The Syndicate

Given I know my presence will be sporadic the next few days, I knew I wouldn’t have a chance to check this game at any point tonight, nor would I necessarily feel like it, so I have utilized my lunch period to do so. I might try and do this in the future if at all possible because I do NOT want to fall behind.

Also, sometimes I really don’t feel like mafiaing; I notice my mood is fluctuating heavily. I'm glad I voted when I did last night because thereafter was not particularly enjoyable. So I will only be reading and subsequently posting if I feel like playing -- and considering I don't want to fall behind, I had nothing better to do during lunch, and my emotional level is currently at stable levels, that is why I'm here.

I must say, wow, what a result. That is awesome. Now to use this and figure out where to go from here... this will be the challenge. The few times I’ve actually seen baddies lynched on Days 1 and 2, chaos ensued thereafter, with tons of misdirection, and subsequent lynches were civvie-dominated. We need to try and avoid that if at all possible, but it won’t be easy. But for now, I am quite pleased the first player eliminated is a baddie.

Here’s the million dollar question. Would a teammate of Elo’s have attempted to save her, thrown her under the bus, or specifically avoided to comment on her altogether and throw off a different direction? Food for thought.

Snow Dog, to address your question (I am not going to go back and quote all the posts I want to address here due to time, so sorry), I thought that as a civvie; if castle were the civvie option, maybe I would receive something from it, despite having no info.

Kate, a declaration and then also a question for you. First, the declaration, and this goes to everyone. If you believe me to be most worthy of your vote, then vote for me. Don't feel bad because of my situation; I don't want special treatment. I'm not even saying you or anyone else would even think of giving it to me, but I wanted to be blunt regarding it. I request no sympathy; I only have provided and continue to provide context because many of you are very close to me and constitute all the different avenues of my life (RL and internet and all the subsections of both) and, as such, this community means a lot to me, AND because I had no idea if I even would have the desire or the time to continue playing at any moment, etc. It is relevant to my participation level. It's no different than when I was complaining about how much the CPA sucks or whatever else I usually say. I generally am vocal about such things when I feel they are relevant.

Now for the question. You believe my vote to be nonsensical and yet that means I was the best possible player to receive your vote, and thus I am most likely to have nefarious intentions. Can you explain how that connects? Because I’m afraid I don’t understand how that makes sense. Additionally, I clarified to Mata, but I realize I’ve posted a TON, so I’ll repeat it so that hopefully you can understand (didn’t intend on being unclear, so sorry). I have no thoughts on Vompatti, or at least I did not at that time. There were only two votes at the time, one for me, and one for Vompatti. I disagreed with Gleam’s observation and questioned him. My vote had nothing to do with Gleam’s reasoning. However, I literally had no reasoning to vote for anyone. I was not going to randomize, and I’ve gunned after players based on my interpretation of early events enough as a civvie and lynched them incorrectly (myself as a civvie and them as a civvie) that I do not want a repeat of that again, if I can avoid it. Since I wanted to possibly obtain the most information I could about baddies from my vote, as should be the case with any civvie, I voted for Vompatti, since he already had a vote, as I wanted to see what would happen -- would a bandwagon form against him? Or would no one else vote him and someone else would take the blunt of the votes? More importantly, and this is what I thought was most likely to happen based on where the game discussion was at that time, if the vote was massively spread, would players try to save Vompatti (or fake us out by trying to look like they were saving Vompatti) in the event of a close vote, or would he get thrown under the bus?

I believe the Day 1 voting behavior by everyone, despite being across the board, convoluted, and perhaps difficult to ascertain true intentions, will actually be good fodder for analysis, and I stand by my Vompatti vote. I apologized in advance to him if he was a civvie and it did get him unfairly sacrificed, but fortunately (again, assuming he’s a civvie, I have no idea), that did not happen.

Now if he is a baddie, that would be interesting, now, wouldn’t it?

Dom, in fact, I actually did advocate that the poll was player-driven instead of alignment-driven for quite some time, and argued that I firmly believed the poll to be six players receiving info and it directly helps those players only (but indirectly, also, the alignment they are on). Given Daisy’s clarifications, my wacky theory is out the window, and I am more so entertaining the possibility this could be an alignment-split poll. But I do still consider that it could have been a simple enough six random players received info and it helped only them, or even six pre-selected ones. I just so happened to previously think the six pre-selected roles before were the six that seemed to correspond obviously with the options, but now we know that to be false.

There were a lot of interesting votes this past day period; certainly they require analysis.

There are a few players that have raised my suspici-o-meter... I’m especially keeping an eye on them. I’m not mentioning them until the next day period, however, for good reason.

There are also a few players I feel pretty good about at the moment, but do not want to paint a target on their backs. That said, I still heavily entertain the possibility of any of these players being bad, and I’m trying to work through all these possible theories in my mind to determine whether my reads are as accurate a guess as I can make or not. I would love to have feedback, but again, will mention these in the next day cycle.

If other players didn’t notice, I’m sort of trying to draw out attention with regards to every of my actions this game. I wonder why.

Anyway, I agree there is strength in numbers. In fact, it makes the most sense for every single one of us to vote the same option, given Trogdor can only pick one number, and within that number, only one player will be randomly selected to die.

Considering medicine hut is the place to be, I am there!

I don't have time to fully catch up currently, and won't likely be back for a while, but Mata, to address your concern: I said I was voting Vomps to see what would happen. I had no information on Day 0 and I don't agree with Gleam's reasons at all (I even said earlier in my post that I disagree with his assessment). I have no particular feelings on Vomps at this moment and did not endorse anyone else voting for him. I wanted to see if anyone else would. I believe I stated these.

It seems, instead, we have a pretty spread out vote, which I was thinking would probably happen. Should be interesting to closely watch the votes roll in, on reflection.

Linki: Seems I'm stuck here another few minutes, thanks Snow Dog.

If Castle was indeed the civvie option, I was hoping it would provide me some sort of confirmation that it indeed was so, such as an extra vote on Day 1, or something similar. That has happened on other occasions.

Thanks everyone. I hate bringing in bad news like that to the game arena, but it really caught me by surprise and I am sure will unfortunately prove to be relevant to my future level of participation (as will work and studying, which keep me much busier during the week than on the weekend, just a heads up). I’ll try to keep up as much as possible, assuming my mood and schedule both permitting, but I apologize to our host and all of you in advance if I fall behind or vanish for a while, which may be quite likely. With the funeral and other things planned this week (such as my Kansas concert), I don't know how much I'll be around this week/weekend... but considering I'm a mafia addict, I'm sure even my schedule and even this news won't keep me away entirely. Just a warning nonetheless.

First off, I’ll try to keep this as short as possible yet address everything I want to... which means it probably won’t end up being short by most of players’ standards, but I am trying my best! I had this game on the back of my mind at work today, so despite coming home to what I did, I still feel at least some desire to continue playing this game.

It is a very interesting development that Daisy has now confirmed what she has regarding the poll. Never before have I been more pleased to see a theory of mine to be debunked. I suppose we can chalk that up to the crazy paranoid category for my record book, though now I might just have an idea for a future game I host.

But back on topic, I agree then that there’s no harm in discussing information on Day 0 any further, so we should go forward with it if it is deemed beneficial. And sorry for derailing the thread, if anyone perceived it that way, but I was really getting into the discussion, and honestly that’s the most fun I’ve had picking apart possibilities for a Day 0 poll in quite a long time, which says quite a bit.

I agree that, now that we know the poll was more of a typical alignment poll (I suppose I shouldn’t have bet my life again, correct? Bummer), I do think there must be players lying, and I could see civvies lying as well in addition to baddies, even though that seems less likely to me. That being said, even though it might be difficult to discern who is lying about it, I want to stress I no longer see too much particular harm in discussing all of it.

I realize I overreacted to mentions of my name, but what can I say, I pretty much always become very attached to games I become invested in, and sometimes I become really intense (other players who’ve played with me even only a few times, but especially over the years, can vouch for this). It’s also pretty much in character for me in general; what I do really get into, I certainly attempt to give my absolute all. Consequently, it can be frustrating for me to get a ton of suspicion early on in games, so my reaction is far from out of character. It’s rare for me to advance to games beyond even the midpoint anymore, let alone to endgame; out of the many games I’ve played since '10, I'm pretty sure can count the number I've won on one hand. Again, I don’t play to win, but given how much I’ve been enjoying this game so far, I was upset to feel that no one seemed to be believing me and that I’d be gone so soon, especially since I love the theme as well. So hopefully that explains my train of thought if it wasn’t already clear.

On that note, Devin and others, regarding the discussion whether a mafia game is enjoyable or feels like a chore – I understand this. Even though I personally prefer when games get intense, if I am low on time and fall way behind in posts, especially the first few day periods, it can feel more like a chore to me at that time than not, and sometimes leads to me being replaced, which I hate doing. That said, I hope no one becomes discouraged this game just as a result of my incredibly long or intense posts nor anyone else’s; I hope everyone has fun because that is the point of the game. A mafia game can be like a roller coaster, so even if you don’t feel quite invested at the moment, don’t let it go, keep playing.

