The Syndicate

Well Aces, I see only one role that can explain your turnaround. My problem with it is, I'm not sure why it would have taken you so long, so it gets you no trust from me, but that's hardly relevant now. I can't say I would have continued voting for you if I had survived, and if you had have come out with this sooner I would have went with DH instead, but... well it still gets you no actual trust because it's far to convenient.

You are right, and I have a feeling know the correct role? If you go back to my first post of D4, you should be able to see none of what I said is actually a lie. Dishonest in parts perhaps, but I chose my wording well in those parts. As for your questioning of my actions... well, people are fantastic at reading warnings as hostilities, it makes not having to think about the vote significantly easier, and makes them feel they can shrug of any responsibility for a bad vote. In this particular case, I did try to use the be-bat-shit-insane play that others have been, but I suppose it would have been better if I had done exactly as they have and just self-voted. But as I said, I don't like a play that is THAT accepting of the fact there are no real civvies in this game.

Ryan... I'm assuming you have one more night to do your thing. Get it done since it no longer matters.

To the rest of you, kill DH. I feel comfortable adding DP to that, Boats should still be an obvious choice. Bullz too, but he can wait. So in the order I'd off them: DH, Boats, DP/Bullz (more could come out that I simply don't have yet, but I like them both for non-morally ambiguous 2, and therefore they are the same as being bad in my books).

I wouldn't lynch Bea, and with everything else would ignore Aces for the time being at least. Epi I'd leave for now, but only to the same degree as Aces. I'm still not sure that his actions actually make Dex a good lynch. I think he viewed the role set up the same way I did, and decided to go full zany Dex on us instead of making any real effort. To me that would put him in the morally ambiguous 2 category, with my next pick being a splicer (houdini or nitro, as I think surviving the first 2 attempts or taking someone down with him would cause him to act this way).

Lastly, keep an eye on the next round of Big Daddy kills. The first 2 (LT and JC) could potentially rule out a good many players (being on that team) if a similar pattern continues there (it's wild speculation, so I'll keep the pattern I see there to myself, but at least a few of you should pick up on it if you haven't already, and obviously more kills will help confirm/deny it). I'm not sure if it will prove to be WIFOM or a short-sighted baddie kill strategy... I expect short-sighted though, the numbers just aren't there for WIFOM imo.

boo wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I need to read and catch up. As I read I will be responding to whatever catches my eye.

I am definitely interested in hearing what you have to say about all this. I am especially eager to know what you think of boo now. I hope I not a damn fool.

38

If ya have ta' hope, you a damn fool.

ebwop: hafta, not have ta'. Obviously. Maybe ye instead of ya. Guess how many fucks I give (spoiler: zero).

Derp, another post. Ignore the language if it bothers you? I realized after I submitted I have no idea what the rule here is on that. And then I quoted it. LOGIC.

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I need to read and catch up. As I read I will be responding to whatever catches my eye.

I am definitely interested in hearing what you have to say about all this. I am especially eager to know what you think of boo now. I hope I not a damn fool.

38

If ya have ta' hope, you a damn fool.

ebwop: hafta, not have ta'. Obviously. Maybe ye instead of ya. Guess how many fucks I give (spoiler: zero).

Epignosis wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I need to read and catch up. As I read I will be responding to whatever catches my eye.

I am definitely interested in hearing what you have to say about all this. I am especially eager to know what you think of boo now. I hope I not a damn fool.

38

If ya have ta' hope, you a damn fool.

bea wrote:his incentive to stay quiet is that he laid down his gauntlet. I can't see him having more to say after his mega post, though I could be wrong. And yes - we do have yet to hear from boats.

And you know who's gotten quiet again after we gave him a pass? gob. Not one thing this whole period. And I'm guessing now that I've mentioned it, there will be more "oh, I got busy and now I am trying to do the best I can." - honestly, I was tweeked by him "playing the noob card" as soon as I mentioned it as an option. And I gave him the pass and now it's time to start playing the game.

