The Syndicate

FZ. wrote:

boo wrote:

FZ. wrote:Since people seem to want to know who I would have voted for, even if I don't know, I'll give you some of my thoughts.

I started out thinking Aces was bad because how he had a tunnel vision regarding Trice, but his replies to me seemed more genuine when I asked about it. He's still up there on my list, and not because he voted for a civ, but because of the way he was so sure about it and didn't even bother looking at anyone else. So I'm keeping an eye.

With Snowman, I agree with Rico that the fact he found nothing to say was really fishy, and since it was freaking day 1, it was a better reason for me to vote for him than someone who I initially suspected but got a better feel of him later. So maybe him.

I think LC is flying way under the radar, but I don't know if it's because of RL or something else.

I have no idea what to say about Boo's vote for BWT. I need to go back and read it.
I don't know what to think about Epi and DH either. At least Dh is following his suspicions. Epi just talked forever about lynching Russ, and argued endlessly with DH, but ended up voting for me. Not sure exactly why.
And TH, not idea what's going on there. I can't see baddie TH just vote without trying to seem like he's building a case, but he's not really baddie hunting either, so not sure what to make of it.

And I was so impressed with Zombarella's aggressive first game, and the way she just jumped into the deep water, which had no connection to the type of the game, that when she seemed to be mellow, it made me very concerned. Then she came in, and I wanted to wait to see how she posts, hence why I didn't vote at that time, only to later fall asleep.


10 linkis: are you satisfied now?
And the deadline for me is when I go to sleep, not when it really is deadline. Excuse me for living on the other side of the world.

Nope. That was some A grade throwing out names, but not only is the question of "who would you have voted for if you had voted" not one I really value when a missed voter answers it after the fact, you didn't even answer the question to satisfy people who can be satisfied by an answer to the question.

I was being honest. Something a civvie does. Like I couldn't just give you a name that I used yesterday and told you that's probably where my vote would have gone. You people have a really weird way of baddie hunting.

I don't you. Anyone can be honest with any alignment. Which is why I said answering the question after the fact isn't important to me, but it was the question you were asked, it was the question you were posting to answer, and it is a question you avoided. Civvies don't have to rely on avoiding answering straight-forward questions.

FZ. wrote:Since people seem to want to know who I would have voted for, even if I don't know, I'll give you some of my thoughts.

I started out thinking Aces was bad because how he had a tunnel vision regarding Trice, but his replies to me seemed more genuine when I asked about it. He's still up there on my list, and not because he voted for a civ, but because of the way he was so sure about it and didn't even bother looking at anyone else. So I'm keeping an eye.

With Snowman, I agree with Rico that the fact he found nothing to say was really fishy, and since it was freaking day 1, it was a better reason for me to vote for him than someone who I initially suspected but got a better feel of him later. So maybe him.

I think LC is flying way under the radar, but I don't know if it's because of RL or something else.

I have no idea what to say about Boo's vote for BWT. I need to go back and read it.
I don't know what to think about Epi and DH either. At least Dh is following his suspicions. Epi just talked forever about lynching Russ, and argued endlessly with DH, but ended up voting for me. Not sure exactly why.
And TH, not idea what's going on there. I can't see baddie TH just vote without trying to seem like he's building a case, but he's not really baddie hunting either, so not sure what to make of it.

And I was so impressed with Zombarella's aggressive first game, and the way she just jumped into the deep water, which had no connection to the type of the game, that when she seemed to be mellow, it made me very concerned. Then she came in, and I wanted to wait to see how she posts, hence why I didn't vote at that time, only to later fall asleep.


10 linkis: are you satisfied now?
And the deadline for me is when I go to sleep, not when it really is deadline. Excuse me for living on the other side of the world.

Nope. That was some A grade throwing out names, but not only is the question of "who would you have voted for if you had voted" not one I really value when a missed voter answers it after the fact, you didn't even answer the question to satisfy people who can be satisfied by an answer to the question.

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

S~V~S wrote:Its interesting that FZ, an experienced player, uses that defense particularly regarding THIS thread, when wasn't that essentially her reason for suspecting Zomba? That she was uninvolved?

"While I hate to vote for Zoombarella after the nice things she said about me, I've seen her play and she's not giving half of it this game. Yeah, she has another game, but this is getting closer to deadline and she's posted just enough to stay under the radar. In the other game she's more aggressive, and came charging into the game. I don't see any of it right now."

More or less.

And then Zomba came into the thread with perfect timing and FZ decided not to vote for her because of it so... a case of expecting someone to be on your time and play how you want them to, saying the lynch is nearly over when it still actually had about 3 hours, which is plenty of time for Zomba to have come back and participated more. The actual suspicion of not participating enough doesn't really ring true to me, especially for a player in their second game, which FZ knew.

FZ. wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:This has never happened to me. I don't miss votes. Ever! But I had to leave yesterday to watch a movie with my husband and while I wanted to vote before, I couldn't make up my mind, so I decided to wait until after we finish watching, and I fell asleep in the middle of the movie. Now I might get punished and I didn't finish the movie I've been badly wanting to see (Grand Budapest hotel), and we have to return it.


Anyway, I see that you lynched Trice. I'm at work so I don't have time to read everything or check the voting poll, but if it was closely tied with someone else, I'm even more sorry for missing it.

I'll be back later

How can one possibly fall asleep during Grand Budapest Hotel? *votes FZ*

Who would you have voted for, if you would have returned?

I know That's what happens when you go to sleep at 2 am and wake up at 7 am four times a week.

I have no idea, and that's why I waited. I know some people are seeing me as a baddie because I'm kind of all over the place this game, but screw them. I'm allowed to hesitate, and this game is giving me a headache. Too much conversation.
As a player who came from another site where one day lasts 5 real days, and there's endless talk, it was refreshing to not have so much to catch up when I play here. I can't concentrate. That's why I like the speed games, because there are less players. I find it easier to find suspicious posts when they are not drowned in a sea of posts and arguments.

And now back to catching up. By the way, didn't Trice die? Did anyone resurrect him? I guess I'll find out

You don't know who you would have vote for? What?