Gleam’s comments are interesting, though I entirely disagree in that I personally think most of us likely do not have information (except, by extension, all of the baddies). I have a question for you; do you think some players who said they did not have information were lying then?

Devin, you were not the one person to which I was referring as suspicious. I threw out suspicions of you earlier to bait payers (because I love doing this) and wanted to see if anyone would latch onto a suspicion of you and run with it, despite the risk that I have no idea which alignment you are. Interestingly, no one really did. What does this tell me about your alignment? Nothing, for now, but it was an interesting experiment, designed more so to attempt to incriminate or bait others more so than you, but didn’t quite work out that way.

Llama, I appreciate your clarification, so thank you. I understand and agree with your sentiment; I will not be voting for a major poster today because I don’t have a particularly BADDIE screaming read on any of them (I don’t have that on any of the players, but I agree it’s better to let the feelers do their thing for a day or two at least). Also, for what it’s worth, I try to model my baddie game off of my civvie game as much as possible, so I suppose your comment elucidating that my posts read similar to my baddie game is telling to my success in that regard (though I'm sure I have unintentional tells one way or the other, but no one will ever know!), but it additionally can be a bit frustrating as a civvie, and especially when I have my record of as many baddie roles as I seem to receive. The first 8 or 9 out of 10 games I ever played I was baddie, and lately (since starting this site or so) it seems I’m having somewhat of a similar track record.

Mongoose, you described my behavior perfectly as a ‘light bulb’ moment. I just wanted to point out that perhaps you put it more eloquently in those two words than I had in my previous posts attempting to explain my behavior at that particular instance.

Leamiteo, you mentioned you had thought of a few other suspects; mind to voice more regarding that? Also, I realize you hadn’t yet voted for me, but considering you only mentioned me and your suspicion was seemingly substantial, you can understand my response. Mind to actually voice how my behavior makes me baddie? Because so far your thoughts seem rather vague (which is not intended as an insult, I just want to understand your train of thought better and see your suspicions become more concrete, assuming they are able to).

Juliets, Gleam has played less than a handful of games, I believe, and he was lynched on Day 1 in Mario and killed Night 1 in Bioshock. Before that... he briefly played my Classic Rock game over on TP and the two games over at ProgArchives (but the first of those was very simplistic and the second was very unconventional). I saw this was already addressed, but thought I'd add in the context. Gleam can correct me if I'm wrong here.

BDH, I understand I have firmly attracted your suspicion, but you’re wrong about me. If you want me to defend against any thoughts you have against me, I’d be more than glad to, but I’m afraid there’s nothing else I have to say than I have already, given you didn’t bring anything else to the table.

As to the one person I thought might be suspicious... it hasn’t really panned out, but I'm keeping my eye on them and if I have any reason to believe their intentions are nefarious I will certainly vocalize those (as with all the other players, as I am watching all of you ). I’m not really sure where to put my vote, but I should do it now, as I’m unsure when I’ll even be back here again.

Odd as it may seem, I think I am going to follow Gleam and vote Vompatti myself because I want to see what happens thereafter. I don’t necessarily endorse a bandwagon nor anyone else necessarily voting for him because I personally can't tell whether he's baddie or civvie at this point, but my vote has to go somewhere, and I refuse to randomize and have nothing even close to anything remotely solid on anyone currently. So in the lack of any real substantial candidates, I’d much rather gain some information by my vote (yay baiting!). Vompatti, if you are a civvie, I apologize in advance if this ends up getting you sacrificed, but hopefully and presumably that won’t happen – it should be interesting to see if anyone else does indeed actually vote for you or not and if so, who does so.

votes Vompatti

So I just found out my grandmother has died and I'm not feeling up to mafia at the moment, so I haven't caught up, sorry. I'll see if I feel up to it later tonight or something so I don't miss the vote, but I don't know yet. I guess this should be in OT green, but given it relates to my activity this game, I guess I'm keeping it normal color.

One last thought, I promise. But how I said before how I have no suspects, that's pretty much true, though for some reason I can't help but keep my eye on one particular person. I am not going to reveal who that person is, however, because whether I truly find them suspicious is dependent on how they act (or fail to) from this point forward.

It's not an about face; think about it. If there is even any remote possibility of what I am saying is true, why would we want to discuss Day 0 poll information any further? If on the off chance it is true, it only plays right into the baddies' hands. It's not a matter of 'let's expose some civvies!' I had no idea what the Day 0 poll was about, then you thankfully came out and said you had info, and given the percentage of people who admitted they had info versus those who didn't... and the way the votes fell... there is a remote possibility that there were six players who all received information and those players are civvie. If it isn't true? Then sure, that's possible... but why discuss it further? It seems very clear to me by (1) the fact that it's a Daisy game and (2) the setup of the poll that it makes very little sense that this was your typical alignment-aligning poll. In fact, I'd bet my life that it wasn't.

I'm not so much trying to convince you, but those who are grabbing their pitchforks against me should consider it -- or at the least I'll be very curious to see what happens to this thread while I'm gone today.

I agree, I want to hear from those who have hardly spoken.

Oh god, I used "it's". I clearly meant "its" inherent flaws.

Anyway, I apologize again for posting so much; I just got sucked so much into this game, and realized it would do the cause no good if I continued to domineer the thread... then of course apparently I'm suspicious no matter what I do. If this seriously gets me lynched this period, I am going to have to finally commit to my desire to revamp my civvie (and then, by extension, because I'll have to, my baddie) game because it apparently doesn't lead to my benefit nor my alignment's benefit, ever. It's a shame because I love putting myself out there, but what good does it do when I always fail?

I'll be at work now so at least I can get home, see the votes for me, and go on and do other things that I should have been doing yesterday.

In fact, looking through at my own posts before I left, I never once said to stop the discussion; only to do so regarding the Day 0 poll information and I believe my reasons were clear. Despite my declaration, I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head, I find it interesting that players believe that they could no longer then discuss information; of course, they were free to, but personally I found/find it incredibly unworthwhile at this point.

Not only that, but I never once stifled discussion regarding suspects; in fact, I was hoping to see much discussion regarding that while I was gone.

So how could a certain few individuals actually so strongly see my intentions as nefarious at this point in time? Is it because they are misguided civvies or are they truly nefariously trying to start a bandwagon against me? I'm undecided.

I have to say, I find it that Leamiteo and Dom, both of which I am very happy to be playing this game with by the way (as well as everyone else, of course), seemed to express incredibly confidently that they'll be voting my way, yet we still have an entire 24 hour period to go, and I believe it was because I seem so controlling. Right, because that's indicative of my behavior one alignment or the other, and isn't just how I like to be in general... I find it kind of interesting given how players were arguing that I was so baddie in MOTU right before my outing and so many players there were arguing it was because I was controlling... and that was right before I outed myself as a baddie.

What might be even more interesting is how llama says these two things:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: I think I need to step away from this discussion for IRL reasons and due to giving other players the chance to catch up and have the discussion shifted elsewhere. I want to see it organically develop... and I'm afraid I'm domineering it too much now; baddies would rather me keep talking and have me or someone else guide the lynch a very specific direction and then say what I or someone else said makes sense. I'd rather that not happen.

I am not sure I have been seeing civvie Alex this game, but this paragraph reassures me a bit, at least for the time being.

This at 4:41PM EST yesterday. Then...

thellama73 wrote:BDH, you've put your finger on why I am not entirely trusting of Alex this game. His big push for info followed by a big push for silence could easily have been a way from the baddies to plant some false seeds and create false trust, or just to gain knowledge about the civvies who had info. I like your contributions very much.

This at 8:07PM EST. Seems like a very subtle way to push the thread in my direction... but I can't tell whether it's just llama attempting to put his civvie feelers out or whether it is out of malice.

Llama, while I can understand your hesitation to trust me (which, again, I encourage, as it is mafia game after all, and if players fell into line trusting me just because I was contributing or 'controlling' so much, I would question that), why the change in gut feeling; do you mind explaining?

Anyway, I have to get ready for work now. As to suspects, I really have none of my own at the moment, I'm attempting to feel all of this out.

Linki: Snow Dog, you entirely misunderstand. Your contributions were incredibly helpful. So much, in fact, that I personally believe I have a good idea of exactly what happened in the Day 0 poll. Because of that, however, I don't want to discuss it any further. Does that make sense?

It's not about "remembering"... it's about the journey. I knew absolutely nothing about the Day 0 poll until you and Bullzeye revealed you had information. Then possible explanations for what happened on Day 0 began to surface, and then llama threw out the idea that six different players who were civvie could have received information corresponding to their options on the poll, and it's the idea that made the most sense to me at the time, and still kind of does... despite it's inherent flaws and very ballsy attitude. Just because I believe this to be a fair possibility, even in the face of more 'simple' and more 'fair' explanations doesn't mean I'm attempting to mislead or shut down anyone.