I'll go with my fellow civs - if we want to lynch boo, I'm cool with that, but for one second don't think my eyes aren't all over gob. I'll throw votes his way in a heartbeat if he doesn't start playing the game like he says he was going to.

@ snowdog - was I crazy in thinking that someone posted a "look at all the ways there could be civ bts?" - post? Because I swore during one of my skim sessions I saw something like that, but I can't find it again for the life of me.

I did not anticipate saying more after the last post, but it seemed there were still things to say because people insist on ignoring what I think should be obvious.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
Yes I do think he's making empty threats. I said in an earlier post something along the lines of anyone could come out and say the things he's saying, there's no way to prove the truth of it other than to lynch him and then it will be too late so I don't see why anyone would attempt to actually defend themselves in such a way. I don't see it as a defense, I see it as him trying to scare people away from voting for him and I don't think we should let it work.

26

Perhaps boo would like to contribute further to the discussion. People have already requested his head. I cannot imagine he has any incentive to stay quiet.

And we're still waiting to hear from Boats, are we not?

36

Because I'm more interested in the headsplosion that will be my lynch result (being my incentive).

DH will most certainly (unless you all nub it up, I suppose I should expect that as well, people can be terribly disappointing) get lynched the following day (if he survives the night), and that is a result I would like to see more then I would like to see myself not be lynched as well.

As for the nubs who think there even is 'civvies' in the standard sense. Read the roles.

Ryan and the morally ambiguous 1: If Ryan dies, every single role in that group has to kill the rest in that group in order to win. If that's your idea of a civvie-minded team, you a damn fool.

Morally ambiguous 2: Have no idea who the splicers and security bots are. These are roles that can kill. I do not like roles that can kill being alive to kill me, so as a morally ambiguous 2, the only people I feel comfortable keeping around are other morally ambiguous 2. There's an excellent chance in this sub group you will need Ryan dead (which then unleashes even more group 1 kills via the bots, and makes the kills a bizarre frenzy murderfest). Essentially, for these 13 roles, another 12 supposedly 'civvie' roles dying, is probably in their best interest. Once again... if that sounds civvie to you, you a damn fool. Not to mention, there are roles in there with potentially different win conditions (some started needing Cohen dead, others did not. For those who can, they have to decide whether they would rather have those roles in the same group as them alive to win, or Cohen and his dancers).

Then there are the actual baddies in a team of 5 and a team of 3. Need all of them dead (or rather, most, but that's a small detail, so we'll ignore it for simplicity), that's the only unifying factor for all morally ambiguous... not much unifying.

Then there's an indy team. How confident are you they will remain that (if they still are)?

Essentially, unless you have BTSC (which I do not), no one is 'civvie'. If you're a morally ambiguous 1 or 2, and think your good feelings, or even 'facts', ever suggest someone is someone you can trust, you're probably not paying enough attention, and it will probably get you killed. If you do have BTSC, you're a baddie, so I suppose you can just think of everyone else as civvies who need dying if it makes your head hurt less.

If you see a standard civvie team in ANY of this, then once again, and say it with me, you a damn fool.

As a role that's as close to civvie as you can get, my only interests in this game (in order of importance) are 1) Surviving and 2) Killing a whole 8 roles in a game with 36 (7 if we get them in a good order). Once it became apparent that even if I survive this lynch, I will not likely go on long, I figure hey, why not adopt the strategy of playing like a psycho (it has, so far, been a successful counter-lynching strategy, but seems to result in heavy NK casualties). Now, being me, I cannot accomplish this via a self-vote (I am not that fervently anti-acting like there's a typical civ group, like some others have been). And so I went with something that I suspected would draw out those I want to see you kill, preferably sooner rather then later, while also giving me at least SOME of that 'so crazy we can't lynch them' edge that has been working so well for people (in a format I prefer), or getting me killed and bringing down some people with roles that - had I survived - I would have wanted to see eliminated. Win-win as far as I'm concerned when I no longer need to bother being concerned with an actual win.

