The Syndicate

Bullzeye wrote:
Personally (as usual) I'd rather vote a low poster/no-show than an active participant on day one if nothing more meaningful shows up.

I think this is a good thought process, and I'll second it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

I think several people - Golden, Epig, llama, BWT - are trying to act like they normally do but it is often coming across as false because we all know they are at least mostly likely still neutral. Golden's chit chat in prticular sounded like he was playing the part of civ Golden when in fact he likely isn't civ. BWT's posts feel a bit forced as well. llama's feel a bit more natural, as do Bea's, Epig's and SVS's, and yours.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

Furthur to this, why does someone being a recruiter mean anything? If they are one, they might be a civ recruiter, which means eliminating them will hurt the civ cause. There are equal numbers of bad and good recruiters. And once you are eventually recruited to a team, that's your team, so why gun for a potential recruiter when that may end up your own team down the road?

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.

^THIS. While I believe Long Con and Black Rock have styled the four factions as Civ 1 &2, Baddie 1&2, namely by having limited BTSC in the civ team but larger numbers, going by things they've said, does it really behoove us to think that way? Are not all four sides ultimately trying to rule this realm? Why can't people embrace the LMS-hybrid quality of this game? Why wrap yourself in the civvie flag when there are 4 civs or so out of 30+ players right now?

Epignosis wrote:
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.

^I like Epig's thinking so far. Golden's chatter about recruiting felt a bit phoney-chatty.

Reading Day 1, with comments as I go.

Russtifinko wrote: I know a civ lynch Day 1 is likely, but it would pretty much be guaranteed if no one could talk or try to form suspicions.

It's actually quite unlikely. An unrecruit is most likely. Aren't about 3/4 of us neutral at this time?

bea wrote: Mine too. Except those flags!! Those mothereffing flags!!!

Will read soon. At work.

Ahh, there it is. lol

Wasn't there a something nine, as well?

OMG the Erlatz Eleven!!! That was R2, wasn't it?

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Huh?

From the recent host post:

"Azura Nokomis stood over a map of the realm, carefully arranging the ornate pieces that represented the concentration of the forces of various factions. A polished scrying stone stood to her left, and as she turned to gaze deep into it, she could see Ubzargan the Ruthless clasping hands with a shadowy new ally. "So, cyborg," she hissed. "You too are recruiting powerful allies to your faction!" She grinned evilly - the only kind of grin anyone ever saw on her face. "Your pathetic brutes cannot hope to stand against my mastery of the very elements that compose our existence! And my own new ally will be particularly... useful."

So we've had at least two recruitments, already.

So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Black Rock wrote:

timmer wrote:Nothing takes the stuffing out of a joke like a failed youtube link.

So it wasn't just my browser....

No, I don't get the fail. The link is correct, it's good ol' Drama Prairie Dog.

Nothing takes the stuffing out of a joke like a failed youtube link.

Black Rock wrote:
Quite the question... indeed.

Oh, likely the added Q&A, ignore me.

I don't see any change to the roles, but then I haven't got any notes. Does anyone see what changed?

Okay, so I'm likely only going to skim the game up to this point, I just never have time for Day 0's, it seems. I arbitrarily chose Position 2 in the poll. From the look of all of the roles, each position seems to have its issues so really, where we start seems to me not very important.

How are people going to handle the unrecruited side of things? Last game, I rather infamously flamed out, and it all started when I admitted that I didn't give a crap who got lynched since I was neutral. There was more to it than that afterwards, but that was essentially the big issue. It was pointed out that the rules of R3 said that an unrecruited player was sort of a civ, but in THIS game, I see the rules state that an unrecruited player is neutral and has only to survive to win. So how does that play out this time? Are you guys still feeling like it makes more sense to "think civ"? Or is this sort of a LMS format that segues into a more traditional team format, with an awkward middle?

I'm happy either way, I just need clarity for my own sense of sanity, lol.

Hosts, one question about the clans. I see that you've mentioned how they aren't really tied to the recruiting leaders, that the leaders will recruit players who happen to be from any clan, but do the leaders get any kind of bonus if they happen to recruit someone from their clan?

I'm so excited for this game!!! I'm at work and will tune in for realz later, I can already see that this is going to be a nightmare to follow, lol.