The very fact that you stuck your head out to assist the civvies is commended, and you and Bullzeye will not receive my vote today, as I stated earlier. I find it interesting though that others are not willing to see the same of me; I've done nothing but stick my head out this entire time, and it's gotten me nowhere.

And Elo, I'm very sorry you found me as rude, but I never had any intention of coming off as such. You just had clearly not caught up by the time you posted, as you were asking for other people to share their info (or maybe you had and just disagreed with me... which is fine), and so I spoke out of urgency because I did not want to contribute to the potential outing of civvies. Regardless of what anyone thinks of my hackbrained theory... on the off chance it actually is true and at some point we lynch a player who would be outed in the off chance that it is true, it only possibly confirms everything, which only helps the baddies more than it does us.

But anyway, I apologize for that. I suppose I know better now to "control" the thread. Maybe I should have just spent hours on my Sunday studying instead and not bothering actually contributing, like other 'helpful' civvies who will last until Day 10 because they follow the crowd and don't put themselves out there.

BigDamnHero wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

BigDamnHero wrote:This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

Do you understand WHY having people volunteer whether or not they received info is a bad thing? Because to me, it either sounds like you don't or that you don't care.

No, I really don't understand, so please help me understand. The ASSUMPTION that people are making is that ONLY CIVILIANS were given any sort of information pertaining to the poll. No if this were indeed true, then yes, I can see why people revealing they received info would be bad because it would be identifying roles we are inherently trying to protect. I by no means want to expose, sacrifice or otherwise endanger any of my civilian counterparts, but I can neither subscribe to this insane theory that one side has been given an unfair advantage over another in a game that is just in its early stages. Assumptions and theories are not the same things as truths or facts. I could formulate a theory that every single civilian player ONLY voted for the Castle option and therefore everyone else is a bad guy. Is it PLAUSIBLE? Of course, but that doesn't make it true or factual in any way. So I'm having a hard time buying into the theory that only civilian roles were given any information. At this point I don't care who has info or who doesn't or who voted why or whatever. What concerns me is that this single theory has been seemingly validated and made out to be the gospel truth to everyone so as to distract us from considering other possibilities. I can envision multiple scenarios where one of the bad guys would either admit or deny receiving info so as to forward their own agendas. The fact that MovingPictures began down a specific road of discussion only to put an abrupt and immediate halt to that exactly line of debate has me gravely concerned since he was one of the key people who began propogating what I'm going to refer to as the 6-civ theory. I see this as him trying to manipulate a situation wherein we think his actions are for the greater good of the civilians so as to give him a sort of credibility as being one of us.

I have many posts I could address, but considering I'm likely to end up dead this lynch anyway because I'm sure the baddies would love to have me gone... for more reasons than one... I did want to address this.

You, sir, are an absolute natural; there's no denying that. I look forward to playing many games with you in the future.

I'm not taking anything as gospel; in fact, that's incredibly out of my character. No, but I stumbled upon a theory whose existence I believe is possible to be true, and because of that fact, I would rather not on Day 0 attempt and try to test it to be true, considering that fact. I never once said I believe it to be 100% true (in fact at one point I recognized this fact), but the very fact that it at least has a 1% possibility means that I am willing to accept it as a possible explanation for the Day 0 poll, and considering Daisy, it's something I could very much see her doing, which means I honestly believe it is a more than 1% chance that is the kind of setup we're seeing.

Would it be unconventional? Sure. Very much so. Does that mean she didn't do it? No, not necessarily.

And to all of those who said I seemed 'controlling', think again. I was merely trying to put all of my thoughts out there, as I have nothing to lose but my life, and as I always do, and then we were discussing Day 0 theories, and I came upon where it would no longer be advantageous to share information -- I believe my train of thought is pretty clear to follow, but perhaps it isn't. That said, I find it difficult to believe my actions to be so incredibly suspicious as to throw a vote in my direction...

If you don't believe me, then I don't know what else to say, but it's incredibly disheartening.

I actually threw out Devin towards the end there, without exactly suspecting him and having no clue as to his actual alignment, thinking baddies might have tried to attach to my abstract suspicion, and then this morning I could have pointed out, 'Ha! I knew at least someone was waiting around to attach to something I would say.', but I should have known better that someone would try and go after me, because I'm an incredibly easy target to lynched, game after game, especially when I'm civvie. It's especially wise because if I get lynched this period, the information will lead to absolutely nothing, because I've condemned no one. It's genius, really...

I see the bandwagon is already forming against me. What a surprise. Go ahead, lynch me, you'll receive no information from it, and I'll lose yet another game right off the bat.

Why do I even bother to contribute, ever, when people always misrepresent my intentions?

One last post because I happened to see it.

Elohcin: Catch up before posting again.

And Mongoose: I agree, don't use it as a starting point. It will be Erlatz 11 all over again. I am actually thinking I might vote Devin today... but I might not. I might vote MDH, but I might not. I might even vote for llama... but I might not. I might even vote for Player List...

I will mull on this and visit the thread when I have more time, and when I think it would be beneficial for me to do so. Seriously. Bye now.

Sigh. Linki with BDH: Please read my last 10 or so posts again. If you come to that conclusion again, think about it. I do not want to discuss info any further; it should be clear why.

Now let me go!

restricted their votes and suspicions*

Bah. Anyway, now gone. Had to fix that glaring typo.

Everyone will blend in now. Baddies will agree that my logic makes sense... so I hesitate to eye BDH necessarily, but I do think his actions are worth watching, very much so.

Anyway, be back at some later time. Hopefully much more very excellent discussion will be had by then, but I think we've exhausted many aspects of discussion, and I don't expect anything particularly enlightening to develop against any one particular individual. In fact, if that does happen, I will wonder, but I do want players to voice their thoughts and point out observations, even if it gets other players talking, as that is how you catch baddies.

Linki with Devin: Before I go... I find this post actually a bit pingy. I'm sorry, but did I miss where you posted your theory that this was true before llama and I stumbled onto it? I don't know, but this post reads so blendy in a baddie way to me. I'm not even sure I'll vote for you, but since you've returned to the thread, you're scaring me just a bit, I'm afraid it must be said, which makes me sad. That said, given you were the only one that voted your option... I'm not sure I'd want to vote for you either... but perhaps if you were a baddie you'd love to use that to your advantage, wouldn't you?

Oh, WIFOM, we meet again, my old friend.

No, suspicions must be set at zero. Everyone and anyone could be suspicious. I wouldn't recommend avoiding voting for someone that could be outed on the theory if I or anyone else believes them to be most suspicious.

Devin, I don't know what I think of you, actually, but I agree it might be worthwhile to use the castle bandwagoners as a lead. I'm not sure I'd start there, though... I would rather suggest going through the thread, seeing if anything pops out, THEN if their Day 0 vote was castle and seemed to indicate they gave no thought to the poll, then that might be good.

Using it as a starting point alone, while might be good to close down the number of players to examine, might prove to lead to logical fallacies similar to those exhibited in the good old Erlatz 11 back in my second mafia game ever in 2010: A Call at Arms on The Piano. Players restricted their votes and restrictions too much because we very confidently presumed Erlatz had to have recruited one of eleven players on Day 0... but it led nowhere good.

Anyway, now I am leaving, seriously. Be back later, thread!

God dammit, more linkitis! No, seriously, I am gone. Bye. Not responding!

thellama73 wrote:Alex, do you find it odd that BDH is encouraging people to talk about their info, while you are discouraging them?

I do... Given that person is brand spanking new, I'd really, really rather not vote for him, but it is possible he is baddie as much as it is anyone else (all glory to the wonderful randomizer!), so I am conflicted.

I am not set on voting anyone over anyone else at this moment, other than what I have just recently said that I will not be voting Snow Dog or Bullzeye. That much is clear.

I think I need to step away from this discussion for IRL reasons and due to giving other players the chance to catch up and have the discussion shifted elsewhere. I want to see it organically develop... and I'm afraid I'm domineering it too much now; baddies would rather me keep talking and have me or someone else guide the lynch a very specific direction and then say what I or someone else said makes sense. I'd rather that not happen.

That said, we need to discuss suspects, but that will develop in due time. I will make an assessment at that time, but considering castle voters who bandwagoned, players who are very clearly more so seeming as though they are avoiding discussion for possibly nefarious reasons, or even those who are participating for nefarious reasons, might be better leads... even though it is Day 1 and we're bound to not come onto anything particularly enlightening (unless it's by chance).

BigDamnHero wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: So you had info when your option didn't win? So deaisy did mix it up a bit.

No I was told what 'my' option was beforehand, and it did not win. I'd be interested to see if Dom also had info, I believe he was the only one who voted the same as me.

This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

No. Why the hell would you want anyone to talk about their info now?

I understand you're new... but please think about what I've said and consider it.

