The Syndicate

Scotty wrote:ive been traveling to Canada all day today and am currently waiting for a connection flight to...somewhere. I don't even know what time zone im in right now. Halp.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm putting a vote on Scotty.

What is your reason for this?

Is it that he hasn't answered this post?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm going to restate my primary Scotty beefs for Scotty himself whenever he is available.

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:~ Scotty's efforts to communicate with Golden and facilitate his involvement in the continuing dialogue was a decent look. I was able to work with the methods they employed myself, though perhaps with less clarity. I appreciate that he provided Golden with a forum to convey his reads when at the time I believe he was not in Golden's good graces. I do have some lingering concern though primarily centered in one post:

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:I don't really have time to do a full catch up, just enough to see that (I assume) inh was good.

I don't much like the epi votes. Except maybe trice's one.

I also really don't like scotty basically being like 'told you guys'. Calling your shot on someone being civilian is the easiest thing to do in the world since a) most people are and b) all baddies have an even higher percentage shot of being right (in this case 15/16); but

c) bragging about it afterwards is the equivalent of discrediting a load of people, even when at least half of them are town, and d) not only does it discredit, but it also puts the focus squarely on 'who voted for a civilian to die' instead of 'who is bad' which are not necessarily the same thing.

I'll be all for looking to see if any inh votes are uninspired. But when I last looked, there were four and all of them felt fair and well explained in the thread to me.

What??! How is "well there ya go" in any way "I told you guys"? How is that bragging about it? Show me where I bragged about you all being wrong.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth and manipulating this away from you and the other INH voters so you don't have to take responsibility for your votes. Yes, civs make the wrong votes all the time. Of course they do. But I already feel like you, JJJ, Sloonei and Mp have all come after me on day 1 for bullsuit reasons and I find it manipulative. Couple that with the fact that I don't trust you guys, makes me think at least 1 or a couple of you might be bad. Just because I haven't had a tennis match where I've spewed 5028 posts in the matter of 24 hours doesn't mean I can't make reads off of votes.

I didn't know INH was gonna flip good, but I definitely didn't think he would flip bad. So get off your high horse, golden.

Love, Scotty

Yellow: hyperbolic/exaggerated language looks insincere at face value.

Orange: this is an accusation, and it implies to me that Scotty is suspicious of Golden now for two reasons: contributing to the INH lynch, and "manipulating the conversation away from INH voters". This is something Scotty didn't follow up on, and that makes me question the motive for cramming it into this response in the first place. I think the suspicion inherent in this language is pretty clear, and that he didn't proceed with it (indeed he became Golden's communicative aid in Day 2) raises doubts that it was honest. The alternative explanation is less ideal: that he turned Golden's accusation against him as a defense mechanism with intent to discredit his accuser.

I would also assert the orange bit and the second yellow bit go together awkwardly. If Golden is on a "high horse", that would imply he is overconfident about a read, not falsifying a read. The difference is important, as it relates directly to alignment.

Green: this just has its own discrediting power given its vaguely critical language.

Scotty, please talk about those things.

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I could also consider voting for Scotty.

Scotty wrote:I'm way behind everyone. Like 12 pages behind. Looks like no one died?

Will Do my best to catch up.

Scotty wrote:I'm still not caught up. 5 or so more pages to read.. I see JJJ has a little case breakdown that I skimmed. Eventually I'll get around to answering it.

I never said my vote was forced. LoRab decided that. I have calmed my jets on a few people I had recently suspected. I'm actually feeling better about Golden, and Mp. I think BWT is still suspicious? Why? I forgot. But he said some stuff some some time ago that was phrased in a weird way that perked uo ym ears like Pluto. Sloon is on neutral ground. Slight mafia still on JJJ. I don't think he was faking his curse, I just think his curser was just unimaginative.

I'm way behind. Long day, may not get around to this until tomorrow at the earliest. Blech my mafia time where did it go???

To fall behind sometimes is understandable. Life happens. However, I don't get the impression Scotty has much urgency to involve himself in this game even as he makes the attempt to catch up. He has given us a live-track of his status (12 pages behind, 5 pages behind), but in the process of that catchup his productivity has been scarce. I would think a town Scotty would be grabbing quotes as he reads along and sharing some kind of thoughts instead of this sort of one-off neutral commentary on what he needs to do and a few half-reads.