As for your bringing up the 'lynch switch or some other threat bit' I said in the last post, I did not mean something I have, I meant something else that would act like a lynch switch MP threw into the game (lynch switches generally require switching to someone with a vote, so you never want a public vote. But there may be something in this game that is not a lynch switch, but similarly can kill you if you have taken a public vote. DO YOU know what all the plasmids do? I don't.). I fully expect there could be such a thing, if you're not, I'm glad you're so optimistic, I will laugh at your pain if it gets you killed, and will consider myself better off for having considered the possibility even if I turn out to be wrong.

Well, prepare for the most clever of defense cases that you will ever read.

1. As has been pointed out, I was not happy about taking a single vote. Perhaps it's because I perceive my role as one that no one (well... maybe a few, there are secrets and I may have missed a few things in a few roles) should want lynched, and certainly shouldn't be putting votes on. No one likes the threat of a lynch switch... among other things.

2. My lynch would almost certainly set the civvies back another lynch, probably even 2, from the position you currently sit at.

3. Even if I am not lynched today, if you don't look to better cases and I am within a certain number - that I already have in mind - of votes to the top vote getter, you can expect me to go out trolling (as I would expect to be killed not long after this lynch if I am within the number of votes).

Now, a few people will probably decide I'm a liar. A few may even take a risk and try to call me out on it, continuing to push for my lynch. If they got their way, I would in exchange for my foolish lynching expect you to lynch off most (not all, certainly there will just be some who do not understand what I am saying and decide to vote for me anyways, but most) of them in the near future, as you figure out who simply was ignorant of my meaning, and who knew exactly what I meant but decided to try and kill me anyways (I think it would be reasonably easy to get it figured out, for the most part).

Do with that what you will.

And: in before 'clearly he has some kind of protect and knows even if he is the top voter getter he will not be lynched'. If I have the most votes, I expect to be lynched like anyone else would, I have no lynch pardon, switch, or ability to end the day early (or anything else you may be able to think of).

Lastly, I feel no need to hold my vote to save myself. Either I won't be near the top of the votes, I will be near the top but not lynched, and then show you why that was a bad idea not long after, or I will be lynched and you'll understand why it was such a bad idea. So, I am once again voting Aces. I like the Boats case, but if it winds up being my last vote, I just want it to feel right, you know?

AceofSpaces wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:As I noted in my megapost, Bullz, boo offered an explanation for BwT's confusing post. One reason he might have done that would be to lend a hand to a team mate after a flub?

6.

I've been suspicious of Boo for awhile. Mostly because of how threatened he seemed by my day one vote for him. It just didn't seem reasonable to me that he would instantly think I *had* to be bad, just because I voted for him day one.

4.

As I have said, your D1 vote was not threatening.

Your D1 vote - with no explanation - caused me to vote for you.

Your continued sense of being to good to explain it - and acting like you did and using 'I felt like it' as a reason - was continued nonsense, which is why you also got me D2 vote.

The only reason I didn't vote for you D3 is because I had reached a thought on llama, came into the thread, and others were going the same way. It was wrong, sure, but it added up as far as I'm concerned, and therefore makes sense, unlike how you have played this entire game.

@Bullz, I looked for the post while coming back to this one after reading, didn't see it. But it's convenient for you to have signed up for the contest and be heavily posting, and having DH to buddy up to. The only difference between our votes is I went with Aces twice, and that on the D2 vote, I hadn't wildly moved around with who I might vote. Yours actually looked (looks) like a save attempt for BWT. Mine had something to back it up. The fact you're now jumping on something that you also fit into perfectly (while jokingly ignoring it) makes me think you'll be starting the next lynch at the top of my list, as you are far to willing to do what is easy and ignore what makes sense.