FZ. wrote:Dang, I need to go, and I don't think I'll be back before going to sleep. I don't feel comfortable voting for any of those with votes yet Zombarealla, if you're a civvie, I'm really sorry.

*votes zombarealla*

You were literally ready to vote for someone, in the space of about 20 minutes got talked out of it and didn't actually vote, and then missed the vote. Which you knew (it seems to me at least) was a possibility if you didn't vote at that time.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I wouldn't do it either.

Nah, doesn't sound like a good return for investment.

I think it depends.

If it means you become unkillable until what otherwise would have been the halfway point of your life, which is what the deal makes it sound like (although trusting a death god who wants to sell you their eyes seems like just asking for a pretty bad time), and you're reasonably certain you're still years away from that point, than the amount of living you could get done could easily outmatch your natural lifespan. And then it's a not terrible deal, depending on perspective.

If you don't become invulnerable right up until you reach the die though, than ya, it's a shitty deal and you'd have to be stupid to take it.

First of all, you lose half your remaining life span. So if you have another 40 years left, now you only have another 20.
Second, it doesn't make you invulnerable at all. It just lets you see people's names and lifespans.

Oh, "than ya, it's a shitty deal and you'd have to be stupid to take it."

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I wouldn't do it either.

Nah, doesn't sound like a good return for investment.

I think it depends.

If it means you become unkillable until what otherwise would have been the halfway point of your life, which is what the deal makes it sound like (although trusting a death god who wants to sell you their eyes seems like just asking for a pretty bad time), and you're reasonably certain you're still years away from that point, than the amount of living you could get done could easily outmatch your natural lifespan. And then it's a not terrible deal, depending on perspective.

If you don't become invulnerable right up until you reach the die though, than ya, it's a shitty deal and you'd have to be stupid to take it.

Epignosis wrote:Knowing the price, would you accept the eyes of a Shinigami?

How much do the eyes of a death god go for?

DharmaHelper wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:R.I.P Trice. I'm sorry I was wrong about you.

Are you really though.

You think Ace is the most suspicious of the 8 Trice voters?

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I've just realized Mello will "join Mafia" if L dies, but I have no idea which side of mafia it's implied he'll join. Canon-wise, it wouldn't make much sense joining either camps, but rather be an indy, teamed up or not with Sidoh, with, perhaps, special win conditions.

BTW, Host, I've filled two A4 pages so far with canon-role-speculations and I think I'll stop now because it's time for medications and sleep.

That's an odd use of the off topic tags. You know, because it isn't.

Rico doesn't really "get" how the text colors work yet.

Well for that, we must kill him.

Ricochet wrote:I've just realized Mello will "join Mafia" if L dies, but I have no idea which side of mafia it's implied he'll join. Canon-wise, it wouldn't make much sense joining either camps, but rather be an indy, teamed up or not with Sidoh, with, perhaps, special win conditions.

BTW, Host, I've filled two A4 pages so far with canon-role-speculations and I think I'll stop now because it's time for medications and sleep.

That's an odd use of the off topic tags. You know, because it isn't.

Matahari wrote:Ok, I wound up voting first so as not to miss it. Voted BWT.

The other 2 players I mentioned earlier were FZ and BWT. I dont know if I've played with FZ before, so had nothing to make comparisons with, but I felt like her posts were calculated to be non-committal and still sound like she was baddie-hunting at the same time. They reminded me of baddie Hedge. BWT had caught my eye a zillion pages ago when he responded in support of a few posts without actually saying why he felt the same way. He just supported whatever the player said as though it was an established fact. I don't even remember who now, but I will look it up after things settle down.

Boo, yes, sadly facts, numbers, logic etc can be presented in any way a person with an agenda wants to present them. I've always thought LC should win an award for this kind of talent, he makes an awesome baddie because his presentation of facts sounds perfectly acceptable, even after the civvie gets lynched

I don't think we agree on what a fact is, but I'll move past it.

I imagine you're referring to DH as the person BWT ended just kind of agreeing with (if it you mean for the D0 vote).

Matahari wrote:sheesh, I still have 3 pages before i'm caught back up. I will say that no matter what anyone else thinks, I believe that worrying about challenges matters. Too many innocent ppl get lynched from baddies seizing an opportunity to use things against them. And facts and logic are wasted on me, they too can be manipulated. So, going on the feels, I'm putting some faith in Aces, he has an uncanny nose when it comes to sniffing out baddies with little info to go on (by that, I mean I wasn't sold on every argument made in the posts, but that combined with how sure he seems, is important). I'm also giving Epi's case some serious thought, not as convinced there, but worth a reread. Looking at 2 other ppl, but I want to catch up before I say anymore.

Facts can be manipulated?!

Hmmm.

Fact, everyone's screen name is their screen name.

I am now manipulating this fact into all of your screen names now being boo is awesome.

I look forward to the successful results of my manipulation of the facts!

:P

I don't believe you. *voting BWT*

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yeah, I'm glad I held off on my vote. I don't think we should be lynching llama today.

Are you going to vote TH?

I was, but I would vote someone else to save llama at this point, depending on the someone else.

Save him when he has a total of 3 votes, 1 of which was (at least claimed to be) accidental? Reaching just a little bit there.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

FZ. wrote: I don't know what to think about Trice and Aces, because everyone seems to see Trice as bad, and maybe I'm missing something.

Not really, 3-4 people at most have actually said they think I'm bad. Like I said earlier, all ace has to do is repeat the same lie long enough for people to start believing it. Note that bass (at least claims to have) randomized onto me.

I've been asking more questions because ace gave up responding to me, so I can focus on more important things - finding all the other baddies too. As I outlined before, somebody with a total one track mind like aceofspades this game isn't so much of a threat to the detective cause. It appears to me that detectives don't need to be alive to win, so if my death is what it takes for the other civs to listen to me, it's for the best.

Nothing personal but I don't see why anybody would bother trying to flatter one person, in a game of 27 what is that going to accomplish?

boo - I don't know about BWT. I've played a lot of a games with him and it seems to me he is almost always behaving like this, regardless of alignment. So it's hard to tell. He almost always jumps around suspicions seemingly randomly

Possibly, but I think he's the kind of player with several different types of games that he seems to go to independent of his actual alignment. In this game, the type of game he's playing, even if it is his most normal one in your opinion (I can't say I'd entirely agree), I still think it's exactly the sort of baddie game I was expecting in this game up until this point, and I'm not going to not vote for someone I think is bad because another person (or people, you won't be the only one with that view) thinks it's just that persons typical game.

