner, and looking at that role we now know that Typh was a Sorceror. For what that's worth.

nutella wrote:My answer to Rico: Azura and the Pyromancer are both pretty scary, but the other 5 Sorcerors don't look so bad to me, and again the scariness of a role really depends on what team they end up on. I guess even if Azura kills again on Night 3 we can't rule that out because the kill would have passed to the recruit. And even if he wasn't Azura I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the first recruits to a baddie team. So yeah, you have a point that there would certainly be risk in rezzing Typh.

nutella wrote:Well I'm not particularly disappointed to lose the Magnetarch, was a dangerous role anyway. And I'm rather indifferent that he was unrecruited. Honestly I'd call this a relatively successful day 2 given the circumstances. It will be hard to find the actual baddies.

Think I'll go for Position 3.

So why the double standard between these two Sorcerers' deaths? And why suddenly find Magnetarch to have been dangerous, when previously it was deemed not so bad?

nutella wrote:

Dom wrote:

nutella wrote:Oh and since votes are changeable I think I might as well throw an early vote out there as a prod. I'd still like to hear more from Bass.

*votes Bass*

You're the second or third person to do this.

Do what?

nutella wrote:I really don't understand you Dom. Like I never understand most of the things that cause you to "eye" people, they're always the weirdest, most meaningless little things. Like how hard you went after Scotty for something you contrivedly read as a "slip" when it clearly wasn't (I think quite a few others were as baffled by your interpretation as I was.) And now you're eyeing me for placing an early vote in a changeable poll?? What??? I guess it's just how you play though, going doggedly after little things like that, but honestly if you weren't like this every game I would call you out for being opportunistic. But I'm generally always completely baffled by your extreme nitpickiness.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

nutella wrote:I really don't understand you Dom. Like I never understand most of the things that cause you to "eye" people, they're always the weirdest, most meaningless little things. Like how hard you went after Scotty for something you contrivedly read as a "slip" when it clearly wasn't (I think quite a few others were as baffled by your interpretation as I was.) And now you're eyeing me for placing an early vote in a changeable poll?? What??? I guess it's just how you play though, going doggedly after little things like that, but honestly if you weren't like this every game I would call you out for being opportunistic. But I'm generally always completely baffled by your extreme nitpickiness.

If he nitpicks you, that means he likes you.

Dom never nitpicks me.

Roxy wrote:Dr W's post made me laugh and gave a me a lovely start to today

Still do not find him suspicious.

Will not likely vote MP

Sebass (my son) does have this job going crazy right now. I know he has not had time to catch up. I don't like the tone of his posts but for right now I am willing to give him a chance.

Why is no one besides Rey and unfurl and I the only ones to comment on Teeth?

Spacedaisy wrote:I saw the move he was making before Epi died. Personally, I say well played. He wanted Epi out and he made it happen, either with a kill or baiting a kill. I can't say I am glad Epi is dead necessarily, but I'm impressed.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, regarding the Typhoony kill... I know this is WIFOM, so I understand the sheer flimsiness of it, but I cannot see any of the LP/TP/RMers* willingly killing Typhoony in his first game back in so long. I would be absolutely floored if that happened. I'm still shocked he even died, to be honest.

*Those players would include:
aapje
bea
Bullzeye
Canucklehead
DFaraday
DharmaHelper
Dom
Golden
G-Man
LoRab
MovingPictures07
nutella
reywaS
Roxy
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
S~V~S
timmer
Tranq
Turnip Head
unfurl


Which leaves:
Bass_the_Clever
birdwithteeth11
Boomslang
Devin the Omniscient
DisgruntledPorcupine
DrWilgy
JaggedJimmyJay
Metalmarsh89
Ricochet
Russtifinko
Scotty
thellama73
TinyBubbles


Thoughts?

thellama73 wrote:Why would MP go out of his way to say Daisy wouldn't make a good recruit? If course she would make a good recruit. His response was completely unnecessary. Looks like a massive over correction to me. Either he has already recruited her or he intends to. MP has a good chance of receiving my vote today.

thellama73 wrote:MP is responding with threats now? "If you vote for me, I will vote for you"
That is atypical of him. Plus I don't like being threatened. Still some time left, assuming we actually have a 48 hour day, but MP looks no good to me.

nutella wrote:Oh and since votes are changeable I think I might as well throw an early vote out there as a prod. I'd still like to hear more from Bass.

