The Syndicate

Posting from airport...my last weekend traveling before a one week break from it! Haha

I have been mostly following, just haven't had time to post. I only skipped 10 pages, I swear. And apparently they were full of DHs poop anyway.

I think voting low posters on D1 is ludicrous. DF could be really excited for this game and just had one long shift at work and then needed to sleep, and he could've missed basically all of today. I think people are basically giving up on getting a baddie because there are just 2, so they're playing for self preservation and feel least guilty about voting a low poster because they seem less interested in playing. I think that stinks.

I'm voting timmer. He and MP were suggesting we play the game in a way that pretty much guarantees cob defeat IMO. And plenty of baddies have tried to use odd setups as reasons to convince Cubs to work with them. I actually think MP was more militant about it, but I believe that his real life concerns are real, and timmer was all for an "everyone is LMS" game.

OMG STOP. I clicked submit 3 times without even reading the Linki and it won't go thru. *sobs*

Linki. Listen to JJJ. He's not stupid. If we get a baddie with DF, it'll be blind chance. Use actual suspicion. I know some people don't feel hopeful about getting a baddies, but we have to try. Nipping the baddie recruitment in the bud is by far the easiest way to win here.

S~V~S wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Dammit, why was my Pedantic Point not in Pedantic Pink? Can we have a button for it at the top of the posting screen?

I added one, just seeing if it works

Pedantic

~it does! So you can be pedantic now, as if you needed permission

Linki, why would a baddie recruiter who wanted to win pick three people who everyone thinks are bad? Seems like a losing proposition.

Linki again, I'm a two thumbs up to tearing apart people who are not me

But I'll have to read it in the AM cause I am going to bed. Enjoy rampant pedanticism, you crazy kids.

Thanks SVS! That is awesome. I'm going to be as pedantic as possible from now on!

bea wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Tim Drake was the third Robin

Eartha Kitt was the third Catwoman.

Did I ever tell you guys about the time I banged Eartha Kitt?

....anyone?

This is truly the darkest timeline.

Also - I love this so much!!! Abed is batman.

Someone got it!

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

timmer wrote: How are people going to handle the unrecruited side of things? Last game, I rather infamously flamed out, and it all started when I admitted that I didn't give a crap who got lynched since I was neutral. There was more to it than that afterwards, but that was essentially the big issue. It was pointed out that the rules of R3 said that an unrecruited player was sort of a civ, but in THIS game, I see the rules state that an unrecruited player is neutral and has only to survive to win. So how does that play out this time? Are you guys still feeling like it makes more sense to "think civ"? Or is this sort of a LMS format that segues into a more traditional team format, with an awkward middle?

I'm happy either way, I just need clarity for my own sense of sanity, lol.

The bolded/underlined is what I'm thinking will happen.

But, then again, I imploded in The Flash because everyone was talking 'civ civ civ' when it was clearly a faction game, so my thoughts may be different than others'. :P

Well, the baddies will be trying to kill you regardless, so I think neutrals should align with the civs.

Of course they should. It's the easiest and possibly smartest way to play neutral IMO. I just assume all neutrals are civ-aligned, hence my contribution to the massacring of the apparently baddie-friendly neutral team in HSK. You never know though, some people might think it's more fun to align themselves with the baddies before they've even been recruited.

Russtifinko wrote: Also, if there is a vote that looks to me like someone choosing something because they wanted a certain role power, it's Sorsha's. As someone else said, that may be more helpful later on when there are not tons of roles left, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Because it's her favourite number? I'm sure I saw at least one other person vote for the same reason... Definitely worth bearing in mind but also possible lots of other people voted for the specific position they wanted for their role. Not necessarily seeing that as a bad thing when the vast majority haven't been recruited yet.

Russtifinko wrote:And MP, BR specifically said we may not have to cycle through every single position. I think that makes a pretty strong case for going for the least bad case. Now, in reality it seems we'll hit each at least one time, but don't we at east want the worst ones less often? If we start on a bad one, since we don't know what will happen in the future, it guarantees nothing except that we have to deal with bad stuff and mayhem for a day.

Definitely. Makes the most sense to me if we continuously try to avoid the scariest/most dangerous powers.

bea wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I want to be recruited by all four sides so I can play them all against each other as a shadowy mastermind.

I KNEW IT!!!! BULLZ IS A TYPH SOCKPUPPET!!!!!!

linki - sorry epi - I'm sadly one beer left and this far behind. I can't tell yet if I want you to tear apart golden's response or not.

Actually if you read my DBZ game submission thread you'll realise I'm a sockpuppet from the X-Men game that achieved sentience and carried on playing here anyway.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Well the host labelled two of the groups as civvies, and those two groups seem effectively to be allies who only need to eliminate the baddies. That makes them civvies IMO.

Black Rock wrote:Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1

Thanks Bullz. Glad I'm not totally crazy on the "neutrals should generally act civ" idea. I feel justified in suspecting MP, then. And thanks for reposting the win conditions! I skimmed them earlier and didn't realize the baddies were out for each other in addition to us.

LOL I caused myself 10 pages of linki. MM, thanks for the gender guide and post links! Also, I have seen the adverb thing and the people refusing to lie about being bad thing work, so I won't entirely discount llama's strategy here.

10 pages?? Since this morning? I suppose I will still respond to the stuff I real earlier, though it's likely irrelevant right now. There's is just no way I manage to read up on all this tonight though, even if I really wanted to (and I only sort of do).