As for DH, I'd currently lean non-civvie, but probably not full on baddie. Cohen or team. I don't think he genuinely cares about results he gets in what he's throwing out, only putting things out there to keep it off of him and whoever he may be connected to (could also be a morally ambiguous, one of the potential sub group LMSing, like a splicer or bot, and is just looking to kill anyone he thinks could be in that group in the event he needs them all dead to win). He does not, however, seem full civvie to me. Nothing I'd go after for a lynch, but I also think I'll be taking everything he has to say with a great deal of doubt as a result.

Alright, voting llama (was thinking about this while at work, but nice to arrive at something independently and see at least 2 other people bring up almost the exact reasons - those being Epig and Mata).

Most of what Epi said (in the beginning are thoughts similar to what I had) and then the whole discussion between them (added to reasons I suspect llama and feel good about a vote there). For me, it's primarily a few things here: I think he has been quick to move suspicion wherever he views it to be most convenient (the 'B plan' if you will). Prior to seeing his case on Bea, I suspected he was throwing it out there, hoping others would pick it up and run with it. I'm not entirely sure the case against Bea wasn't his effort to bring it back (as people seemed to be ignoring it to some extent, and Epi and he had begun by that point).

For what Mata said, and this was my primary reason once I got to it (in a sense it still is, but the Epi-llama back and forth I think is a more significant solid reason then this, so... also lesser, if that makes any sense). The defense of BWT from llama was I think another gambit from a baddie-llama. He has shown he is willing to use WIFOM heavy plays that (to me, ofc) make very little sense. If he's willing to do it as a civvie, I see no reason he would not pull the same thing as a baddie. Defending a baddie teammate is (as Mata pointed out) Bad Baddieing 101. But it's so obviously bad baddieing that doing it at this point is so WIFOM inducing you can be reasonably to get away with it.

Connected to that. Like llama, I figured BWT would turn up civ. The reasons he were being lynched were, imo, silly (as was the case in the RM game he got lynched D1 and was a baddie. Getting him twice in a row early in the game over nonsensical reasons seemed unlikely to me), and because the numbers just mean we're more likely to get a civvie then baddie early in the game, that's how I figured things would turn up.

My problem however, was llama so willing to defend someone so heavily on Day 2. I didn't think BWT was baddie for the reasons he took votes, because those reasons seemed very weak to me (and imo, there were about 4 or 5 different people who it would have made more sense to vote for), and so he would probably turn up civ. I think it's entirely luck we got him as a baddie. llama, on the other hand, seemed to genuinely believe BWT was a civ, and defended him like a civ who KNOWS another player getting lynched is a civ (I've done that, defending a civ BTSC teammate), not someone with an early game read of someone and just assuming their civ. Now from everything else he's said, llama seems to place a great more deal of importance on his early game reads then I do (the JC/LT comments just seemed... bizarre to me. Does your thought of one being bad and one being civ on N2 really matter in the grand scheme in a game with about... 34 people alive at that point?), but... that was an all out defense. I think he was expecting, if his teammate (BWT, if that wasn't obvious) did end up getting lynched, he would make the inevitable "Well, things sure don't look good for me now" comment, and then everyone would proceed to ignore him as a suspect (or at least trying to fit him into being on that team). I think that kind of play is exactly the sort llama would try and pull.

So, while I'm sad to break my Aces streak (who, btw, I still think is bad), have to vote llama this time.

(voting now because I go to sleep soon and won't be back for anything to change my vote happens. I think I've explained that in this game already, but just so it's nice and clear, yes, this is an early vote and I'm aware of that, but it's essentially a last-minute before the poll ends vote for me).

AceofSpaces wrote:The case against me makes no sense, at all. I'm evil because

1. I refused to explain a throwaway day 1 vote. Which I later explained anyway.
2. I wanted to force someone who said they would not post or participate or contribute to finding baddies to actually do all of those things.

Not sure where that logic leads, but I'd advise against following it.

I'm going to Vote for BWT because it makes more sense than voting for me.

Added for Russ: I was going to vote for algea *today*. He gave me reason to vote for him when he posted at night, so I obviously couldn't go back and vote for him on day one. He died before I could vote for him. And I have given my reason for voting boo. I didn't want to vote for AP, so I threw one onto boo. Pretty simple reason. Does that clear things up for you?