I very, very strongly urge people to not discuss info or Day 0 poll any longer. I think it is very logical to conclude to discuss it any further would be against the civvies' best interests.

Anyway, I am not 100% confident that the grand 6-tiered civvie theory is true; in fact, it would be very strange, but it is a possibility, even if remote. There are other possibilities to this poll, given the number of players who didn't weigh in and the fact that some could be lying. However, given the fact that the theory is even a mere possibility, I firmly believe we should shift discussion away from Day 0 theory mongering, and that we not vote for Snow Dog or Bullzeye today. Or at least I won't be voting for them, but that's just me. If they have pulled some grand elaborate baddie scheme, that will be revealed in due time, with their intentions... as it normally would be otherwise. For Day 1 purposes, a lynch of either of them could either prove fruitless (disproving the theory and leading nowhere if we all vote for one or both of them) or dangerous (possibly proving the theory). Either way, it's bad news.

If I'm missing something, I'd prefer to hear it, but otherwise if other players are in agreement, I say let's continue this Day 1 otherwise. I stand by my thought that if I can find a good player to vote for who bandwagoned into castle, I think that's where I'm going today... but there is still plenty of time and plenty of things could happen.

But I'll shut up for now, considering I'm sure many players would love for me to do so.

And Devin, I know there's a lot, but I don't encourage anyone to skim the pages. We have until Tuesday morning. I understand busy schedules (I even have one myself, believe it or not, but it's Sunday and I'm greatly procrastinating many things because this Day 1 is so enthralling), but I don't think skimming would be wise for anyone, if at all avoidable. A new set of eyes could expose something someone like myself might have missed.

Devin, one thing. If you completely randomized, as you say, that is interesting, because you were the only one who voted your option.

If the grand 6-tiered civvie theory is true, this means the player who benefited from that option is either you, and you are lying, or could have easily deduced this could bite them in the ass later on and threw their vote off elsewhere... if I were that player, I would have questioned that I would benefit from such an option because this poll did not seem to make much sense as an alignment-type poll as is typical in most games.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: As such, I think it would be fruitful to avoid lynching Snow Dog or Bullzeye, because if we lynched one of them and they came up King of Town and Strong Sad, we'd have a double edged sword. We could propose that certain players could be certain roles based on this information, but so could the baddies.

The very fact that this could actually be exactly what happened scares me but also is very thrilling.

I don't think I want to lynch Snow Dog or Bullzeye today.

I completely agree.

If this is true, the very fact that we split the vote up is actually harmful but also helpful for the civvies... but I think it is more harmful. The baddies can NK and vote. Civvies only have votes. So even if we could figure out who certain players are, and these players were all the civvies that corresponded to the poll options as would logically make sense, this would be bad.

However, maybe this isn't the case at all. It's an incredibly ballsy Day 0 poll by Daisy, if it is, so I would applaud her, but it's also unfair if we came to this conclusion and if the only players who didn't vote castle were the exact roles who would be destined to receive that information. Maybe she thought the vote would be more spread, but not completely spread.

That being said, there are just as easily other theories that make sense -- there could be any number of players who received information. Maybe only Bullz and Snow Dog did. Maybe more than six players did and some are lying and some haven't said.

Either way... I think this discussion needs to end and I don't want to find out whether this theory is true.

No one else please say whether you had information or not. PLEASE. Thank you.

Moreover.... for suspects... it might be worthwhile to dig into players who otherwise may seem suspicious (assuming we can even find that... it's Day 1, we might not be so lucky), or who otherwise are refusing to discuss, that fit into the criteria of bandwagoning into the castle, or even stick, crowd (but more likely castle). Because on the off chance the theory is true, baddies would surely have not had info, and not given the poll much thought.

Hold on. Bullzeye, you said you disagree with the theory. Do you still think it's not true?

I'm not sure I want this theory confirmed or not. As far as it's not confirmed, it's just a theory... the baddies would benefit from it being confirmed.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: No i got my info after the poll. i was told I;d get the info if Castle won. It seems you got your info re4gardless. I find this suspicious.

Can you not see that "if the King's Castle wins, you will receive info" is itself info?

Thank you! This is exactly the misunderstanding here between both of them. As far as I'm now concerned, they are both telling the same exact scenario.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, you know Snowie well, is there anything you can think of that would clear him or is it perhaps that we misunderstood his posts and he wasn't clear enough? This wouldn't be the first time I would see Snow Dog lynched for unclear wording or for people misunderstanding what he was trying to say.

I can imagine it just being unclear wording, as that has happened to me in the past, but I still think it looks suspicious. Not sure if I'm ready for a vote yet. I definitely think he is a gutsy enough player to have tried such a ploy. Also, he is Welsh, so he can be forgiven for not speaking English properly. :P

MovingPictures07 wrote: That being said, we could have come upon a scenario where Snow Dog is definitively baddie, and as such, I'm thinking maybe we should all just vote for him today and go from there.

However, before we reach that point, I want to hear more regarding your theory that I extrapolated, and I want to consider all of the options and perhaps hear from others (unless we decide that's too dangerous given the aforementioned theory).

It is easy for me to imagine that the King would be told "If your castle wins the poll, you will get info" and analogous things for the other roles. I would advise other people who have info not to say so yet, because if Snow is the King, then the baddies already know and it is too late to do anything about it, but the others are still safe for the time being.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Snow is either a baddie who slipped or the King who garbled his message. If he is the king, and is not lynched, he might not be NKed because the baddies would want to frame him. If he is a baddie, he will not be NKed by his own team, but might be by the other. I don't know whether we should lynch him or not.

I don't think only civvies getting info is unfair. Info is of limited value, and I have been in plenty of games where only the baddies get it.

You are exactly right. However, given how many players bandwagoned onto castle, that eliminates other players' role identities fairly easily, wouldn't you think?

As such, I think it would be fruitful to avoid lynching Snow Dog or Bullzeye, because if we lynched one of them and they came up King of Town and Strong Sad, we'd have a double edged sword. We could propose that certain players could be certain roles based on this information, but so could the baddies.

The very fact that this could actually be exactly what happened scares me but also is very thrilling.

I don't think I want to lynch Snow Dog or Bullzeye today.

Linki with llama: Lol, I just wanted to make sure you knew I'd address your points in a second.

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: How would it be unfair? Maybe the benefit was something simple and would have only benefited the individual himself or herself (but by extension, the civvie cause in general). Think about it... talking about all of this could benefit either side, which is why I want to be careful, if it even is true. It seems to be a logical explanation for the Day 0 poll, not the only, mind you, but I haven't seen anything to debunk it yet...

The thing is if every option is a civ option then no option is a baddie option. So the civ cause definitely does receive a benefit while the bad teams definitely don't. On the other hand it does mean baddies can't be caught out pushing their option but I just don't think I agree.

Linki Snow - The 'info' I got was that my option needed to win. Nothing more.

No, but you see, baddies can win just as much or even more so than civvies win in this scenario. Say the winner gets an extra vote or something silly. Then there is pointless analysis because baddies never were pushing for an option because they never had one!

I could easily see this being something Daisy would do and it logically lines up with everything provided so far. I am assuming this theory is very possibly correct unless given reason to think otherwise.

Because of that, NO ONE ELSE say anything about whether you had info or not, from this post there forward, please.

Llama, I'll address youin a second.

I looked back at Snow Dog's posts and read them all in order, and it seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the word "info". I think I get it now.

I'm not so sure he's a baddie caught in a lie. He could be... but I think he's telling the truth, assuming Bullzeye is. Not sure it means both are civvie... but I hesitate.

Mongoose wrote:Watch the Who is Online feature. Not at this moment, but there have been lots of our MIA vets that have been checking in today and then not saying anything. Does anyone find this suspicious? Maybe some ghosting behavior going on, because I've noticed more guests viewing the forum than usual.

linki - I think it would be weird if only civs had poll information. It ties up too nicely too. It doesn't auto make Snowy bad though. I feel like Snowy is just being careful in what he says so he doesn't rule break. There's probably only so much he can say.

You could be right, Mongoose, but I'm not sure. Again, it goes back to the real life v. mafia balance, so I hesitate to make inferences there just yet. Something to keep in mind though -- I think it just emphasizes that it would be better to hear from particular individuals, and I agree.

It would be weird, but think about it. Wouldn't it make sense? And I'm beginning to think more and more it's something Daisy would do...

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Bullzeye, I agree entirely. I'm still a bit hesitant because I'm not sure if it's because Snow Dog just misrepresented what he was saying, but it seems it could be damning. I was thinking that same thing myself. What's going through my mind is every possible way Snow Dog could NOT be a baddie and screw that up, if he is lying. If he is lying, things could be looking bad for him, but I want to make sure I consider if there's another way just in case we all bandwagon Snow Dog and he ends up being civvie -- because that would lead us nowhere.

However, before we discuss who had or did not have information any further, what do players think of what llama came up with regarding the theory? If somehow that is actually true... I don't think we'd want other players to necessarily say they had info from here on forward, would we?

