The Syndicate

Frankly Doc, I think aapje is correct. A baddie had a chance to switch a lynch. Why wouldn't he? It sows chaos and confusion. It's entirely likely that neither unfurl or Bubbles have any relevance to that player and they were chosen just 'coz.

I am more piqued by those who seem to think they understand the motivations behind the switch, because it could suggest background knowledge.

@Wilgy, I'm not sure I agree with your stance on unfurl/Bubbles. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but that you are tuned in too heavily on one possibility.

Looking back, we were in position 2, so yes, Ubzargan had a lynch switch to use. So yes, it seems likely that he caused unfurl's death. But it's to what END where I am not sure you are right.

You suggest Ubby wanted to frame Bubbles. Maybe, but what about this?

- TinyBubbles is on Ubby's team, or is Ubby himself. The lynch switch rather handily went to saving her own life or the life of her teammate.

Can you give me any reason why this isn't a possibility? I personally think that those wanting to catch a baddie recruiter should be all OVER a Bubbles lynch, because of the very possibility that she's bad and on the Ub team.

aapje, I'd be willing to shift my vote from Bubbles for the right candidate, did you have an alternate in mind? I'd gladly vote DP, for instance.

There's a difference, imo, between what I'm doing, which is playing as a neutral, and what DP is apparently doing, which is just complete apathy. If his plan is actually to deliberately coast through and never contribute, I'd be good with kicking him out.

@ JJJ, Oh, I misunderstood your point, I thought you meant people in the thread talking up voting Golden.

@Wilgy, but how many people are voting Bubbles because of unfurl? I'm certainly not. I think many of her voters just don't like the tone of her posts, no? If anything, if a mafia team tried to add fuel to the Bubbles fire, I don't see it really adding anything, so I'd feel like whoever is bringing up the unfurl kill maybe... had a hand in it and WANTS to make it part of the narrative.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My biggest concern about a Bubbles lynch is that it feels manipulated. One of the baddie teams hand-walked this game into a lynch of Golden and I feel similarly about this. I acknowledge that Bubbles has been more suspicious than Golden was though. I'll continue mulling.

But how many members did a baddie team have at the time of Golden's lynch? Two? Were they at three yet? In a game of over 30 players, suggesting that a baddie team of 2-3 somehow manipulated the game is a bit of a stretch no?

DrWilgy wrote:Can we please not kill TinyBubbles? can we please not give Ubzaggron the satisfaction? this is such a bad idea and another easy frame on someone most likely unrecruited.

Can you explain what this is about? Why would Ubby specifically want Bubbles dead?

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

timmer wrote:

aapje wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Hello friends. I will try to answer some questions.

I'll try one. When are you planning on playing the game?

I second this. Like, is there any actual reason to keep you in this game?

Probably not. But that's for you to decide.

Well, if I don't vote you, it will be because you've got one of the most gifted musicians alive as your avatar, no other reason.

aapje wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Hello friends. I will try to answer some questions.

I'll try one. When are you planning on playing the game?

I second this. Like, is there any actual reason to keep you in this game?

DharmaHelper wrote:SVS is bad and will get my vote until I can't vote.

I do respect your thoughts on this, it's an actual mafia vibe based on traditional reads of a player, not anything based on this game's unusual format.

Canucklehead wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Not all games are logic puzzles. Some games are finely crafted clusterfucks.

This is the greatest and most true thing anyone has ever said about mafia. Ever.

True story.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
In one paragraph, you say you jump on bandwagons and you're cool with it. In the next paragraph, you call the cases bullshit. So you are admitting to jumping on bandwagons with bullshit cases.

My mantra has been this: support people who are remaining true to themselves, such as the people I mentioned (SVS, DH, Canuckle, etc. ) and vote for people who seem to be "playing a part" or who are trying to act a certain way that feels false. Because I really don't think this format requires people to change. So yeah, that's the path I've been following, basically.

I'm happy to vote for TinyBubbles because she doesn't seem genuine.

ETA: Wilgy, I have no idea why the word arbitrarily is funny to you, but I like that you're rolling with it, and I doubt I'll be voting you anytime soon

Wow my phone messed a lot of that up but I think you get my meanings.

Host should be hoss.

Holy cap, host, you spent a lot of time on that. But you missed every key point about my game up to here. I stayed quite simply right from the start that I wasn't going to play like a civ until I have reason to, and I've followed through on that worth perfect consistency.