*votes Bass*

Golden wrote:I was not directly responsible for killing epi. I was intentionally baiting people into setting me up, though. I suspected that if I made enough of my intention to kill epi, someone else would do it.

I am very sad to see Typhoony die already, I agree with SVS it's a lame kill hope you get a rezz, typh.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I will try to respond to every post made later but to better explain my vote since I was so low on time, I basically had my phd advisor ask me so where is this assignment? And I flipped out since I thought I had a few more days to complete it and wasn't finished so I literally only had a few seconds to cast votes here and in angry birds and I knew I had to get him that assignment ASAP

I went with unfurl based on my previous posts. I am curious what others have said about my thoughts of her but I'm far from current so I'll talk more about it later. I didn't even feel I had time to look at the list of low posters and cast a vote that way, I knew unfurl had made like 15 posts without seeming intent on doing any hunting or wanting to talk about anything so I knew my vote was weak but I had to cast it so I asked myself who I would vote for and immediately thought of unfurl based on those thoughts I already expressed.

I'm on phone so sorry for any typos I missed

Be back later properly even if it's not until tomorrow night.

Scotty wrote: Ah, I see Dom was needling in on me. Fair enough, it was a little contradictory. Here's the longer explanation now that I'm not as rushed.

Because I don't see the use in complete random, my randomization was not so much random on the scale of the entire list of players, but a list of players that had more content-filled posts. Unlike the Day 0/1's from previous games, I didn't feel like looking at MIAs for the first lynch. It was theorized by numerous people throughout the day who had a better chance to recruit and who would be recruited. I don't think a recruiter would pick someone with a very low post count. Maybe someone with a slightly low count to remain hidden, sure. But someone like, say, DFaraday I don't see as Recruiter or Recruitee.

I looked at the big talkers that had recruiting strategies- Epi and Golden and their spat didn't stand out to me as recruiters/recruitees. MP, SVS, JJJ, birdwithteeth, Rico, etc were in the mix. But I had no real inclination between those, though I figured one of them maybe had some sort of overarching, suspicious recruiting method. SVS stood out to me early on for her recruiting strategy of someone that was smarter than her, works well as a team player and could swim under the radar. She seemed to really know what she was talking about, and that would scare me if she were the recruiter. But I really could have voted any of them. So I guess it was random in the sense that I just picked one that didn't seem to be causing too much of a ruckus or on anyone's radar. In the end, it's a day 1 vote.

Also I don't have any idea what you're talking about with me "clearly in BTSC". I think you've got that aluminum foil hat on a little too tight. When I say "power" of course I don't mean abilities. I'm stupid, but not that stupid. (Though I did watch the rain with my head tilted up and my mouth open as a child.)
I guess power wasnt the best word choice in hindsight, but I was rushing off to work. Think of it more as "regard" or "esteem".

"Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous game"
wtf? When did I say that? Oh, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth, Dom. I'm only a child at heart, not by intelligence or temperament.

It's true that I'm not used to this type of game, but I'm learning as I go.

Now I sleep. Good night, and most likely see you all for day 2 tomorrow when I get off work at 11p est

thellama73 wrote:I like position 3. Yay no death I guess, but I never reAlly like when the only tool the civvies have is squandered.

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.

Ricochet wrote:

Kadajski wrote:

aapje wrote:

Golden wrote:Oh, would it? That is interesting.

Who was it that said they were reading recruitment 3. Was that scotty or someone else?

People had powers in RM3, in the first 2 editions most started as vanilla though.

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

Hello and please write off-topic posts only in blue using the np button.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?

A person who had played RMs before would know.

I don't even understand the point that is being made? What would he have been told in btsc?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Golden wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.

Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

Bullzeye wrote:Gonna be a sheep and join the bleating herds voting for *DFaraday* due to his non-commitment to the game. Shame, I always like playing with him!

thellama73 wrote:13 pages for me to catch up on? You guys are killing me. I do not think golden is bad
D. I do not think epi is bad. I do not think marmot is bad.