This is important because I want other players to come in and attempt to corroborate Snow Dog and Bullz, assuming they are both truthful, but at the same time, if llama's theory that we have six civvie roles who received information is true, I don't want to risk narrowing down and outing those players.

Would Daisy even set up a poll so incredibly ballsy like that? One that could so clearly out a civvie if we came to this conclusion and tested it?

If six civs had info isn't that a bit unfair to the baddies? They deserve just as much a chance to win as we do so I'd think they'd have info as well.

Linki Mongoose - That sentiment is exactly why I'm invisible on all mafia sites. Sometimes I'll be logged in in one tab and doing something else in another, or playing a game on Steam, or not even at my laptop and sometimes people just don't have anything to say.

How would it be unfair? Maybe the benefit was something simple and would have only benefited the individual himself or herself (but by extension, the civvie cause in general). Think about it... talking about all of this could benefit either side, which is why I want to be careful, if it even is true. It seems to be a logical explanation for the Day 0 poll, not the only, mind you, but I haven't seen anything to debunk it yet...

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Yeah, that is weird.

I agree. Looking back at Snow Dog's posts, it's a ballsy move... but one that I think he would consider doing as a baddie. I'm very intrigued by this development.

Llama, you know Snowie well, is there anything you can think of that would clear him or is it perhaps that we misunderstood his posts and he wasn't clear enough? This wouldn't be the first time I would see Snow Dog lynched for unclear wording or for people misunderstanding what he was trying to say.

That being said, we could have come upon a scenario where Snow Dog is definitively baddie, and as such, I'm thinking maybe we should all just vote for him today and go from there.

However, before we reach that point, I want to hear more regarding your theory that I extrapolated, and I want to consider all of the options and perhaps hear from others (unless we decide that's too dangerous given the aforementioned theory).

BigDamnHero wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:If SNow is not lying about his info, it would madness for a baddie to admit to it when everyone else is denying it. If he is not lying. I would expect at this point that each option had one role associated with it (the attributions would be fairly obvious) and that they are the ones who received info.

This is incredibly sound and I'd love to believe this is true. However, I'm hesitant because I wonder if Daisy would consider doing anything like that since obviously this could lead to the outing of players and their roles.

If it is somehow true though, we might want to be careful about how we discuss this any further, correct? Bubs, King of Town, Marzipan, Strong Sad, Coach Z, and Strong Bad are all civvie roles.

So if your theory is correct, this would mean 6 different civvies received information, baddies did not, and Trogdor did not.

If your theory is correct, I am glad we have uncovered the meaning of it, but I'm also a bit scared since outing civvies roles is not exactly something I want to do.

Couldn't we test this theory somehow? Because if Snow Dog was King of Town, for example, and Bullzeye was Strong Sad, this would be great to know as it would put their posts in context, but... would we even want to is the question... since then not only would the civvies know (which would be nice), the baddies would know as well.

I'm sorry, but I don't seem to be following your logic here. Why would you think 6 civillians would receive any sort of information and no one from any of the bad guy teams? And why would it be those 6 roles that received info? I'm just trying to understand the thinking behind this.

Let's say each option corresponds to a role as they have in their descriptions... i.e., Bubs' Concession Stand corresponds to Bubs. With Strong Sad corresponds to Strong Sad. At King of Town's Castle corresponds to King of Town.

If only six players received information regarding the poll, it is possible that six different civvies (the ones that correspond to their option in the poll, assuming "at the stick" corresponds to Strong Bad) received information regarding what could be a beneficial option for them before the poll began.

However, this would out those six players as civvies, and not only that, exactly which civvie they could be, especially since so many players voted for castle.

Does that make sense?

Bullzeye, I agree entirely. I'm still a bit hesitant because I'm not sure if it's because Snow Dog just misrepresented what he was saying, but it seems it could be damning. I was thinking that same thing myself. What's going through my mind is every possible way Snow Dog could NOT be a baddie and screw that up, if he is lying. If he is lying, things could be looking bad for him, but I want to make sure I consider if there's another way just in case we all bandwagon Snow Dog and he ends up being civvie -- because that would lead us nowhere.

However, before we discuss who had or did not have information any further, what do players think of what llama came up with regarding the theory? If somehow that is actually true... I don't think we'd want other players to necessarily say they had info from here on forward, would we?

This is important because I want other players to come in and attempt to corroborate Snow Dog and Bullz, assuming they are both truthful, but at the same time, if llama's theory that we have six civvie roles who received information is true, I don't want to risk narrowing down and outing those players.

Would Daisy even set up a poll so incredibly ballsy like that? One that could so clearly out a civvie if we came to this conclusion and tested it?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Either way, I want to hear more from Snow Dog and Bullzeye, if necessary, and I even more so want to hear from other players regarding whether they did or did not have information.

You misunderstand. I WAS told before the poll that if Castle won I would receive certain info. But I didn;t have to vote for it. I did vote for it to make it as certain as possible to win.

Oh, I see. That does change things.

So the distinction lies in whether the players who received info, who definitely received them PRE-vote, were forced to vote their options or whether they could choose to do so. And another possible distinction is whether the option needed to win for a player to benefit or whether such a player just needed to vote for it to benefit.

However, that is a not so exciting distinction, given it makes no sense that a player with info would NOT vote for their option.

Either way, I want to hear more from Snow Dog and Bullzeye, if necessary, and I even more so want to hear from other players regarding whether they did or did not have information.

Perhaps this Day 0 poll is more complicated than six players who received information before the Day 0 poll and had options that benefited them directly... Maybe some were offered information before the poll and some were told after the poll that their option did or did not win. And maybe there were more or less than six players in this case.

Or maybe someone is lying and there is a rigid explanation (either information was given out pre-poll closer to Bullzeye's information or it was given after-poll closer to Snow Dog's explanation).

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:It seems ever more likely that the theory that six different players, one each that was told to either vote a specific option or that one option would benefit them, is plausible. What meaning there is beyond that is the question -- and whether that actually is the case to begin with is also still questionable. But I think we at least are getting much closer to a solid understanding of what the Day 0 poll could mean.

Linki with Snow Dog: Typically, a player is told when Day 0 begins that they will benefit from voting a particular option or that if a certain option will win they will benefit. Did you receive such a notification?

Again, have to be careful what we actually discuss here; I don't want to break any rules. But I think discussing the fact that you had original info and nothing regarding whether you received any results at the end of the period is OK per what Daisy said earlier.

I received info because Castle won the poll. I didn't have to vote fpr it.

Very interesting. So no information factored into your consideration of castle?

Yet Bullzeye seems to be claiming information given to him factored into his consideration of his vote, which was not castle.

It seems ever more likely that the theory that six different players, one each that was told to either vote a specific option or that one option would benefit them, is plausible. What meaning there is beyond that is the question -- and whether that actually is the case to begin with is also still questionable. But I think we at least are getting much closer to a solid understanding of what the Day 0 poll could mean.

Linki with Snow Dog: Typically, a player is told when Day 0 begins that they will benefit from voting a particular option or that if a certain option will win they will benefit. Did you receive such a notification?

Again, have to be careful what we actually discuss here; I don't want to break any rules. But I think discussing the fact that you had original info and nothing regarding whether you received any results at the end of the period is OK per what Daisy said earlier.

Hedgeowl wrote:
My thought about Day 1 lynches is that I also wouldn't want to lynch a newbie. There seem to be several this game, so this only works for Day 1, but I remember that being a nice thing in the Thomas game. (Although I was a bit sad no one voted for me because I didnt get to use my secret power!)

I agree entirely; I will not be voting for a new player this first day period. I like that rule.

Hedgeowl wrote:Above was me cursing at the Submit button, not players.

Hmm, I voted castle based purely on the video, because it seemed logical. It would seem unfair to give players info that would make them want to convince people to vote castle, when the video itself would sway so many without info to vote for the castle. This makes me think that the info was not based on convincing others to vote to "win". In Super Mario, the Letter was hidden based on where Bowser voted (water), but that option did not win the poll.

I agree with the bolded and I am thinking that the options do NOT correspond to alignments for this reason and based on other recent developments.

thellama73 wrote:If SNow is not lying about his info, it would madness for a baddie to admit to it when everyone else is denying it. If he is not lying. I would expect at this point that each option had one role associated with it (the attributions would be fairly obvious) and that they are the ones who received info.

This is incredibly sound and I'd love to believe this is true. However, I'm hesitant because I wonder if Daisy would consider doing anything like that since obviously this could lead to the outing of players and their roles.

If it is somehow true though, we might want to be careful about how we discuss this any further, correct? Bubs, King of Town, Marzipan, Strong Sad, Coach Z, and Strong Bad are all civvie roles.

So if your theory is correct, this would mean 6 different civvies received information, baddies did not, and Trogdor did not.

If your theory is correct, I am glad we have uncovered the meaning of it, but I'm also a bit scared since outing civvies roles is not exactly something I want to do.