This post BR:

S~V~S wrote:I think I might give Llama a heart attack, but I think I am considering a vote for a lower poster, Someone I would expect to have had more to say, but who has not stepped up to the plate. Although the plate has been rather crowded for Day One

Because if I was a baddie, I don't know that I would be making aggressive cases, because the baddie I catch might be a teammate. It would be awesome cred, but I dunno, living teammates are more awesome than cred.

Also, @ MP~ is a knowledge of Death Note necessary to effectively play this game?

A lot about how I feel re the Russti theory depends on this answer. If MP says you don't need it, then someone being possible role silenced (which I have never heard of role wise, but it is not impossible, I guess) as it relates to the title of one episode of this show, that involves 2 bad characters (as well as others according to Rico) seems tenuous at best.

It would be a hindrance to gameplay to have to Google stuff all the time to try out a theory.

Although when i Googles "list of Death Note Episodes" one of them is called "Makeshift" and it is focused on the Yotsuba group.

She included that it was low posters who aren't usually, but for the post part this game it's been people who are usually low posters stepping up, not the other way around. People she could be considering voting for by the metric of being a low poster who aren't usually at that point would have included you, LC, maybe SD, maybe juliets, maybe roxy. My point there being, I wasn't really sure who she had in mind, which made me think (I already wasn't trusting her at this point) she was setting herself up to vote for a low poster who is usually a low poster. I was curious what the reaction to my idea of bass would be (I believe what I said, but I knew typical civ SVS would not, and more broadly I wanted other reactions as well). She didn't bite, which while not making me trust her means I don't intend to vote for her today.

But, it wasn't without purpose, because I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for BWT today.

He's done in D0 the kind of thing I said I would find suspicious. In his first post he establishes he'll be going with normal or L/Light, saying he's leaning normal (rehashing things other people have said for why it's the better choice).

Next post swings him to L/Light using a quote from DH. It's really just designed to show open-mindedness.

The next one sort of swings back to normal without doing it in full measure. Just questioning DH's ideas in a way other people have already done.

Then he votes L/Light (saying DH talked him into it) in his next post, but imo nothing in the quote he pulled from DH that he says convinced him is new stuff from DH at that point that BWT hadn't previously said he didn't fully support. It wasn't a vote out of nowhere, it was a vote that allowed him to take minimal responsibility in any scenario.

Couple of more D0 posts that are important. There are some D1 posts that are mostly fluff or disagreeing with some small things.

Then we have this post (the bass part being what is relevant):

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. That was a little intense. But I think I have a pretty good idea of what direction(s) I'm leaning towards for this lynch.

Definitely not Epig and DH. I read all that shit twice (thanks for that you fools :P), and I need time for it to absorb into my brain. Needless to say, I don't see anything for either of you, or boo for that matter, that makes me think anything other than "This is just DH/Epig/boo being DH/Epig/boo".

Aces I'm okay on. I was gung-ho to vote for him, until I went back and actually read his reasoning on the Day 0 vote. And then it became pretty clear that Trice took his post entirely out of context by quote-snipping. Given the way that Trice continues to hold onto his IMO fairly weak case, plus taking someone out-of-context, plus making a lot of posts that don't really contribute anything until Aces went and brought Trice up, I could see myself potentially voting for Trice today.

Daisy I feel good about for now. I think her fly-by vote would have been more suspicious if she'd come back in and tried to keep justifying her vote. But since she already had, I can give her a pass.

Bass I do not feel good about. He feels like the type of low-poster who is doing just enough to fly under the radar, but still seem like he's paying attention. I'd feel bad voting for someone that can't be around to defend themselves, but I could be pressed to vote in his direction if I decide to go the route of voting a low-poster.

So I'd say right now, I'm considering a vote for either Trice or bass. I'm sure I might have forgotten some other thoughts with how much I just read, but feel free to ask questions for me if you want my opinion on something else.

Linki: Look forward to hearing your insights, BR!

He doesn't reference what I had said about bass here, but he doesn't add anything to it (really just seems like he picked a low poster out of a hat and decided to say he could vote for them). Keep in mind, in this post he says he knows how he could vote, but does not (and up to this point has not) mention that he is seriously considering Trice.

A few posts dealing with llama/TH stuff, I guess he was trying to set it sorted out in his mind.

Then we get this post:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Snowman wrote:Thank you Zomberella and SVS. I have no idea if either of you are bad or not, but you boiled down your take on all the players in one post, and I appreciate it. I frankly don't have the time to comb through a couple hundred episodes of "Trice Yells at Everyone" every day. I'll offer my insight and contribute what I can, but I don't see the "discussion" coalescing around anyone in particular. All I see is argument ad nauseum around the D0 poll.

I'm happy to see so many involved, but how do you find so much to talk about when literally nothing has happened yet? The most earth-shattering event so far is the realization that Russ hasn't posted anything.

Waiting for a bandwagon to hop onto?

Hmmm...good point.

Alright. I can probably add TH and Snowman to my list, albeit I would still rank them below Trice and bass. So my list currently goes:

1) Trice
2) bass
3) TH/Snowman

Where Trice has gone from being someone BWT has barely talked to/about (there was one Trice post he quoted to say he agreed with, it was about Kira's being the #1 target) to being his primary suspect. I'm going to go ahead and say that's because at the time of this post, Trice has taken the 2 votes he's still currently sitting at and the odds are good he'll take more before the day is out.

Then in his most recent post, you challenge his bass suspicion, he cites my post about bass, and sets himself up to vote Trice if he doesn't vote bass (Trice being his top choice, but who knows how the wind will be blowing when BWT chooses to vote, right?).

So that's where I am.

some linki, just going to get this through and read.

S~V~S wrote:Boo you wound me

You said you were considering voting a low poster. I don't think any SVS (civ, baddie, or indy) would do that in a normal game, which made me think you were a baddie since the baddies are not in their normal position. You didn't go for it, but if you had I'd have voted for you on the spot because that just would have been a whole other level of out of characterish-ness.