Hi.

JJJ wants an answer? My answer is that I was putting most of effort into the Monkey Island, which in and of itself was less time than I would like. In this game, with its early activity, quoting exact posts gets rather tedious when I'm already way behind, because I'll lose track of where I am. Kind of a cop out excuse but that's my excuse.

I don't know if the vote ends now or in a few hours honestly so I popped a vote on JJJ. I think I am with the marmot that JJJ is bad and has been leading us astray. That someone as thorough as JJJ has not produced a successful lynch is not his fault entirely, but he and the other high posters must be scrutinized. I'm not one to talk because I've been more absent than Harry Potter's parents, but if Golden wasn't bad, which it is very apparent he wasn't, then either Mp or JJJ are playing mind games with the thread. I'm willing to bet it's JjJ

timmer wrote:We could at least put MM into second place in the poll, I'm not liking that so many people who are under suspicion are voting for JJJ right now.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Trice still seems genuine to me. What am I missing?

Are you completely caught up yet or not?

timmer wrote:I'd like to ask this one more time, for the people catching up.

Both Epig and MM came out at the start of day under apparent curses. LoRab didn't post until quite a bit later, but also is apparently cursed. That's 3 curses in a single day.

Do you guys feel that all 3 are legit? If yes, why, considering this is a first, and seems excessive... and if not, which one do you think is lying?

I believe LoRab, because falsifying a curse hours after it is obvious there are already two of them would be a bizarre strategy and she wasn't under enough suspicion to warrant such a move, if she were bad.

sig wrote:Rico isn't originally from TS right?

Dom wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:His only reason for suspecting either me or JJJ is that we are criticizing his baddie-like behavior

[arrested development, ron howard narrator voice]
it's not.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey BWT, are you caught up?

I am now, yeah. Should be around until EoD.

What do you want to talk about, MP?

Linki: My alternative/rebuttal for today is still MM for lots of things I have already stated. I would be okay if he was gone today as well.

If you think he's a better vote than you, then convince me as to why.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'd like to know what others think of Scotty right now. Each time I look at the player list his name stands out loudly to me.

Epignosis wrote:

timmer wrote:Trice and JJJ? That's awesome to read.

Considering how the Wilgy lynch looks in the polls... do you think Boomslang is likely a civ, then? If I picture a baddie team with JJJ, and trice who voted B2B, it looks like that day's lynch was a gimme for them.

Boomslang is the Only Person Left Alive I Feel Confident is Good

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also, if Marmot was bad I'd expect him to be gleefully defending me right now for WIFOM's sake, because the easy mindset for people to adopt emerging from my Day 3 vote is that JJJ saved Marmot, they're team mates. He's not playing into that falsehood which suggests to me that he is truly trying to discern the truth of what I'm doing.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

timmer wrote:Name your three most likely baddies, off the top of your head.

I Don't Have Three Because That's Not the Way I'm Approaching This

I've never seen someone employ a "POE" quite like this -- near total focus on town reads and minimal focus on baddies. When I use POE, I do work to find townies as a way of reducing the suspect pool, but I still work simultaneously to identify who in that pool is the best lynch option. The method you're claiming here is a rather radical extreme. It isn't necessarily a bad strategy, but what I struggle to understand is your inclination to pass sweeping negative judgment upon those who don't follow each your reads (or more specifically your contests of reads). In these lynches you've opposed, what would you expect [insert civilian] to do with your contributions?

Would you have accepted the lynch of any player at all who you haven't defended without concern over which one?

Epignosis wrote:The Tricycle Could Interact With Me in One of Several Ways- He Could Ask Me to Clarify Something, Expound Upon Something, Offer Alternative Explanations for My Observations, or Disagree With Me for His Own Reasons...Instead His Activity is to Outright Discredit Me, and if He's a Civilian, There is No Good Reason for Him to Do That Unless He's Convinced I'm Bad