Except, as I said before when you said this, that still isn't a reason.

voting Aces

thellama73 wrote:Juliets, here is the rationale I gave in the thread just before I was lynched if this helps.

thellama73 wrote:Now that all the votes have been cast, I can reveal the patented "Llama Gambit."

Knowing that most of the time baddies try to act helpful and logical to blend in with the civvies, I decided to act crazy and illogical. A baddie would have to be nuts to act the way I've been acting, and I was counting on the civs realizing that. Therefore, civs would be unlikely to vote for me, but baddies would see an opportunity. They could vote for a civ and when my affiliation is revealed excuse themselves by saying "well, he was acting really crazy."

However, by revealing my strategy in the thread, one of two things will happen: Either I get lynched, in which case the civvies have good info on who the baddies are based on who voted for me, or I survive and still have good info based on the votes for me. Either way, my team is aided substantially towards victory.

This is the "Llama Gambit." I hope you are as impressed with it as I was when I came up with it.

It was less successful than I had hoped, although it did result in one baddie lynch(Bullzeye) and would have resulted in another(Lizzy). I think it would have been more successful in a game with fewer newibies.

Here's my problem with it.

You're calling it the llama gambit. This is basically how Dex plays at least half the time (he kind of slips between making zero sense to me, and not posting much, sometimes in the same game), and it seems to be regardless of alignment.

Ofc, I also don't think the gambit makes much sense. If you act in a bizarre way, you're going to takes votes for it. From civvies and baddies. I'm not sure that employing WIFOM to say, "Aaha! I know I'm a civ, and I tricked you into voting for me by being so insane you would do so, but also being so insane to the point no baddie actually would act like this. So everyone who voted for me is bad!" makes no sense. You can bring on any bandwagon, and baddies will pile on it if they think it's safe. But in order for the bandwagon to be safe, civvies have to be voting there to, which the baddies know.

BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Which means Atlas either a) failed his 90% kill chance b) was role-blocked or c) didn't send in his PM. The latter seems the most likely to me.

Atlas doesn't have the kill yet (Jack has to die).

God, these roles are complicated.

Hmm, long descriptions, relatively simple when you focus on the kill chance and any conditions that tend to be set around the kill chance.

Essentially, last night, there were (assuming none missed the PM/were RBed)
-1 NK with a 10% chance
-1 NK with a 25% chance
-1 NK with a 40% chance or a 10% chance (this early in the game, the 10 makes more sense imo, since it comes with a bit of security to it).
- 1 NK with a 30% chance
-1 NK with a 5% chance or a 35% chance (I'm not sure if this one means on the second night they target the same player it gets up to a 35% chance, or on each try there is a stacking 35%, but is only good for 2 tries, so a 70% chance the second time. I think it just means a 35% chance, and they can double target the person they pick if they don't kill them the first try).

Someone better then math at me can figure it out, but by my guess, that means we can reasonably expect (ignoring various chance-reducing parts of roles), on the top end, that one of these roles will manage a kill a night, a rare night where none of them kill (made more likely on the low end obviously) and 2 of their kills to go through about every 3rd or 4th night.

Then there's the Big Daddies who start killing (well one does, the other can as well) start killing N2.

thellama73 wrote:Which means Atlas either a) failed his 90% kill chance b) was role-blocked or c) didn't send in his PM. The latter seems the most likely to me.

Atlas doesn't have the kill yet (Jack has to die).

On the civ killing him Snow Dog, I would also keep in mind that with only one person killed (Ryan), gleams killer and all the other Splicers and Bots become LMSing within that group, and need to kill all the others. For all we know, he was killed by a civ who thought he was a civ, with the killer taking the approach of "Ryan could die any time, I should kill as many potential current teammates as I can so if he is, I don't need to kill them later".