Black Rock wrote:

boo wrote:I'm all about that bass ('bout that bass) because I don't believe that random vote was random, and while I don't doubt that him not being able to be around caused him to vote early, I do doubt that the vote was truly random when it managed to land on Trice, who by that point was taking flak and was (and continues to be) one of several people I think a mafia member not wanting to risk missing the vote but also not wanting to waste their vote would vote for.

Now alone, that wouldn't be enough to warrant attention (at least in this D1 mine field)... BUT which option did bass vote for? Normal. Ok good, right? No, because which voter was he? The 11th. How many votes did L/Light have? 9 (total and when bass voted, he was the 26th voter overall after SD was the 25th overall when she voted for L/Light).

How many posts does bass have? 4.

What do they say?

"Real happy this game started." Ok, sure.

"I voted normal lynch." I mean, it is the right option, but literally nothing else, no quote even using other peoples ideas. The very essence of low effort.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:So given all that, why the hell would a baddie vote for L/Light lynches? That's a stupid move for them and the exact opposite of laying low. It makes much more sense to look at the people voting for normal lynches and/or the people tossing their votes away on options that clearly wont win.

Because WIFOM.

Today's discussion has been enjoyable, but I think that behavior after the gameplay has been decided will prove more useful.

I agree.

Then this one. Ok, thank you for that very useful insight.

Then there's the vote post where he apologizes for having to vote now (I buy) and says he's voting randomly (I don't buy).


The first three posts are nothing. I think they were there because Bass is mafia, wants to fly low, but doesn't want to be at the bottom of the list when we look at total posts (and guess what, with 4 posts he's currently sitting with 7 people with the same or fewer posts, a nice buffer from being to far down in case people look at low posters, while still flying low).

No treble.

Ok, I said I would look at this post when I got back so I found it. BWT, I see what you are saying BUT I am seeing it from a different perspective. Everything Boo says seems more opportunistic then correct. He has taken 4 posts and made a case. Bass is often a low poster, not always, but often. It is day one and his day 0 vote wasn't an option any one considered baddie. I don't like this case at all, it smells baddie to me and now has put boo on my list.

I didn't trust SVS because I thought she was acting out of character and wanted to test it. She didn't give the response I wanted to call her out on it and vote for her though.

I don't trust bass (for the reasons in that post) but I don't actually plan on voting for him.

Turnip Head wrote:

boo wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Matahari wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I mean, it truly would remove any doubt if Russ starts posting insanified posts for day 2

Not really.

Mata is right. If Russ starts posting insanified posts on Day 2, we cannot rule out that another player targeted him with this ability to make him appear more suspicious. If that happens, we would need to observe him on Day 3 as well.

Changing what he's supposed to do for posting in each day would also not make any sense if he's following a rigorous schedule. Either he's that role and just isn't allowed to post in order to follow a daily schedule, or he's not that role and he's just not posting. Making a baddie role that follows a schedule and making it so they are not allowed to post wouldn't make sense since it would out them, so I think he's just choosing not to post.

Sure it makes sense. Here's an example schedule:

• Day 1: Remain silent and wait for Kira's instructions. Biceps and triceps.
• Day 2: Quote every player in the game. Shoulder day.
• Day 3: post pictures of yourself eating spaghetti. Cardio.
• Day 4: Quote No Doubt lyrics in every post. Chest and abs.

A daily schedule is not a weekly schedule.

Turnip Head wrote:

Matahari wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I mean, it truly would remove any doubt if Russ starts posting insanified posts for day 2

Not really.

Mata is right. If Russ starts posting insanified posts on Day 2, we cannot rule out that another player targeted him with this ability to make him appear more suspicious. If that happens, we would need to observe him on Day 3 as well.

Changing what he's supposed to do for posting in each day would also not make any sense if he's following a rigorous schedule. Either he's that role and just isn't allowed to post in order to follow a daily schedule, or he's not that role and he's just not posting. Making a baddie role that follows a schedule and making it so they are not allowed to post wouldn't make sense since it would out them, so I think he's just choosing not to post.

I'm all about that bass ('bout that bass) because I don't believe that random vote was random, and while I don't doubt that him not being able to be around caused him to vote early, I do doubt that the vote was truly random when it managed to land on Trice, who by that point was taking flak and was (and continues to be) one of several people I think a mafia member not wanting to risk missing the vote but also not wanting to waste their vote would vote for.

Now alone, that wouldn't be enough to warrant attention (at least in this D1 mine field)... BUT which option did bass vote for? Normal. Ok good, right? No, because which voter was he? The 11th. How many votes did L/Light have? 9 (total and when bass voted, he was the 26th voter overall after SD was the 25th overall when she voted for L/Light).

How many posts does bass have? 4.

What do they say?

"Real happy this game started." Ok, sure.

"I voted normal lynch." I mean, it is the right option, but literally nothing else, no quote even using other peoples ideas. The very essence of low effort.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:So given all that, why the hell would a baddie vote for L/Light lynches? That's a stupid move for them and the exact opposite of laying low. It makes much more sense to look at the people voting for normal lynches and/or the people tossing their votes away on options that clearly wont win.

Because WIFOM.

Today's discussion has been enjoyable, but I think that behavior after the gameplay has been decided will prove more useful.

I agree.

Then this one. Ok, thank you for that very useful insight.

Then there's the vote post where he apologizes for having to vote now (I buy) and says he's voting randomly (I don't buy).


The first three posts are nothing. I think they were there because Bass is mafia, wants to fly low, but doesn't want to be at the bottom of the list when we look at total posts (and guess what, with 4 posts he's currently sitting with 7 people with the same or fewer posts, a nice buffer from being to far down in case people look at low posters, while still flying low).

No treble.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:His "case" (in the loosest sense of the term) literally consists of him not thinking that his actions should be up for scrutiny. He can come back if he actually has something to add to the baddie hunt. I meant "best case" in general and not "best case" against me - because he won't be able to build a valid case on nothing

Yes, once you pointed out that's what you meant it was easier to read that way, but I don't think most people are going to look at it and see it that way initially.