Couldn't we test this theory somehow? Because if Snow Dog was King of Town, for example, and Bullzeye was Strong Sad, this would be great to know as it would put their posts in context, but... would we even want to is the question... since then not only would the civvies know (which would be nice), the baddies would know as well.

thellama73 wrote:To be honest, the potential tradeoff between the info gained by a civvie lynch on day one and an early baddie lynch is thrilling to me. Which is better? It's almost impossible to say definitively, which allows for so many possibilities and various strategies in this game, all of which are equally valid. This is so much fun

I share your sentiments entirely.

The game is ever changing and developing, something entirely fascinating to me, and it can be the folly of civvies but also of baddies. I intend on taking advantage of this fact in order to best contribute to my team's victory and I hope that I live long enough to be able to effectively do so and enjoy the hell out of it while I do. I like to think I try to do that to the best of my ability every game I play, and I would think others do as well.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:All of that to say, llama, I think there should be careful consideration as to whether someone is a low poster due to purposefully trying to fly under the radar for nefarious reasons or whether it is purely for non-game related reasons, but that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such an assessment if it could be determined that it's the best possible way to throw a vote.

We have time.

As to the poll, I was hoping for more discussion along the lines of what I originally proposed. I know info receivers cannot speak about their info or their results, but did anyone else make their votes on Day 0 as I did: without any information and received nothing thereafter?

I thought they could speak about receiving info but not say what it was.

I believe you are correct, which is why I am encouraging players to speak up and help us understand where their Day 0 vote decisions came from, so that we can deduce if something is actually going on here or whether it is all a distraction, or some combination thereof.

OK. I had info

Yes, an interesting development at last! Thank you for sharing.

Now you voted for Castle. Let's make a set of assumptions on your behalf. Assume that my intentions are exactly as I have laid them out to be. I do not expect you to assume them to be; mafia is about skepticism, I would be shocked if you trusted me, especially so early on. But let's assume I'm being entirely truthful. I had absolutely no information, voted for Castle, and yet nothing happened, yet I claim to be on the civvie cause. Others have said the same (thellama73 and Mongoose both seem to follow this as well; speak up, either of you, if I am wrong here).

Now, please, without discussing whether you received anything as a result of voting Castle, and I'm going to assume you voted the option that best seemed to suit your interests because that is only logical to assume, can you perhaps elucidate as to whether you believe the six options corresponded to anything regarding alignment; OR do you think my theory regarding six different players receiving a corresponding 'option' that benefited directly only them (but by extension, also the other players who share their alignment) to be a possible explanation for what occurred; OR do you think neither of those is true and we're seeing something entirely different?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:All of that to say, llama, I think there should be careful consideration as to whether someone is a low poster due to purposefully trying to fly under the radar for nefarious reasons or whether it is purely for non-game related reasons, but that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such an assessment if it could be determined that it's the best possible way to throw a vote.

We have time.

As to the poll, I was hoping for more discussion along the lines of what I originally proposed. I know info receivers cannot speak about their info or their results, but did anyone else make their votes on Day 0 as I did: without any information and received nothing thereafter?

I thought they could speak about receiving info but not say what it was.

I believe you are correct, which is why I am encouraging players to speak up and help us understand where their Day 0 vote decisions came from, so that we can deduce if something is actually going on here or whether it is all a distraction, or some combination thereof.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: You're entirely right, but I don't think Mongoose or Elohcin have necessarily nefarious intentions in throwing out theories, do you? That's where I was confused because you seemed to be suspecting them.

I'm all for discussion; as I said previously, if it seems we've discussed the poll and there's nothing to be ascertained from such discussion, that's fine. I don't see why we can't talk about both items. I appreciate your initiative to attempt to bring up discussion on baddie hunting as well.

I don't know what their intentions are yet. I just thought I would explore the idea.

I feel a little bad now, because I really don't want to discourage conversation. I sincerely appreciate the level of contribution by Mongoose and Elohcin, and I hope they won't turn quiet now because of something I said.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Here's the thing about low posters. I largely agree with you; however, there are many reasons players could be low posters, especially so early in the game. I find the distinction between low and high posters, especially early on, to be decided often by circumstance, rather than alignment. For example, I've been there where I've signed up for a game and just don't have near enough time, and I've witnessed this happen to others as well, and they become an incorrect suspect just because of such fact.

In the lack of actual evidence, I can understand a Day 1 vote for that, and I may even vote for a low poster myself. But it's difficult to make inferences on that fact alone; it's also good to consider: whether anyone seems to parroting other players' ideas ONLY when they're posting or if they are not posting much but actually making insightful contributions; whether such behavior is normal for them to do so and whether they have provided substantive reasons for their absence; etc.

It's very unlikely we'll actually have solid evidence to find a baddie on Day 1, or even through Day 3, as the first few days can be like shooting in the dark, but I think we can both agree that it is imperative to avoid logical fallacies leading to bandwagons as well as outlandish, reckless behavior which will lead to civvie lynches and no leads.

Thus, suspecting Mongoose and Elohcin only because they threw out illogical theories tells me nothing about their alignment; suspecting you because you were the first to throw out suspicion on them likewise tells me nothing.

I'd much rather vote elsewhere and I refuse to vote randomly (only upon occasion, to prove a point, but it seems this point is too manipulated when I do so, so I'm not sure I intend on doing this again in the near future unless game circumstances support it being a likely way to vote a baddie instead of a civvie).

Yes, these are all good points. Thing I've noticed is that reywaS and Matahari have been participating quite a lot in the game over at RM, yet are quiet here. Could be that they only have time to focus on one game right now, could be a difference in tactics.

I also want to say something about bandwagons, a point I made over at RM recently. While, bandwagons can be dangerous things, a highly spread out vote on Day One basically guarantees a civvie lynch, because it only takes one vote for the baddies to tilt the balance away from one of their own. Whereas, if a bandwagon forms and we happen to pick a baddie, they have to either accept it or risk outing themselves by all voting the same way.

I've noticed when I'm in multiple games, especially when life is busy, I just cannot keep up. I'm willing to give any prospective player the BOTD especially early on, but obviously someone has to receive my vote at some point. You're correct it could be attributable to either of those reasons, and any subset of logic behind either of those reasons. Seems an awfully weak reason to vote for someone at this time, but I think considering as much as possible is probably beneficial.

Very astute observation about bandwagons. However, highly spread out votes can also have a flipside in that in certain circumstances they can also help uncover baddies once more information has been provided (see: MacGyver where Vompatti saved me; I was lynched, then it was deduced he was my teammate, and we fell apart).

I don't think we should make a conscious effort to necessarily avoid spread out votes or bandwagons; players should vote the way they want to, organically. But these are things to keep in mind for analysis.

BigDamnHero wrote:Wow...I just...yeah...

<scratches head>

So after our first poll we found out exactly nothing...is this common? I mean a few of you are theorizing that the answering machine clip has some relevance but without any context to reference I think we'd just be taking stabs in the dark (which is just about as dangerous as running with scissors). I can't think of the actual term (I wanna say it's a psychology , but there's an aspect of human behavior which makes us naturally want to assign meaning to ordinary events when there may not be anything more to them. We can try and ascribe significance to a multitude of things in that clip...

Maybe we answer Marzipan's abstract thought question: is a penguin a bird or a duck?
Maybe Marzipan, Strong Sad, Homestar & Strong Bad are important as they are the only characters heard in the clip.
Maybe we have to watch V.I. Warshawski to find the next clue.
Maybe one of us has to get run over by a lawnmower blade (NOT IT!!!!!).

I'm not trying to squash anyone's theory, but the reality is we won't know what we don't know until we know it....or something. For the time being, I'm just gonna file this in the mental rolodex under "weird stuff I don't understand just yet but might be important to remember later."

It is quite common, actually; usually the Day 0 poll's meaning is not known until further in the game, and sometimes not even known until postgame discussion. It all depends on how the host decides to set it up.

You're exactly right that in mafia you do not know whether something is necessarily evidence or not until it can be proved to be evidence, usually via linkage to some other player or some particular event/happening, and even then skepticism can be preferable, as baddies can behave in any way imaginable.

What I find intriguing is that sometimes early baddie lynches are more helpful, in the long run, to baddies, than to civvies. Not always the case, but consider these:

In Bioshock, BWT was lynched on Day 2, and barely so. The discussion for the following day periods was centered around whether his teammates would have attempted to save him or not; many concluded it would have been logical to do so since they could have really used his role as an asset and could have saved him, and then subsequently tried to assess whether he was a goner thereafter or whether more course correction could actually be successful.

However, BWT had two teammates. Ajira missed the vote entirely. Russtifinko avoided voting for either BWT or Aces (the major two vote receivers) and instead threw off to the third major vote receiver, Lizzy. This proved to be an excellent strategy, assuming Night 8 had never happened, because Russ would NEVER have been logically connected to BWT for quite a long time due to that decision, and as such he secured proper distance from ties to his then newly deceased teammate, without seeming too close or too distancing.