Epignosis wrote:If I Had Day 3 to Do All Over Again, I'd Do It All Over Trice

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You Say You Automatically "POE" But You Have Ignored My Successful Attempt at Calling Out Reasons a Potential Lynch Candidate is Civilian Two out of Three Times: The First Time You Didn't Even Acknowledge What I Said About INH- I Had to Ask You About It, and You Responded with Syntactical Gymnastics, and the Second Time You Were Content to Let the AP Train Run its Course Based on a Small Sample Size that Indicated Odds Better Than the Roll of the Dice, Once Again Not Taking into Account My Point from the Second Day, and I Have Never Seen You Use a Percentage Like That to Endorse Someone's Lynch, Especially on the Third Day, and Additionally, I Have Never Seen You So On Board with Three Low-Hanging-Fruit Lynches in a Row, So No, I Don't Like the Cut of Your Jib (0:23)

Your resistance to the INH lynch was not related to the suspicion I stated about INH. Your argument was related to MP's suspicion of INH. No, I was not moved by your argument against someone else's assertions.

I have never used percentages like that before. That statistical compilation is a recent product of mine, and I am only now starting to encounter opportunities to utilize that information. It's an experiment I grant, but I am willing to utilize that kind of aid especially when discussing a player otherwise immune to analysis (too few posts). It didn't work out, oh well. I'm sure I'll try again the next time I see a relevant opportunity.

I don't think INH or DrWilgy were low-hanging fruit. A Person could be called that as any total lurker could be, but I don't really care. If you didn't like that lynch, you didn't do enough to stop it. Merely saying "I don't like it" is not good enough. You also need to provide an alternative, and you did not. So I reiterate this question:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If you could have had anyone lynched you wanted each of these first three day phases, who would they have been?

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I'll admit that I have no suspicions that are particularly strong, though. I feel like I have a lot more town reads than I do baddie reads.

Generally agreed. Even without a concerted effort to employ POE, I find myself doing it by accident. The suspicions I have voiced lately are my most substantive, but I don't boast the confidence in those reads I would like for a Day 3. Even still the town reads aren't extremely confident; I get the impression that reads are more likely to gravitate toward the gray center in a survival-oriented game. That mindset permeates the thread in a tangible way. I have only played in a couple like this though.

This Fellow is Not a Civilian

How does the text you've enlarged lead you to that conclusion?

You Say You Automatically "POE" But You Have Ignored My Successful Attempt at Calling Out Reasons a Potential Lynch Candidate is Civilian Two out of Three Times: The First Time You Didn't Even Acknowledge What I Said About INH- I Had to Ask You About It, and You Responded with Syntactical Gymnastics, and the Second Time You Were Content to Let the AP Train Run its Course Based on a Small Sample Size that Indicated Odds Better Than the Roll of the Dice, Once Again Not Taking into Account My Point from the Second Day, and I Have Never Seen You Use a Percentage Like That to Endorse Someone's Lynch, Especially on the Third Day, and Additionally, I Have Never Seen You So On Board with Three Low-Hanging-Fruit Lynches in a Row, So No, I Don't Like the Cut of Your Jib (0:23)

Golden wrote:Or maybe Marmot is an innocent bystander.

In any event, epi, I agree about Jay. He worries me. I feel like there is a lack of fire in his opinions. His whole game feels - clockwork, like a man calculating the impact of each post. I can't describe it any other way. He's always bothered me a little but in this lynch it felt much stronger than just tinfoil.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:This Fellow is Not a Civilian

I did not like his reasons for being against the Marmot vote. He broke the tie, and it amounted to him claiming that MP and I only suspected him because he suspected us, which was chronologically inaccurate. It was almost like a brush aside.

I could see a Marmot/Jay team. Heck, I could see a Marmot/Jay/Dom team.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Sorry for my absence, it's been real busy. I'll be around in a bit here and will try to make as much time as I can before EoD.

Golden wrote:Fwiw, I don't find epi's behaviour particularly problematic. He is finding good reasons not to lynch people. I agree it would be ideal if he also hunted baddies, but I think that we should also listen to his pearls of wisdom about why people aren't bad and judge them on their merits.

I could do without the 'told you so' posts, though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am not feeling a significant degree of tinfoil about MP, Sloonei, or Golden.

Why? That seems unlike town!JJJ.