And I don't disagree, my problem is I think you and he are doing exactly the same thing from the opposite side.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Well who do you think baddies want to lynch? It's not other baddies

A) Yes, it is in any game with more than one baddie team.
B) That is not how I (and MM I imagine) initially interpreted your meaning in that post.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:If that's the best case you can come up with, you're not going to manage to lynch a civ today like you so badly want to

What?

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

AceofSpaces wrote:

Made wrote:Ok, this is high level stuff. Like fuck, it's only day one and i barely know what's going on, and not in a fun chaotic way.

Hey look boo! Is this the kind of low flying post you were wary about? I don't know how many times I've seen baddies post this sentence, or some close variation. I'm actually a little surprised you didn't bring it up yourself. Thoughts please.

Epi and DH

I am getting the impression that Epi is a Y-Group member. At least, that is where I am leaning at the moment. On the other hand, I don't see how he'd be so obvious about it. That is a mistake that I doubt someone like him would make. That being said, he's made some really good points. I'm putting a pin in him until further notice.

DH is DH. If he's bad he's going to get cocky and show off. If he's good he's going to get cocky and show off. Nothing really to say about that.

Boo.
I'm reading him as genuine. His trepidation on the type of player L could or should be read as real to me.

Made
That one post quoted above burned into my eyeballs. I usually find it more suspicious when people say "I'm so clueless" than when they go on for four plus pages arguing over the same points again and again (DH & Epi). It's just a really easy way to get people to ignore you.

Trice/Tricey/Dinosaur-Name-Porn-Star-Man
I don't think DH's quote from you was out of context or a misinterpretation. I think you very clearly suggested we focus on a group of people based solely on their Day-0 vote. Which would be fine, we do that all the time. But the way you did it was so mafia. Quote someone else, agree with them without saying much of your own, and shift attention to other people with little or no evidence to back yourself up. That has to be taken directly from the mafia play book.

Yes, sort of. It would need to be coupled with a vote that is also just fly-by, and/or a series of similar posts that make it essentially just playing the 'I have no idea' card to become suspicious enough to vote for. In a normal D1 it might even be enough to have me looking at made, but the D0 wasn't just thoughtless voting which gave us things to work with in this lynch, and people have said things today that are far more suspicious than that post imo.

Ya, I've already said I think Epi is Yotsuba, and that hasn't changed. It is probably not enough to make me vote for him today since I think there are better options, but I already don't trust him a lot.

No, I was questioning it. Either he got 4 of the same people using the same reasons I did, but cut a bunch of other ones the reasons those 4 are worth mentioning for reasons I don't understand, or he reached 4 of the same people I did in a different way and I wanted to know why.

Nah, mine wasn't intentional. It was the paragraph of considering the possible alignments that threw me off having the question asked how I had initially wanted to, but that bit became more important than the actual question.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:boo, what's the deal? I saw that you've called my name out already, but what for?

D0 vote. For how I think (he didn't really clear it up) Epi landed on which names to include in the 4, I believe the same logic should have expanded the list to include you and several others.

Does tied together mean BTSC?

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:Nope.

Okay.

Know who you're voting for yet?

Nope.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:Epi, I think you have a habit of answering questions without answering them. I think you do the same thing with asking them. Would you agree?

Sorry, boo, this makes no sense to me.

What's tripping you up?

Epi, I think you have a habit of answering questions without answering them. I think you do the same thing with asking them. Would you agree?

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:Are you a detective Epi? Because at this point I'm really thinking you're one of the Yatsuba that isn't the Kira third one, and that even you don't know what to make of it.

I refuse to role claim.

So I'm in the general area then, since my question was no different than 'are you civvie' and went unanswered.

Are you civvie in the typical understanding of the meaning?

Or are you just evading the LDer you think is in the game?

Are you a detective Epi? Because at this point I'm really thinking you're one of the Yatsuba that isn't the Kira third one, and that even you don't know what to make of it.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Epignosis wrote: 1. DharmaHelper pushed for the MOST anti civilian position there was. He supported a Day 0 option that could make it possible for your vote not to count, your enemy's vote to count more, and for two Mafia to have info that only one civilian would have. Operating under the assumption that all Yotsuba are bad, he gave one random case where civilians benefited from that option (and ignored hundreds of cases where they didn't).

Yeah, and then right away decided that he was going to target people who vocally disagree with him. I can understand being civ and genuinely thinking that L/Light is beneficial (though I and others obviously don't agree at all with that), but it's really not very civ to want to lynch people just for disagreeing with you. I think he's just trying to confuse the more wishy-washy civ posters and get some civ lynches before he gets killed - which would make sense if he has a non-critical baddie role.

I'm going to disagree with you on this for right now at least. DH and I were not in agreement, and had one of the longer discussions on it. DH isn't (at least so far) talking in a way that makes me think he's tempted to vote for me today, so while he is talking about lynching people who disagreed with him, I don't think that's his focus (TH for example was wishy-washy and made it to being one of DH's primaries I think).

@DH: I had asked you about Ricochet when he first pinged me (and several others). At that time, he seemed to be pretty solidly agreeing with you that L/Light was the right choice, but as things went on he went back and forth like TH did, so I'm curious if your opinion has changed on him to reflect that.


linki: trice, I think he was including you in talking about it in a similar way to Zomberella (trying to push suspicion onto ALL L/Light voters just for voting the option). I agree with him on her, and get what he means in regards to you I think, but of the two would say what Zomberella was saying was... more worrying because there was an extent of trying to suggest an idea without taking charge of it which I don't trust that was definitely there in her post, whereas you're just doing you. She's one of like the 12 names I'd put on my list if I were to make an exhaustive one of people I can myself voting for already, but narrowing it down, she wouldn't crack the top 5 I don't think, although I'm going to guess that wouldn't be true of DH.

Elohcin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I made a list of four people that I would vote for on Day 1. Turnip Head is one of those, although not for the same reasoning you raised, llama.

Am I on your list?

No. I like you.

In fact, so that no one accuses me of being opportunistic or jumping onto other people's cases, I'll name the quartet now:

Ricochet, Turnip Head, spacedaisy, and FZ.

Why these four?

Question seconded, but I want to expand.