Yeah, I've jumped on bandwagons worth little to no thought, because I can't trek who is on a team flow the most part and thus if someone does it's cool with me, because I'm still neutral. Plain and simple, I remain unrecruited and no that's not a clever truth to hide the fact that I'm a team leader, I am still neutral.

So let's see what is going on in this game. People have made a bunch of bullshit cases about players who were not recruited and lynched them while those on teams day back and laughed. If you lynch me, the same thing will happen. I'll take sigbets on it right here and now.

I've attempted every single recruitment challenge and my air apparently stinks so here I am.

Those of you on teams need to decide whether you want to tale the sage route and keep targeting people who can't defend because they don't believe they've done anything but we're Just playing the neutral scene add they saw fit, or you can actually try to win by taking out your rivals. Your call, I don't plan to deviate from this party as my defence.

Yuck. Take dem germs and get better somewhere else!

I've read through Tiny's posts and they are still pretty meh. It's good enough for my vote for now.

voting for tinybubbles

Doing my best to catch up after being out of town for a bit. This game is very difficult to keep track of. I'm midway through yesterday in my read back, and at the moment, I can say that I won't be voting for SVS, Roxy, Canuckle, or DH. All of them are either posting in ways I appreciate, or are humouring me, or both.

As to the current cases, I'm not there yet, but patience.

On a day trip to Wash. State, will rejoin the fun by tonight!

Roxy wrote: You have been recruited. I would bet my sweet ass on it.

While anything I say in reply is obvs wifom-y, I'm actually still unrecruited. I have no preference of whether I'm bad or good, I've been applying to all of the recruitment drives, but so far...

But, again, I know, WiFOM, etc.

voted for tinybubbles.

I agree with the basic thrust of the case against tiny bubbles, her posts have been the epitome of both wishy and washy. But moreso, I'm liking the gameplay of the people voting her, so I'm willing to follow their lead on this.

Okay, so I'm pretty well caught up.

I'm going to try to sum up all of my thoughts in one post.

First, any and all cases that revolve around people not playing like their normal ____ game are irrelevant to me. Whether SVS has seen "this" Golden before, for instance, is useless to my view of this game. We are all stuck in some part of a meta, where we are neutral, then some of us aren't neutral, and some were never neutral, but we are all choosing our own unique path to portray ourselves, and this format is rare thus there IS no meta to actually map out, from a reading perspective. No truth, no tea.

Second, since I'm apparently using RuPaul's Drag Race-isms, let's go with one more. The amount of shade being cast about in here is getting indeed toxic. It's not quite toxic yet, but it's getting there. Let's stop with the "ugh, just lynch me" crap. It's cheap, we're all better than this.

Third, unlike in a normal game, I don't mind at all the people who are suggesting that quieter players should get votes. Only a nutter would recruit from a pool of absentees, imo.

Fourth, the few people who are actually trying to make normal cases all get my thumbs up, and my appreciation, as doing as much as proven to be beyond me so far this game. I note SVS' and rye's thoughts on Golden (while I don't put as much weight on the "never seen this Golden before" stuff {see point #1}, I do appreciate her thoughts on his evasiveness, etc.), also Canuckle's point on Tiny Bubbles.

Fifth, where I'm still at a conundrum is that (and take this with whatever grain of salt you want, I recommend Kosher personally) I still have no team and thus I'm not sure which kind of case to get behind, as any of them could affect my future employer. For instance, Canuckle makes a very good point about TinyBubbles. She seems like she's recruited and unsure of how to act. But what if that's true but Tiny's team will be my team?

Finally, while my vote is on Golden, having said everything I just said, I'd appreciate it if someone could show me the logic in voting elsewhere. Golden's evasiveness has bugged me, but it's not exactly meaty. I'm not sure how to really rally behind the current cases due to my position in the game, so please, give me ideas of how to proceed that sound reasonable, and I may bite.

ETA: and yes, many

reywaS wrote:Facts: Golden expressed sincere desire to see Epignosis killed. Epignosis is killed on night 1 by Azura.

How Golden and his new cheerleader MovingPictures come off to me:

"Hey, guys, look I know that I/Golden am/is responsible for Azura (A confirmed baddie) killing Epignosis when literally the only person going after Epig was Golden, but he's getting a bad rap and I think everyone just needs to trust the guy. I promise he's not bad. You're crazy for going after him. Actually, you read as bad to me because you aren't giving Golden a free pass."


It's insanity. lol

Still reading, still catching up, but yeah... THIS^.

Voted for Golden. At the point I'm at in my read back he's the one standing out as being odd. If I can find time to continue reading before deadline I will but I'm happy with my vote for now.