I notice the thread often goes into a frenzy after an early baddie lynch, so we need to consider whether links that are formed thereafter are really as sound as we believe them to be. I've seen too many games where subsequent "links" or leads, and I've even exercised this too much myself, were thought to be the most logical courses of action but in reality led to many subsequent civvie lynches and no new information.

On the flip side, see Classic Super Mario Bros., where my team and I avoided lynches for so long, and eventually fell apart completely after my lynch, because we failed to play our hands too close to the chest.

Mafia is a game all about manipulation and attempting to uncover such manipulation; even more so, it's about understanding and analyzing behavior and making inferences about such behavior. As such, there are incredibly many factors to consider in every decision, which can make many periods very analogous to feeling as though you're shooting in the dark, yes.

I hope this helps. Also all things to keep into consideration, even for veteran players, such as myself, as we are just as likely to lose sight of these things as new players.

Mongoose wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Okay, admonishment taken. But I still don't really have any baddie suspects to discuss? I thought analysis could take us to a baddie.



Also, the schedule was wrong and I ended up in a 60-minute ab class instead of the ballet fitness. So now I am either going to throw up or just lie on the floor. What kind of sadist teaches a 60-min ab class!?!

What are your feelings about low posters? I tend to like to vote for them on Day One, but other people think I am wrong to do so. The reason I like to is that I think it is an easy way for baddies to hide. I have seen very low posters make it all the way through games with no scrutiny due to flying under the radar. Also, I like to have fun, and the game is not fun if nobody is talking, so I prefer to vote of someone who is not talking over someone who is, all things being equal.

Well on one hand, I kind of think it sucks because people like me and you put ourselves out there, and often to our detriment (especially you). That said, I think there's just not a lot to say on Day 1. Everyone is getting their sealegs and hardly anyone has shown his/her hand yet.

Here's something I just thought of, and you might think it's silly, but I think it's worth putting out there at least. One of the Teen Girls has secret abilities. So does one of the Blue Laser bandits. Maybe 6 has something to do with their abilities. Maybe they can only be lynched by a lynch vote of 6. We don't know what either of those abilities are, but they are probably pretty good. I think we all need to keep Secret Abilities in the back of our minds when analyzing polls, votes, or potential baddies.

linki - MP: Yeah, I threw out something a little crazy, and then you brought it around to something more sensible. Eloh and I were just kinda thinking aloud. Maybe you or someone else would have taken that "illogical" reasoning and tweaked it or added to it to achieve something more cogent.

linki - MP: The only info I received was what was in the video, if you can call that info.

I agree. It is frustrating; I still have yet to even win a game since starting this site because I go out of my way to play the game as much as I can, and it often draws attention. Not that I play to win, mind you, I play to have fun, but it would be nice to win a game at my own site eventually.

That does seem like a bit of a stretch, but it's a thought, and I agree that keeping the fact that there are secret abilities in the back of our minds, especially in the future, when analyzing behavior could prove to be fruitful.

No worries, I understand. That is exactly how I play; every post I type up is literally just me thinking aloud. I think about the games that I am in constantly, and as a result, it leads to many thoughts and consequently many posts (assuming I have the time, of course). I don't fault you for contributing; rather, I applaud your attempts, and no one was trying to shoot anything down, just to point out observations regarding them. If llama or someone were to argue to me that they strongly believe your intentions to be nefarious for what you or I have done so far, I would question that assessment.

As I said, the civvies benefit from thinking aloud, but obviously baddies and the independent are just as welcome to chiming in. Thankfully, discussion, voting behavior, and other inferences can form as the game develops to root out the baddies -- and the more you exercise professional skepticism (you'll have to excuse my auditor/accountant mindset, but it's an apt comparison), the more you can attempt to deduce (successfully or not so much) whether someone is lying or not. Normally, that would lead to a baddie, but I've found instances where even civvies will lie (see: BoatsBoatsBoats last game), or not even lie so much as exaggerate the truth.

As such, exercising cautious reasoning and skepticism would behoove the civvie cause.

Thanks for your response; I look forward to seeing if anyone actually can attempt to explain this Day 0 phenomenon in more light; otherwise, it seems it may be useless analysis for the time being.

Linkitis with llama and BDH, hold on. Let me read these, but I want to post what I've typed up here first.

All of that to say, llama, I think there should be careful consideration as to whether someone is a low poster due to purposefully trying to fly under the radar for nefarious reasons or whether it is purely for non-game related reasons, but that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such an assessment if it could be determined that it's the best possible way to throw a vote.

We have time.

As to the poll, I was hoping for more discussion along the lines of what I originally proposed. I know info receivers cannot speak about their info or their results, but did anyone else make their votes on Day 0 as I did: without any information and received nothing thereafter?

Here and multitasking GMAT stuff, lol.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: I'm sorry, can you elaborate here?

While I agree many conclusions taken since my last posts have been dubious at best, how are they distracting us from searching for baddies? How many posts dedicated to concrete evidence towards finding baddies can you find before this discussion? Because I see about 0.

I find your finger pointing right off the bat to be of note. I'm not sure it's telling of your alignment, but I hesitate to see others jump on a bandwagon you create here.

Sure, happy to elaborate. Theories like "we should lynch the sixth person" or "we have to post six times" are not based on anything and completely pulled out of thin air. I don't see what is constructive about pursuing them.

You are quite right that there have been no legitimate baddie hunting posts, which was sort of my point. As long as people are talking about what the poll means (which I think is impossible to determine at this point) they are not talking about who to vote for. If we spend the whole 48 hours speculating about the Day 0 poll, then when it comes time to vote, we are certain to make a mistake. I can certainly imagine a baddie pushing such conversation with this motive, although I am not saying that is necessarily happening here.

I don't want to create a bandwagon, especially not this early. I want to shift the conversation onto more substantive things (which you have done nicely with your post addressing me. Thank you!)

You're entirely right, but I don't think Mongoose or Elohcin have necessarily nefarious intentions in throwing out theories, do you? That's where I was confused because you seemed to be suspecting them.

I'm all for discussion; as I said previously, if it seems we've discussed the poll and there's nothing to be ascertained from such discussion, that's fine. I don't see why we can't talk about both items. I appreciate your initiative to attempt to bring up discussion on baddie hunting as well.

thellama73 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Okay, admonishment taken. But I still don't really have any baddie suspects to discuss? I thought analysis could take us to a baddie.



Also, the schedule was wrong and I ended up in a 60-minute ab class instead of the ballet fitness. So now I am either going to throw up or just lie on the floor. What kind of sadist teaches a 60-min ab class!?!

What are your feelings about low posters? I tend to like to vote for them on Day One, but other people think I am wrong to do so. The reason I like to is that I think it is an easy way for baddies to hide. I have seen very low posters make it all the way through games with no scrutiny due to flying under the radar. Also, I like to have fun, and the game is not fun if nobody is talking, so I prefer to vote of someone who is not talking over someone who is, all things being equal.

Here's the thing about low posters. I largely agree with you; however, there are many reasons players could be low posters, especially so early in the game. I find the distinction between low and high posters, especially early on, to be decided often by circumstance, rather than alignment. For example, I've been there where I've signed up for a game and just don't have near enough time, and I've witnessed this happen to others as well, and they become an incorrect suspect just because of such fact.

In the lack of actual evidence, I can understand a Day 1 vote for that, and I may even vote for a low poster myself. But it's difficult to make inferences on that fact alone; it's also good to consider: whether anyone seems to parroting other players' ideas ONLY when they're posting or if they are not posting much but actually making insightful contributions; whether such behavior is normal for them to do so and whether they have provided substantive reasons for their absence; etc.

It's very unlikely we'll actually have solid evidence to find a baddie on Day 1, or even through Day 3, as the first few days can be like shooting in the dark, but I think we can both agree that it is imperative to avoid logical fallacies leading to bandwagons as well as outlandish, reckless behavior which will lead to civvie lynches and no leads.

Thus, suspecting Mongoose and Elohcin only because they threw out illogical theories tells me nothing about their alignment; suspecting you because you were the first to throw out suspicion on them likewise tells me nothing.

I'd much rather vote elsewhere and I refuse to vote randomly (only upon occasion, to prove a point, but it seems this point is too manipulated when I do so, so I'm not sure I intend on doing this again in the near future unless game circumstances support it being a likely way to vote a baddie instead of a civvie).

juliets wrote:Does daisy have a reputation for giving obscure clues to her players through her posts? I know not to expect the expected with her but has anyone played her games enough to notice obscure clues in her posts? This post is different from any post I have seen from a host so I really don't know what it means.

This is a good question; even knowing Daisy quite well, I honestly don't know the answer to this.

It is entirely possible that we're all being made the fool here and the explanation for the Day 0 poll is closer to what I posted this morning before Mongoose's observation. The very fact there are 6 messages on the answering machine could be nothing more than just a cute little reference to the fact that there were 6 Day 0 poll options.