I get Ricochet and agree. I get TH and haven't landed anywhere yet myself on it. I get SD and to a lesser extent FZ, but would have to question how those 2 make the list and MM, Snowman, DP, Ace, and Boomslang don't when SD (and sort of FZ) are probably being placed on the list for the same reasons.

So, that makes me think either MM, Snowman, DP, Ace, and Boomslang are being left off because Epi is bad (or I suppose could have civvie BTSC since in this game it looks like we're just starting with 2 baddies and 2 civvies having BTSC) and one of them is his BTSC teammate, Epi could be any alignment (I'd still be leaning bad) and wants to lynch Rico or TH but just threw SD and FZ onto his list to round it out, or Epi reached putting SD and FZ on his list in a different way than I did that didn't allow for the extra 4 I have to also be on his.

That stopped seeming like a question for Epi at some point... but anyways Epi, thoughts?

I'm going to go ahead and point out what to me is blatantly obvious but has some how gone undiscussed in what Epi and DH have already been talking about re: the mafia (maybe, kinda, sorta) teams. Remember Bioshock. That MP game where I was right on the nose about the breakdown of roles from the get-go, outlining it in detail on D4 when I was killed for being right? Because I do.

Now, I don't know about this theme, but here's what seems obvious from the roles.

1) Not all detectives are actually civvies, because right in the description they have anti-L leanings, and at least one of them mentions going to 'the mafia' (that's mello). Now, I don't know if the Yotsuba group are gangsters or not, and are like an actual mafia, but that was my assumption based on what the story seems to be about. If that isn't in the case, it could refer to either (or some weird ass combination?) of the two non-detective groups.

2) The detectives need all Kira's dead. Plain and simple. They also need justice to prevail. Now, that could just be flavour about what happens when the Kira's are dead, but that seems wrong, so I think for the sake of simplicity, we can treat their win conditions as all Kira's being dead and ???, probably dependent on the role and not as a whole group (since as a group they are conflicted).

3) We have no idea what the Yotsuba's need to do to win. We do know they don't have BTSC to start, and we do know Higuchi (the leader of the 'team' I guess) is the third kira (suggesting to me the first and second kira need to die or some chain of events need to occur for them to lose the NK and it to go to Higuchi). Once Higuchi has a death note (and is therefore able to start killing) they all get to start giving input for how they want to kill. After one kill, one role gets a call. After 2, another role brings a bunch of the other people in the group together (that would seem to suggest BTSC to me). Now, one of those 4 vanilla looking roles isn't even mentioned as being invited to the secret meeting, so either that would make sense as the caller, or the role that was added to the game when we went from 26 to 27 (and probably just needs to be added to the invite).

Now, I still think they're a mafia team. The description to me sounds like they have a unified win condition, and 4 roles have no description or secrets, so I would assume they have none. Add to that the fact that they can kill, and the method for BTSC while not clear cut seems reasonably easy to puzzle out. The one thing I am thinking, is that since Higuchi is just a tool of Kira #1, maybe that's some sort of traitor role, and at some point (or if conditions are met) maybe the conditions of all those roles change (or maybe they don't even have any to start, and learn them down the line).

All that to say, someone in the Yotsuba group dies, I would count that as a win that while not as good as killing a Kira (or anyone that is part of the second sympathizer team) since the detective conditions are not as clear cut as some people would seem to like them to be. Which makes the kill priority: Kira = Kira 2 = Kira 3 = Kira X, a sympathizer is better than a yotsuba group member but a yotsuba member isn't a bad catch. Then maybe 1 or 2 detectives who it wouldn't be sad to see go, but just because they don't agree with L as a role doesn't even mean the player in the role wants him dead, so I wouldn't be happy if they died or count it as a win. Then we have the indy, and I have no idea where to place it.

4) Then lets round it out. We have Kira and the sympathizers. This seems like the really clear cut mafia team. We know they need the detectives dead, and then a utopian world order has to be started (Light hates criminals, my assumption is the Yatsuba group are gangsters, I assume Light and co need at least some of those roles dead to win).

So, to me it boils down simpler than Bioshock was, while still being unconventional.

The Detectives are civvies. Within the group are possible traitors or traitor-like roles who may just not get a say in what happens to their win conditions.

Kira and the Sympathizers are mafia.

The Yotsuba group are like solo-baddies to start I think (or at least that's how we can treat them), and maybe some of them can become part of a team of baddies, or maybe some can become indies. The Higuchi wiki link Epi posted doesn't really clear up what happens with the spoiler stuff he talked about for me to puzzle that out, but it seems like anyone who is familiar with the material should be able to clear that up well enough to set up reasonable expectations.

Then the indie. A best guess of stuff like win-with-anyone, SK, or join a team, again seems like something anyone with familiarity should be able to help us out with.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

For example.

AceofSpaces wrote:Boo, if it makes you feel better you have my word I wont make a vote to lynch someone without giving a good reason of my own. I understand your fear of blendy lynch votes, but don't assume that just because I didn't feel like summarizing the last five pages of debate that I wont make a concerted effort for actual lynch votes. I think my above effort to explain my reasoning on this day 0 poll is good evidence of that.

Yes, I just don't like that the reasoning has to be forced out of you, I don't like the fact (and I do think it's a fact) that there are people who are willing (and probably will in this game) cast lynch votes in the same style you initially cast your vote, and I don't think if such a person has the L role that anything good can possibly come from the L/Light option.

Oh, a potential 3/9 actually, since spacedaisy voted without actually posting, but maybe her post got eaten or something.

AceofSpaces wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Nailed it. This + Rob's post are the number one reasons to look closely at L/Light voters in the next few days

You suggest that the L/Light option is where the baddies would vote. And boo suggest that I voted that option in order to fly low. But I put to you that Light and his follows and the other baddies would more than likely vote for the "Normal Lynch". "Normal Lynch" is the safe option. It doesn't rustle any feathers, and if anything that's the option that someone would go for if they wanted to fly low. Lets walk through the thought process of a baddie on day 0. Here is my thought process.