You know who didn't post at all during those 13 pages, who disappeared as soon as I wasn't around to attack her? TinyBubbles. She gets my vote.

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Did you notice that you just did the exact thing you find BWT ping-y for?
Or nah?

Because as I see it, you just put yourself on the fence on whether you'll vote BWT or not on a moment's notice. . . the exact thing you criticized BWT for.

I think I'm gonna go with "Or nah?". Basically, I find that post of BWT's suspicious. However, it's one post. I don't think that alone is worth turning into a huge case and pushing against him like I'm Epi or something. BWT seemed like he was trying to avoid locking himself into one particular stance on a topic whereas I'm taking a stand here and saying that I currently have some suspicion toward BWT and will keep an eye on him for the foreseeable future but won't be voting for him unless I have more to go on. If today or on day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc you see me vote BWT purely because of that one post he made, then you know I'm clutching at straws and you should probably vote for me at that point tbh.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

I'm confused. Is this a random vote or are you voting for SVS because you think she has an ability?

Golden wrote:@dom - Lets not get pedantic with the word know.

Sometimes I know people are good or bad. It's not because I have proof. It's because I just know. I believe epi knows I am not bad. OK?

Also, that meme should have had pink font.

nutella wrote:

Dom wrote:

nutella wrote:Alright this is getting ridiculous. I don't see much reason to think either Epi or Golden is bad and yet they are insisting we take the bait and take a side in this duel of theirs. I'm not biting. I see some merit on both of their parts and some folly on both as well. Instinctively I trust Golden slightly more, but at this point I think this is friendly fire that's distracting Day 1 discussion from the other 34 players.

OK, I might be misinterpreting what you're getting at, but are you implying that Epi and Golden manufactured this argument for some ulterior motive?

No, I don't think that. They just happen to be the type of players who get deep into headbutting matches, and they're relentlessly butting heads, and I think it's civ-on-civ. (or neutral-neutral. whatever. you know what i mean)

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what do you suppose might Epignosis's anti-town motives be if he is smearing you deliberately right now?

I suspect that if epi has no alignment, it is no skin off his nose to take out someone he does not want to end up on an opposing team to him. Not that I think he would necessarily specifically target me as that person, but, put it this way...

Where the rest of us might be inclined to vote a low poster because they might end up being a good target for baddies in case we end up fighting for the civs, I think epi is more likely to think of it from the opposite perspective and take out people he doesn't want opposing him should he end up fighting for the mafia.

Epignosis wrote:I think it's lame when people come in and criticize other people's reasoning (especially those they don't understand).

Come in Day 1 with your own thoughts and ideas- not knocking down those already made.

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.

nutella wrote:Alright this is getting ridiculous. I don't see much reason to think either Epi or Golden is bad and yet they are insisting we take the bait and take a side in this duel of theirs. I'm not biting. I see some merit on both of their parts and some folly on both as well. Instinctively I trust Golden slightly more, but at this point I think this is friendly fire that's distracting Day 1 discussion from the other 34 players.

nutella wrote:Yay, I am marmot-approved! I much prefer to though. Luckily Oregon's got plenty of both. (I recently turned 21 and went around to some winery tasting rooms, it was lovely!

SAME TBH
We're finally old enough for the DT.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:Lorab, I just don't give a shit at some point.

I want epi dead and god help me if I fall into a kill thats where I'm using it.

I don't like people who use lies to suspect me. I'm fine with those who will suspect me based on truthful interpretations.

I gave epi lots of chances to read back and see that he was wrong about his own factual statements. He wilfully chose to ignore them. He still claims his version of events is true. Anyone is free to read and see that what I have said is objectively true and what he has said is objectively, patently, false. I just don't think anyone should have to put up with constantly defending themselves against made up bullshit.

What lie did I use to suspect you? I pointed out exactly why I suspect you. It's in the colors man. The colors. Those aren't lies. Those are your own words.

That's it. There is NOTHING ELSE outside of that making me suspect you. So you asking me to read this or that or the other....no. It's that one post. That's it.