Many of the theories being thrown out so far don't seem realistic to me. That said, I appreciate when players actually come out and participate in such discussion because it often leads to an unfortunate early civvie death and thus there are risks involved in doing so.

That being said, the idea that we should lynch the 6th player or other such inferences are completely ridiculous, IMO, and I will vote for the first person to cast their vote based on something so trivial and illogical.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Elohcin wrote:
@ Mongoose - I agree that was an excellent observation.

There are so many ways this could go with the 6 posts thing. There could be a prize for those who post 6 posts exactly, or a punishment. Or, like Mongoose said, maybe we are supposed to post at least six times. I have no clue, but I do think the number 6 is significant here somewhere.

What if we should vote for the 6th player? What if it is a clue to lynching a baddie. Bullz?

linki: llama beat me to the idea :/

Seriously? I'm not bad, but even if I was no host would ever out a player like that...

Agreed. I don't want to be seen as squashing discussion, but I find all this off the wall hypothesizing by Elohcin and Mongoose as suspicious, like they are trying to distract us from the baddie hunt.

I'm sorry, can you elaborate here?

While I agree many conclusions taken since my last posts have been dubious at best, how are they distracting us from searching for baddies? How many posts dedicated to concrete evidence towards finding baddies can you find before this discussion? Because I see about 0.

I find your finger pointing right off the bat to be of note. I'm not sure it's telling of your alignment, but I hesitate to see others jump on a bandwagon you create here.

Astute observation, Mongoose! See, I had not yet watched the video for two reasons: (1) I was hoping to only make a post and then get to studying for the GMAT because I didn't do any at all yesterday due to it being my birthday... I am unfortunately sucked into this game and still procrastinating, whoops, and thus intended on watching it this evening; and (2) I have already seen all of these videos in the past.

It cannot be a coincidence that there are 6 messages on the answering machine and 6 Day 0 poll options. I know Daisy and I have a very hard time believing she would play us so hard as to set that up as a meaningless lead.

I do not think your 6 posts in this day period theory is the correct one. It is an interesting discussion point, but not something I think is the correct interpretation in this case. I will let this new fact and your analysis sit because I need to go eat lunch and stop procrastinating on studying as I've spent more than my allotted time mafiaing this morning that I intended. I look forward to seeing further analysis from you and others regarding the matter, and I'm curious what you think regarding what I already had to say as well, Mongoose.

My current train of thought... It seems most likely to me that the poll was more complicated than one or more option benefiting a certain group. Perhaps only those with info were the only ones that could have benefited, and each of the six options corresponded to a particular player (six received info). In that case... it could be possible that the player that received the corresponding castle option could be civvie or could not be civvie.

I'm not sure how realistic that even is... and I'm not sure I even believe it to be the case. But that's what my gut is telling me could be a viable scenario.

Perhaps analyzing all of this is in vain, but I'd rather throw everything out there and determine it to be a useless factor in decision-making than to completely now avoid discussion on Day 0 matters. It's not like we have anything currently much else to discuss anyway.

I'm curious what others are currently thinking and what anyone else can bring to the discussion because unfortunately I have nothing other than pure speculation at my disposal. It is probably in the civvies' favor to discuss this so we can determine whether any of this Day 0 information is worthy of any consideration at all (I'm thinking that if it is, it might not be of too much use, but you never know); we just have to keep in mind that there are obviously two baddie teams and an independent TROGDOOOOOOOOOR that would certainly want to influence this discussion, so I am personally being very cautious at holding weight on anything that comes of this Day 0 discussion, and would recommend the same to others. Despite that, I always feel that civvies' best approach to have a chance at winning any mafia game is discussing, so I always encourage discussion.

All I want to say regarding the matter is that I had no information on the poll, and thus it did not factor into my decision, and I have not received any benefit at all from voting Castle. It seems, based on the fact that Daisy's only post was the answering machine one, that there is no publicly-made result of the Day 0 poll either.

Given Daisy said "those with info may not reveal what they were told", that makes me wonder. There had to be some outcome of the poll; I just have absolutely no idea what it was. I was kind of hoping voting Castle would allot me to receive something, but nothing happened.

I thus am not sure what to conclude.

Thanks for the birthday wishes!!

Daisy: Are we allowed to discuss anything pertaining to the Day 0 poll results (or possible lack thereof) of which we may be aware?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:All that I do know is it will be interesting to reflect back on all of this discussion (or lack thereof from certain players), assuming we find out what the castle option accomplishes.

The main reason I'm not really discussing it much is because right now it's all just guessing and intuition. If something concrete develops from it, then I would be apt to exploring the topic more.

Then again, I don't really get into the swing of a game until Day 0. And I usually don't start learning all the roles until Day 1 rolls around. :P

This is exactly how I feel. Until we know if there's anything concrete arriving from it, it's all shooting in the dark.

I'll await a response from our host before I say anything further on this topic, just in case.

BigDamnHero wrote:So if I'm understanding this correctly, there can be postive and/or negative consqeunces for choosing the right/wrong options? And someone(s) amongst all the players has knowledge of the locations?

The vote seems overwhelmingly in favor of the castle, but I haven't seen anything where people are trying to push votes in one direction or the other. I don't even think anyone's shown a strong conviction towards any particular vote either. As I (and multiple others) have stated, the castle seemed like the most straight forward choice based on the video. That being said, I'd be all for hearing about better options that may yield a (potentially) better outcome. I'm sure any number of you are more familiar with this cartoon than I am, so can you recall anything significant that may have occurred in/on/around any of the other locations?

Looking over the choices again, I noticed something that, in my mind, didn't really stand out until just now: Bub's concession stand. At least that's what I just kind of saw the choice as, but the wording is actually "In Bub's Concession stand INVENTORY." Being that Bub's role gives out things, maybe this option would give out a prize to one or more of us? I myself am particularly fond of prizes, however his role description also states he's a con man, which is a bad thing, and his inventory items may come with a high price attached to them, could be an even worse thing. So in considering this we have to ask ourselves, is the risk worth the reward? Do the ends justify the means? Is the juice worth the squeeze? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one? Are there any other colloquilisms i can insert here?

I'm perfectly content keeping my vote with the castle, but if somone could come up with a compelling enough reason to choose another option, I'd be willing to listen to the argument, but it would have to be something pretty significant (i.e.- "in episode 378 they found a bag of money stashed in a locker in coach z's locker room and they all ended up being millonaires with flying cars and gold houses"...I don't know if that really happened, but some sort of documented event like that.).

You, sir, are going to fit right at home here in mafia games. Impressive and gutsy analysis from a first-time player.

However, perhaps it is all overanalyzing at this point. I know sometimes as a host, I actually do have complex outcomes to polls that are discernable through much analysis, but other times my intentions are much more simplistic and I know the players are going to make them more complicated (the best example of this is the Bioshock Day 0 poll and plasmid usage in general, where some players -- which included those familiar and unfamiliar with the theme -- believed plasmid usage or accepting the Day 0 poll deal would lead to some unintended negative consequences, when in reality, it was nothing other than signing up to get a free item with no negative consequences).

It's thus tough to determine what this poll might have been accomplishing without anything concrete.

Snow Dog wrote:
Besides....three, is the magic numbeerrrrrrrr!

Not sure you're a fan of this at all, Snowie, but my mind totally went to this, whether you intended it or not:

All that I do know is it will be interesting to reflect back on all of this discussion (or lack thereof from certain players), assuming we find out what the castle option accomplishes.

Also, again, regarding the site, just wanted to let you all know that I'm working on it the best I can. Earlier issues were very clearly caused by bluehost, but regardless, I'm going to try and make sure to keep the site running as smoothly as possible on my end of things. Here's hoping we don't encounter any other issues beyond my control. If we do, keep me and/or LT informed (some of you know how to contact me elsewhere) so that we're aware of as much as possible. Thanks!

Welcome DFaraday! Sorry to see you go, Spaghetti, but hopefully will play another game with you soon!

Interesting analysis, bea. I can't say I can think of a game I've played with a team-benefit-option poll where there were two different civvie options, but anything's a possibility.

It might be too early to start speculating on voters who didn't vote for castle. That said, I fully understand your paranoia regarding the stick, though I do believe it never really had the momentum to win anyway, so on the other hand -- if it were a baddie option, why would they be so obvious voting for it, and without any particularly stated reason?

I am reserving judgment on what option corresponds to what, assuming the poll even is that simple (it may be something different entirely, but if that's the case, I have no clue what the options correspond to), until after it is over and we have a result. Hopefully there is a clear cut result and the castle option gives us actual concrete information to try and figure something out.

Mongoose wrote:Are Vompers and Lizzy not in any games right now? Maybe they just rode off into the sunset together.

We won't get to the Mayor of Town's Castle and then he'll say, "Sorry, but your Cheat is in another castle," will he? I might actually die. I hope we chose well.

Lizzy and Vomps are both playing this game, in fact!

Lol, that would be hilarious.