1. Normal Lynch is obviously the most "civie friendly" option because it keeps the most control in the hands of the most people.
2. I put "civie friendly" in quotes because the Normal lynch option is also completely safe for baddies. Baddies don't lose anything from picking it. It doesn't put them in any disadvantage at all.
2. The baddies probably assume that most people will want to keep lynches normal, rather than risk a new mechanic.
3. Baddies like to blend in with the crowd. So they will either vote with the group, or throw their vote away on one of the other shitty options.
4. This has the added benefit of baddies being able to fall back on this silly day 0 poll as a flimsy defense further on in the game. "Oh no, I can't be bad. Remember I voted to keep the lynches normal and safe?"
5. They also get the advantage of having a pool of scape goats to go after from the people who voted for L/Light lynches.

So given all that, why the hell would a baddie vote for L/Light lynches? That's a stupid move for them and the exact opposite of laying low. It makes much more sense to look at the people voting for normal lynches and/or the people tossing their votes away on options that clearly wont win.

Added for Mata: Yes, totally agree. Can't wait to get some.

Added for Boo: Seriously? What are you on about? I promise you, if I ever vote for someone and justify it with " lol so fun" you can all lynch me no questions ask. That is such a ridiculous leap boo.

I'll agree with you on the non-Light baddie team being more likely to go with normal (or any of the other non L/Light options since that's the only one other than nihilistic that completely takes things out of their control as a team).

1) Exactly.
2) Lynches are inherently civvie-advantaged. It's the only reliable way civvies can kill. That isn't true for baddies. Going with the normal option as a Light team baddie is less advantageous for the team than the L/Light option is since the L/Light option gives greater control over lynches to Light.
3) Normal and L/Light are nearly tied, a baddie can blend in either group (I'm not saying normal doesn't have baddies voting for it, I specified 2 of 9 people that did exactly what I had previously said I though baddies voting for the option would do).
4) That's bullshit and we all know it.
5) That isn't what I'm looking for, but I will agree with you there are already people (or at least one person) who has made that reach and I can see looking at them for it as well since that would be a non-Light baddie team play imo.

I think you know I was not referring to the 'lol fun' comment, but the one about not rehashing what has already been said to justify the vote. There are people who justify voting in lynches using comments exactly like that, and those are lazy votes that don't help anyone. You have no already laid the ground work for casting lynch votes in that way. If you or anyone who is willing to cast lynch votes using that method is L, the civvie advantage of the option (which I already doubt and think only occurs in a best case scenario that requires an absurd amount of luck) is lost entirely.

AceofSpaces wrote:

boo wrote:@Zomberella, re the earlier conversation. Boomslang and Ace = exactly the type of potential baddie L/Light voters I had in mind in this post. They've both come in, made vague statements about how it's a superior option without making any effort to add to the discussion or address the counter-arguments in any meaningful way. It's low effort choice making, and the fact that people are willing to come in and vote against a normal lynch in that style makes me think either 1) they're bad and want to fly low or 2) They work as fantastic examples as the kind of people I think having as L could potentially screw everything up. I don't mean 2) in a mean way, I just mean that if L/Light wins, L has to deep enough into the discussion so people know what that player is thinking, without doing it such a way that it becomes obvious who they are. Otherwise, there is no useful information to be learned for the other civvies, because everything would be essentially random from their perspective.

There are five pages of people arguing the pros and cons of both options. I'm not going to rehash all that just to justify my personal preference. I like to have fun when I play games. The Light/L option is the most fun. Thus I voted for it. There are no other motives for my vote. Don't over think it, we're only on Day 0.

Yes, and later on when you decide to vote for people in lynches you could use the same exact excuse to try and justify not offering your own thoughts on why you vote the way you do. Which would mean you are either a baddie or not someone I think anyone would want to see being L if the option you chose wins. Therefore, I think you're either a baddie or a civvie who really has no business choosing the option you did since if you were placed in the position you're voting to put another person in the position of, you've already justified not using that position to the civvie advantage.

@Zomberella, re the earlier conversation. Boomslang and Ace = exactly the type of potential baddie L/Light voters I had in mind in this post. They've both come in, made vague statements about how it's a superior option without making any effort to add to the discussion or address the counter-arguments in any meaningful way. It's low effort choice making, and the fact that people are willing to come in and vote against a normal lynch in that style makes me think either 1) they're bad and want to fly low or 2) They work as fantastic examples as the kind of people I think having as L could potentially screw everything up. I don't mean 2) in a mean way, I just mean that if L/Light wins, L has to deep enough into the discussion so people know what that player is thinking, without doing it such a way that it becomes obvious who they are. Otherwise, there is no useful information to be learned for the other civvies, because everything would be essentially random from their perspective.

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Long Con wrote:Can someone explain exactly what a Shinigami is? I think it's a supernatural entity of some kind.. a guardian? They have Death Notes? And Kira stole one from a Shinigami, or found a lost one, or something?

They are God of Death, I believe. Their "Death Notes" are books. They write a persons name and manner of death, and poof. Light (Kira) found one such notebook after it had fallen into earth.

I just said that, DH!

Yes, but it doesn't make any sense, because there is only one god, and his name is Death. And there is only one thing we say to death: "bitch, you need a notebook to kill me."

I don't know DH, I'm starting to think you're just reaching for things even you don't believe because you'd like to be right and win the argument.

Or I'm just tired and no longer following you.

Either way, I've said everything I actually have to say without repeating myself (and then some :P), and now we've reached a point where I feel like we're going in circles and just giving people things to disinterestedly skim read. But I think we've hammered out both options and why they work and don't to the fullest extent that I have anything useful to add, so until other people have new ideas to share I think I'm done.

Zomberella12 wrote:

boo wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

boo wrote:Sure, but if he just plays it well and buffs civvies or other baddies who are chasing his non-teammates, then the benefit of their vote being buffed is still his, not theirs. And of course, he can also work to use the extra part of the half he has to use to devalue votes where necessary. An all around easier situation for him to handle and spin to his advantage unless he manages to fumble it spectacularly. Then with L, even pretty good playing wouldn't be enough, they would HAVE to be on their A game the whole time to make it work, and even if they manage that, it just makes them liable to get NKed and a different civvie a chance (assuming the pass down idea is correct) to use less than stellar judgement or get NKed.