Still 6 pages back. Gotta do some stuff, will get back to this soon.

So as I'm reading along, the endless back and forths regarding Golden and MP truck along. They haven't play out yet and I've got a lot of pages to go, but for now I will say that I don't see a problem with MP's game, I'm a fan of his thinking in this game. Golden's playing a sort of similar game, but he seems to be shying away from admitting that his stance on Epig was odd, even for this game. SVS keeps mentioning it, but he isn't directly addressing it, even as he says he is. I'm liking MP more than Golden. And SVS' game is topnotch.

Trying to read through Day 2. It's a very frustrating read. Lots of people getting pissy, lots of odd votes that don't seem explained by anything... I hope the day gets a bit easier my head hurts.

Sorry guys, pretty severe stomach cramping tonight, I will have to catch up tomorrow

DharmaHelper wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey DH, how about a rainbow list? :P

G
O
F
U
C
K
Y
O
U
R
S
E
L
F

Post of the year. ^

So I'm back in town, I will unpack and catch up on the game tonight!

Only in wifi for 5 minutes. Voted myself worn catch up when I'm home tomorrow

Scotty, to answer your question, I believe a submitted request to pardon a lynch would have to be PM'd before the PM asking that the day be ended early, to count. So we've got the Guardians, a couple of likely unrecruits and Ubzargan. Personally, I'm not to try to hurt my brain over this tonight, lol.

@Bea, I'm pretty sure Black Rock confirmed that in a post somewhere, that a team continues to recruit etc after their leader is dead. Check back to be sure, but I think she said that at some point.

Oh, good point! I was thinking that ending the day early somehow triggered the lack of a lynchee, but you're right, there still should have been a lynch, so absolutely, a second role was at work. Hmm...

The hosts specifically said the day "ended early". Only one role seems to fit that declaration, imo.

unfurl may have helped herself out? At that time, she couldn't know how the day would flesh out, right? I think trying to tie the time so narrowly is a risky guess, anyway. Lots to ponder, little to truly gleam.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

timmer wrote:So, before I forget, tomorrow morning we're heading out for the final camping trip of the year. It should be three days long, but I expect that at least once or twice I'll drive to the beer&wine store and get some reception, so I'll check in when I can!

Linki: nice writeup, LC!

I don't know where you're camping, but have fun! I've got a couple more myself, one over Labor Day weekend.

Just a place nearby, but not too near, we mostly just want a holiday from all of the damn smoke. Washington State's fires are now starting to cross the border into Canada, adding to the "fun times".

So, before I forget, tomorrow morning we're heading out for the final camping trip of the year. It should be three days long, but I expect that at least once or twice I'll drive to the beer&wine store and get some reception, so I'll check in when I can!

Linki: nice writeup, LC!

Fairly interesting .

Do all recruitment contests state which leader it is for? Could someone truly only apply to civ teams?

Typhoony wrote:

timmer wrote:@Typh, would there be vote manipulations in this lynch, though? Don't the roles with vote tweaks have to submit actions etc. at night, thus that will all be in play tomorrow? Unless I'm minunderstanding things, I think only two team leaders could be revealed in this lynch, one with a lynch pardon, one with a lynch save?

That definitely wasn't the case in Recruitment III when the Musketeers could submit their vote manip at any time they wanted, during the Day as well.

Hmm, I didn't last long enough to notice that, ok I see your point, them!

Voted DF, but Golden is bugging me, I may switch to him.

@Typh, would there be vote manipulations in this lynch, though? Don't the roles with vote tweaks have to submit actions etc. at night, thus that will all be in play tomorrow? Unless I'm minunderstanding things, I think only two team leaders could be revealed in this lynch, one with a lynch pardon, one with a lynch save?

Turnip Head wrote:

timmer wrote:Skimming at work. Before I vote, aapje, could you explain your vote for DH? Scotty's post does seem to smell like bullshit?

The monkey said he would vote for the next person to change their vote.

Oh, and DH had voted elsewher earlier? Fair enough, then, thanks TH!

Skimming at work. Before I vote, aapje, could you explain your vote for DH? Scotty's post does seem to smell like bullshit?

In regards to SD and Devin (and anyone I missed) who don't like my stance on the game. I've been pretty clear in saying that I think it is an LMS game that will then segue into a traditional mafia game. I'm not saying LMS forever, just LMS for now. An unrecruit has no allegiance, no alignment, no task except to stay alive until said recruitment can happen. That's it. Right now, day 1, there are apparently 8 people on teams, and something like 25 not on teams. So the majority of us have survival on our mind, plain and simple.