I'm not really sure we can put much value into who those 'civvies' try to kill. WIth Ryan alive, they'll want to kill just about anyone not under Ryan in that first group, and with him dead, they want everyone within that group dead. It's really going to be, "I wouldn't mind this player dying" type of strategy for those roles atm I think, until the game progresses and they can form a better idea of whether they think Ryan will last to the end (I'm unsure of whether or not the part in role role that says they know who ryan is, and therefore will not kill him, means that they know who Ryan is, and aren't allowed to target Ryan for a NK, or if they don't know who has the role, but if they target him, the kill chance becomes 0).

The only thing I take away from his death is that it probably wasn't a player whose taking heat that NKed him, because if they did think they were a possible D2 lynch candidate, then trying to kill a probable front-runner is a move which makes very little sense, as it could wind up having people who were looking in they direction focusing more that way then they otherwise would have.

AceofSpaces wrote:I gave a reason, see below. Does knowing that in any way change the impact of my vote? Nope.

AceofSpaces wrote:By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.

That isn't a reason.

AceofSpaces wrote:R.I.P agleaminranks

Boo's reason for wanted to vote for me makes no sense. He's made no sense this entire game. I was going to vote for agleaminranks because he point blank said "I will not contribute the the civie cause. I will let you all die while I watch without giving you any chance to examine me". Or something to that effect. That doesn't strike you as suspicious Boo?

Boo voted for me specifically because I voted for him. Now he is suspicious of me. Did I strike a nerve yesterday Boo? Are you so threatened by one vote?

I would have voted for you after you voted for anyone and felt you were above giving a reason for it.

Well... interesting.

Personally, I saw what gleamin was saying as basically an explanation of how DP plays as well. It's their game regardless of alignment.

I think Aces reacting to that discussion in a "you play quietly, so I'm voting you" instead of a "you play quietly, your explanations specifically in this game make you seem baddie, so I'm voting you" makes very little sense.

Probably going to be voting him again today, because just about everything he has done so far is coming across as bizzaro baddie, which is more then I can say about anyone else at this point.

Voting Aces... and apparently I don't need a reason for it (although if it isn't obvious, you're a big a nub as he is).

Snow Dog wrote:

A Person wrote:

juliets wrote:Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

I understand why people think it makes me look like a baddie, but my interpretation of the civ teams seems to be that they can all win individually, and since each team has members that can night kill it only makes sense to me for them to exercise that power to the fullest as soon as possible. It could mean lives lost in friendly fire but that happens at the beginning of every game even when people try to make educated decisions. Once the game really gets underway it gets easier to make decisions based on facts that aren't wild guesses and people can be more careful. This is a lynch though, and as far as I can see the validity of the reasons people get lynched for can vary wildly. It's probably just my personality, but I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly. Those reasons together make me think it's best to just vote randomly and hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Based on what I've seen from games I've played and paid attention to, the general structure of the game is that there is a culling of players, civilian or otherwise, until individual players start making more of an impact. The winning team also always seems to have had some amount of luck on their side, so that's what I'm hoping for for the civs. I'd also like to say that it could be that I'm just really bad at mafia and only see this because I can't see what people are really doing, so maybe someone can prove me completely wrong.

The problem with a random vote is that you make yourself non accountable. If your vote contributes towards lynching a civ it's nice to see some evidence of why one voted that way rather than...oh I random voted. It gives us nothing. I think I will vote a random voter today. Probably you due to your slip up with the team thing.

And voting for a random voter makes you accountable how exactly?

If there are 10 random voters, and none is more suspicious then the others, and you vote for a random voter, then logically you have to randomize between those 10. Thereby making yourself a semi-random voter.

By your logic, I can say I will vote for a someone who votes for a random voter, and if more then one person does that, vote randomly between those people, and because my vote is still semi-semi random, it too is not a vote that is accountable.

And on and on that chain could go, until every single person voted for someone for voting for someone. It's a bad idea that has no accountability on your end is what I'm saying, so your argument rings false.

It's a trap.