Your cynicism has an incredible lack of faith for L but not for Light. Light has plenty of power to use to his advantage to help him. His secrets, as well as his percentage-check. We can debate what ifs and maybes all day but like you said, MP would not leave this kind of stuff up to chance. There are undoubtedly balances in place to give L just as much security and maneuverability as Light.


For example, they both *have* to pick one half of the current player base. The odds that the lists will work out in favor of the mafia (majority of mafia on both lists, majority of civs either on one or no list) is just astronomical.

I don't agree that it's cynicism. Mafia have an easier time controlling things that go on outside of the thread because that is the inherent advantage of being mafia. This option brings more of the control of lynches outside of the thread, and is therefore inherently to the advantage of the mafia. It requires a higher degree of luck and skill to be used effectively by L than it does by Light, and if L demonstrates that luck and skill early on, then Light can use the old stand by of just night killing the problem out of existence to get back on track. If L does not demonstrate (or have) that luck and skill, then the mafia can quickly control the game to the point where the other team may be a concern (balance), but the civvie chance of recovery is pretty much zero.

Your assessment is astute. I wonder if those you are arguing against understand your logic, agree with it, and are fine with it because they are in fact mafia...
Also, don't give the baddies good ideas.

Could be. But I doubt it. The mafia play here if they wanted the L/Light option would be to let the early supporters support it, and then swoop in and agree with those supports without paying attention to the other side of the discussion. At least, that would be the mafia play if BTSC for them weren't limited. I also think it depends on the person. I'm not surprised any of the people who like the L/Light option like it, and am more surprised by some of the votes already placed elsewhere since those feel more out of character to me.

DharmaHelper wrote:

boo wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

boo wrote:Sure, but if he just plays it well and buffs civvies or other baddies who are chasing his non-teammates, then the benefit of their vote being buffed is still his, not theirs. And of course, he can also work to use the extra part of the half he has to use to devalue votes where necessary. An all around easier situation for him to handle and spin to his advantage unless he manages to fumble it spectacularly. Then with L, even pretty good playing wouldn't be enough, they would HAVE to be on their A game the whole time to make it work, and even if they manage that, it just makes them liable to get NKed and a different civvie a chance (assuming the pass down idea is correct) to use less than stellar judgement or get NKed.

Your cynicism has an incredible lack of faith for L but not for Light. Light has plenty of power to use to his advantage to help him. His secrets, as well as his percentage-check. We can debate what ifs and maybes all day but like you said, MP would not leave this kind of stuff up to chance. There are undoubtedly balances in place to give L just as much security and maneuverability as Light.

For example, they both *have* to pick one half of the current player base. The odds that the lists will work out in favor of the mafia (majority of mafia on both lists, majority of civs either on one or no list) is just astronomical.

I don't agree that it's cynicism. Mafia have an easier time controlling things that go on outside of the thread because that is the inherent advantage of being mafia. This option brings more of the control of lynches outside of the thread, and is therefore inherently to the advantage of the mafia. It requires a higher degree of luck and skill to be used effectively by L than it does by Light, and if L demonstrates that luck and skill early on, then Light can use the old stand by of just night killing the problem out of existence to get back on track. If L does not demonstrate (or have) that luck and skill, then the mafia can quickly control the game to the point where the other team may be a concern (balance), but the civvie chance of recovery is pretty much zero.

Assuming Light can A) Find and B) Successfully NK L

How does L making poor judgement calls early translate into those two things being any more/ any less likely? I disagree that mafia are somehow going to be "better" at this because it happens outside of the thread. I also disagree that this is a strictly outside of the thread occurrence. As I've said it may take some legwork but the lynch votes can be used to figure out who was on what list if any, and that information can be used to damage Light.

Yes.

It doesn't. L making poor judgement calls mean Light doesn't need to kill them. L making good judgement calls will be reflected by the result of the lynches, and I believe would make it easier to find L. Killing them would then just be a matter of timing.

I don't agree with the idea that it would be more useful to the civs and help them find Light. They can't know who put who on which list or any of that, so unless Light or their started BTSC partner got lynched, I don't see what information you could expect to get from an L/Light controlled lynch that would put you in a better situation than a lynch decided everyone equally (once manipulation is accounted for, which I think is easier without the list further muddying things up).

Not to mention the other major flaw. MP is giving choice here. If we all decided to be insane and voted nihilistic, it would of course be unbalanced, because that's exactly what we would have signed up for. Letting people choose is all the balance MP needs to apply to this situation, and your expecting more than that could really blow up in your face.

DharmaHelper wrote:

boo wrote:Sure, but if he just plays it well and buffs civvies or other baddies who are chasing his non-teammates, then the benefit of their vote being buffed is still his, not theirs. And of course, he can also work to use the extra part of the half he has to use to devalue votes where necessary. An all around easier situation for him to handle and spin to his advantage unless he manages to fumble it spectacularly. Then with L, even pretty good playing wouldn't be enough, they would HAVE to be on their A game the whole time to make it work, and even if they manage that, it just makes them liable to get NKed and a different civvie a chance (assuming the pass down idea is correct) to use less than stellar judgement or get NKed.

Your cynicism has an incredible lack of faith for L but not for Light. Light has plenty of power to use to his advantage to help him. His secrets, as well as his percentage-check. We can debate what ifs and maybes all day but like you said, MP would not leave this kind of stuff up to chance. There are undoubtedly balances in place to give L just as much security and maneuverability as Light.

For example, they both *have* to pick one half of the current player base. The odds that the lists will work out in favor of the mafia (majority of mafia on both lists, majority of civs either on one or no list) is just astronomical.

I don't agree that it's cynicism. Mafia have an easier time controlling things that go on outside of the thread because that is the inherent advantage of being mafia. This option brings more of the control of lynches outside of the thread, and is therefore inherently to the advantage of the mafia. It requires a higher degree of luck and skill to be used effectively by L than it does by Light, and if L demonstrates that luck and skill early on, then Light can use the old stand by of just night killing the problem out of existence to get back on track. If L does not demonstrate (or have) that luck and skill, then the mafia can quickly control the game to the point where the other team may be a concern (balance), but the civvie chance of recovery is pretty much zero.