My problem with people saying that they are playing civvie until they get recruited is that it could all be such a lie already. Someone could say that as the leader of a baddie team, lol. Whether someone wants to admit it or not, it's all lying because half of the people saying it will end up bad and their stance will then be strategic tactics, or already are.

You must see how there is at least anelement of LMS in these early days?

Morning, all!

So I thought a bit about things this morning while I tried to pretend to be asleep so my kids wouldn't bother me... so if these games usually end up with a traditional 60/40 split in terms of civ teams vs baddie teams, I can thus see the logic in attempting to sniff out a baddie recruiter. However, here's my problem. I personally don't think I can pull that off on this particular Day 1.

Whether we are talking about Golden, or Epig, or whoever, everyone is playing a certain part right now - I'm choosing to be neutral, others are saying they will be civ until they know what they will be... but at any moment, possibly even ALREADY, those same people will get recruited to a team, and in some cases it will be a team that is at odds with the persona they have chosen to portray in the thread. And so it means that EVERYONE is a potential liar, to me. Anyone saying they are civ-thinking may already be lying their asses off.

All of this to say that the odds of me sussing out a baddie recruiter today, with such a mess of acting and lying going on is low. And I don't have the time to try to find minutiae that would suggest it.

So I'm going to stick to the idea of voting for someone who is not around, for today. And I will be at work later and so will not be posting too much today.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am playing like I would as a townie despite the fact that I am not a townie. What does that mean to you, timmer?

Since I know neither your civ game, your tactics or your tendencies... absolutely nothing. We're all actors in a wonderful, as yet unwriiten story.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?

It's more of a sense than anything, but Epig kind of nailed it with his colour coding. The fact is, any of us who have been a part of this group for a long time could have been chosen recruiters/team leaders, and made, in the moment, a decision in recruiting targets that goes completely against the grain of everything people think of us in terms of our gameplay. None of the players who have been around for a long time are so boring that they are blindingly predictable. Golden knows this. So his answer, which Epig coded, feels false. It's like, he's trying to have a discussion and show the different facets of how he would come to a decision when we all kind of know that those facets are weighed by everyone in that position. Golden, in short, made a lot of words string together to make it sound like he was saying something - in more real terms, he was playing the "part" of Civ Golden, which often works for him. But the odds are against him in fact being that.

But as for the lynch, I don't see how this makes Golden a lynch target. We all have to post our thoughts, and say things, and get through this awkward part of the game where we have abilities but no guiding purpose. A clan, but no team. It's a weird feeling, so really, if someone is participating and at least trying to contribute, even if it feels false, it's good enough for me for Day 1. I want this game to be legend, the series' cred demands it, and I'd rather vote for a lame-o non-poster than an active one for now.

@Bea, lol, I was caught off guard by that as well.

Canucklehead wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?

I literally ask myself this question at least once a day.

No one needs Dave Coulier once a day. Even Dave Coulier would like a break from seeing Dave Coulier once a day. Bob Saget, though... I'd buy that man a pint any day.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

aapje wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

It appears everyone who starts with the letter T is invited.

Canucklehead wrote:I like JJJ's idea of having everyone state how they would approach recruitment, and it is veryveryvery interesting to me that everyone seems to be saying some version of "I'd recruit a good player who is generally under-the-radar". That is almost precisely the opposite of how I would approach the task. Here are the main (and possibly only) factors I would consider as a baddie recruiter:
1) Will the person be fun to hang out with/play with in baddie chat?
2) Does the person have a history of/reputation for big moves and skilled play?
3) Does the selection of the person make for meaty WIFOMing? (for example, I would be very likely to pick loud, well-known players over under-the-radar players purely for the WIFOMability; likewise, I'd be veryvery tempted to recruit players that seem antithetical in style to each other or who have a history of rivalry simply because no one would expect it, therefore everyone would it expect it, so no one would actually expect it, so everyone would it expect it.....and on and on into WIFOMy infinitum)

As a CIV recruiter, however, my choices would be based on a different criteria set, mostly because as a civ leader I'd feel more of an obligation to play a smart game since more other people would have their winning chances affected by my recruitment choices. Also, since BTSC wouldn't be a factor (I assume the civ recruits don't get BTSC, and the baddies do..... but maybe that's an unwarranted assumption), my #1 criteria of chatroomfuntimes would be essentially moot, so I'd be more likely to recruit based on perceived skill, track record, and history of not stirring drama (and thus getting themselves lynched).

Lots of linkitis. Posting now, reading after.

^I agree with all of this. 100%.