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Like a cute little sitcom. Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?

You're John Stamos????

Right.

I can play the guitar, kill roaches, and say "Have Mercy" like the best of them.

I think you're missing one very important piece of the John Stamos pie, there buddy-o.

It's the hair.

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Like a cute little sitcom. Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?

You're John Stamos????

Right.

I can play the guitar, kill roaches, and say "Have Mercy" like the best of them.

S~V~S wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:10 pages?? Since this morning? I suppose I will still respond to the stuff I real earlier, though it's likely irrelevant right now. There's is just no way I manage to read up on all this tonight though, even if I really wanted to (and I only sort of do).

It's worth it. Especially the part about the fuzzy apricots.

@Dom, I think you make a good point about Bullz. I will read back.

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Bullzeye wrote:
T is for The Baddies?

Golden wrote:Having looked through DH's posts, there isn't too much I specifically wanted to highlight. All I will say is, from post one, which was:

DharmaHelper wrote:I voted for Position 1, because its best to start at the beginning.

And was deliberately done very early right in the middle of other people trying to figure out which position was best.

Then he did all his adverb stuff.

What I will say is, I suggest people read DH back for themselves. But the very distinct impression I get is that, even for DH, he is trying to play up almost too hard how much he really doesn't care.

Golden wrote:I voted for epi.

Epignosis wrote:
Like a cute little sitcom. Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Black Rock wrote:
This?

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

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.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

I've explained this a bunch of times. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept. How people answer that question matters. No, I obviously don't think people are just going to admit to being bad, but answering with sarcasm or a joke, or changing the subject indicate a level of uneasiness with the question. It is the mark of dishonesty. Is it foolproof? Of course not. But it is telling, and shouldn't be ignored.

DharmaHelper wrote:Nobody can stop the Holy Spirit

Tranq wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:DH played that witch hunt beautifully; I think he was one of the final few Erlatz 11 still alive when he finally did get lynched.

I think i was the first or second one to get lynched

This is what happened in RM2:
Short version: The indy role (not a recruiter) won Day 0, and got to use their power on one of the players that voted for the winning option.
Long version: http://forum.revolutionmafia.com/viewto ... 85#p210585

Boomslang wrote:Thanks for the backstory, peeps. But knowing the infamy of that mechanic, I doubt it'd be reused exactly, especially in a game as complex as this already is. The positions don't even seem to be themed, so I'm guessing they're primarily for mechanics purposes? In any event, I'm going to go ahead and *vote 1* in case I don't check in until later.

Golden wrote:@Bullz - am i wrong in assuming you can only be recruited by one?

LoRab wrote:How has no one posted this yet?

Epignosis 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.

Read this. Golden asked someone about recruitment. That someone was S~V~S.

For me, S~V~S gave a straightforward, believable, and satisfactory answer to the question.

Then she asked Golden the same question.

I'll color it above. That's four different criteria. Why is Golden seeking advice for this? What is his purpose? Couldn't Golden use his own knowledge to determine the best recruits?

But why, when asked for his view on recruitment, did he name four different possibilities instead of being direct?

That is what I find suspicious about Golden.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm going to bed myself. I want people to read Golden's answers a few times over. I think he's a naughty recruiter.

You think wrong.

I am not a naughty recruiter.

I am not a naughty recruitee either.

I do, however, want to make something of a day one in which nearly every person is neutral, and trying to get in the head of a naughty recruiter is, for me, a good idea.

I have an idea epi, why don't YOU read all my posts relating to thinking that through, in fact the whole chain of conversation with SVS - and not just my answers to your post - a few times over. I'm quite happy to encourage everyone else to as well, but I'd like you to, because so far all you've done is:

1) Misrepresent what SVS asked
2) Misrepresent my response
3) Put colours on things and asked vague questions to throw shade at me without actually specifying anything about why they would make me a 'naughty recruiter'
4) Ignored the questions I asked you.

DharmaHelper wrote:Why must you destroy my happiness.

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

I challenge this. What year was this?

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

Sure! Sometimes I make jokes when I think something is silly.

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.