The baddies killed Vompatti. Do you think anyone in the high poster group goes for that? I also don't think Sloonei likely pursued a self-silence on the second day, and I am fine with his content. I don't think Golden pursued a self-insanification on the second day, and I am fine with his content. I think you played Day 1 as balls out as you could, and I doubt you lost your shit as a ruse. That would have been straight up bad gamesmanship.

Tinfoil is circumstantial, not inherently necessary.

nijuukyugou wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I decided to check my data compilation to see if I could assess trends among the lowest contributory tier of players in Syndicate Mafia games, as a way of qualifying any assumptions about A Person in this game. He has made 6 posts and we're about to complete the 3rd day phase. If he doesn't post again through the night, that'd be 2 posts per cycle. This is a statistic I have tracked for nearly every game played so far in 2016.

Alignment counts for players who have finished a game at or below 2 posts per cycle this year:

Good -- 11

Bad -- 9

Independent -- 5

This is a count of 25 players in the games I have tracked (17 or 18) whose rate of contribution has been comparable to A Person's so far in this game. 44% of them were purely good and 36% of them were purely bad. The indies can be judged as a gray area since their win conditions vary so much. This ratio is a lot closer than it would be if non-contributor alignments were arranged at random in accordance with typical starting rations between good and bad. In that regard, it means people who play like A Person is playing have been baddies more often than randomness would indicate -- suggesting lynching him wouldn't entirely be a guess.

The sample size isn't large enough to make a concrete assertion and stamp it into Mafia law, but it's enough to make me reconsider my prior statement that baddies don't want to let their team mates down by giving nothing to the game. There's clearly a precedent for that.

Good or bad, dude, I just want to applaud this science That's dedication.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Marmot voters: could you summarize your most significant beefs very briefly?

He reminds me of Dune marmot. Nominally contributing 'real reads' but it feels more like a smokescreen of playing out what Marmot is expected to do, and it feels like he isn't really reading the thread.

Plus, he made that case against me which had significant flaws but he never showed any indication that he was interested in considering or acknowledging that there could be flaws.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am not feeling a significant degree of tinfoil about MP, Sloonei, or Golden.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am not inclined to mount resistance to an A Person lynch. The numbers I just pulled at least make it appear better than a roll of the dice if those numbers have any value.

Marmot voters: could you summarize your most significant beefs very briefly?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have around 15 minutes left in this thread. For the moment I don't feel the inspiration to move my vote. The most important problem with LoRab's content isn't that she has been pressed for time, it's that she hasn't used that time to promote much of a hunting effort. She's asserted that she will play her own way and I am supportive of that, but I also don't know what that means in this game so far other than answering to accusations.

I welcome inspiration from those of you promoting other wagons.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't really care if I get lynched. I've done what I can.

I find your indifference hard to believe.

Ok fine. I want to be lynched.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

sig wrote:Also quick note before I go one of the top posters (JJJ, Sloonie, Golden, and MP) is most likely bad, I just have no clue which one it is. :P

Ok those who are not me, I would say that MP is least likely, sloonei is most likely. Jay in the middle.

Sig makes a good point. If we look at this from a probability standpoint, there's a pretty good chance that one of you is mafia. This is historically accurate.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I decided to check my data compilation to see if I could assess trends among the lowest contributory tier of players in Syndicate Mafia games, as a way of qualifying any assumptions about A Person in this game. He has made 6 posts and we're about to complete the 3rd day phase. If he doesn't post again through the night, that'd be 2 posts per cycle. This is a statistic I have tracked for nearly every game played so far in 2016.

Alignment counts for players who have finished a game at or below 2 posts per cycle this year:

Good -- 11

Bad -- 9

Independent -- 5

This is a count of 25 players in the games I have tracked (17 or 18) whose rate of contribution has been comparable to A Person's so far in this game. 44% of them were purely good and 36% of them were purely bad. The indies can be judged as a gray area since their win conditions vary so much. This ratio is a lot closer than it would be if non-contributor alignments were arranged at random in accordance with typical starting rations between good and bad. In that regard, it means people who play like A Person is playing have been baddies more often than randomness would indicate -- suggesting lynching him wouldn't entirely be a guess.

The sample size isn't large enough to make a concrete assertion and stamp it into Mafia law, but it's enough to make me reconsider my prior statement that baddies don't want to let their team mates down by giving nothing to the game. There's clearly a precedent for that.