Boomslang wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.

This is true. My analysis is only worthwhile today. Your's will probably be a better guide after the recruiting starts. That being said, your analysis is limited as well. Some of the powers in your Negative Effects column could be powerful tools in the hands of civ-recruited players. Vote manipulation, phase ending, and blocks may seem negative but they are only truly negative if they were in the hands of a baddie. In the hands of a civvie, Position 3 or 4 could actually be the most potent for civs if they can get their hands on the negative powers. It's all relative to how the recruitment turns out.

This is a very good point. We have to be careful in this game to avoid thinking about traditionally "baddie" powers as bad, because the players who have them could go to any team. I think we should be most concerned about death effects. Increasing the pace of deaths reduces the amount of information that the players as a collective can create, which hurts the civ effort.

I hadn't even thought of this. Thanks for the analysis, you two.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Erlatz Eleven was the first recruitment game. Our very own DH was the one who was recruited from that pool and talked himself out of lynches for quite some time.

Erlatz team 4 life funny or die

I wish there had been a team whose mission was to emulate them called the Ersatz Eleven.

LoRab wrote:G-Man, the trouble with your thought process is that you assume that everyone will be playing civ-friendly from the beginning of the game, which I think is a dangerous assumption. The vast majority of players are neutral at this point--and are not necessarily going to play for the civ side. Especially knowing that most of us will be recruited at some point in the game, and not necessarily by the good guys. The roles themselves are not civ-friendly or not--they benefit the player and what side that player is playing for.

Boomslang wrote:

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

For those of us who haven't, care explaining why? What's wrong with picking the position you believe in?

As LA said, in one of the other Recruitment games, there was essentially a witch hunt based on which players voted a certain option (the day 0 options were tied to the recruiters). If I recall, something similar happened in the other recruitment game, as well.

So does this mean today we should try to lynch someone who voted for Position 1?

G-Man wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: I am a professional at making fun of the music of Creed

Making fun of Creed does not impress me. It was a regular pastime junior year in college. One of our suitemates was a huge Creed fan and we made fun of him dearly for it. That also led us to make fun of his love of Bruce Springsteen too, even though Springsteen doesn't suck.

That's nothing. The year I studied abroad in college, some friends and I made a mocking cover band of Creed called Apostles and did photo shoots at European landmarks with our lead singer posing as Scott Stapp posing as Jesus.

thellama73 wrote:I haven't really thought about which team I want to be recruited onto, but the Sorcerers don't get along with anybody and love chaos, so that sounds about right.

Best Post award!

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Tim Drake was the third Robin

Eartha Kitt was the third Catwoman.

Did I ever tell you guys about the time I banged Eartha Kitt?

....anyone?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm half joking, but only half. Some players, newer players especially, are uncomfortable flat out lying to direct questions, and so they dodge them or make a joke instead. It sounds stupid, but sometimes it works.

Maybe. But I don't see how that's enough to decide to vote for someone so soon. Especially when we have so much more time to discuss other possibilities.

Linki: "Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt."[1][2] Sarcasm may employ ambivalence,[3] although sarcasm is not necessarily ironic.[4] "The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflections".[5] The sarcastic content of a statement will be dependent upon the context in which it appears.[6]"

This should have been in Pedantic Pink, BWT. It's the new color we use here for pedantry. Not pageantry, though.

Finally, if you guys don't want any more posts this size from me, stop posting so many things I need to digest and respond to. This is your final warning.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

timmer wrote: How are people going to handle the unrecruited side of things? Last game, I rather infamously flamed out, and it all started when I admitted that I didn't give a crap who got lynched since I was neutral. There was more to it than that afterwards, but that was essentially the big issue. It was pointed out that the rules of R3 said that an unrecruited player was sort of a civ, but in THIS game, I see the rules state that an unrecruited player is neutral and has only to survive to win. So how does that play out this time? Are you guys still feeling like it makes more sense to "think civ"? Or is this sort of a LMS format that segues into a more traditional team format, with an awkward middle?

I'm happy either way, I just need clarity for my own sense of sanity, lol.

The bolded/underlined is what I'm thinking will happen.

But, then again, I imploded in The Flash because everyone was talking 'civ civ civ' when it was clearly a faction game, so my thoughts may be different than others'. :P

Well, the baddies will be trying to kill you regardless, so I think neutrals should align with the civs. Also, people who self-identify as pro civ are 62% less likely to be lynched, and 98% less likely to be voted for by llama. (Facetious Fuchsia. You're welcome.)

And MP, I think your viewpoint is super detrimental to civs. I'll be watching you.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Hi everyone. Just got caught up. I don't have much preference for which one we start with. Too many factors to consider for me right now, they all have good/bad outcomes (as others have pointed out) so

I'm going with number four because it's my fav number!

MovingPictures07 wrote:Voted for 4. I'm bored by the two man race between 1 and 5.

Couple of badasses here, who like kills, poisons and curses in their mafia tea.

You know it.

Seriously though, since every Option has pros and cons, I returned to my thinking that we get a horrible Option done now, and despite how horrible thread locking is I just couldn't bring myself to vote for 2 or 3, so hence 4, which is sufficiently horrifying.

Seriously! Those guys are crazy!

Also, if there is a vote that looks to me like someone choosing something because they wanted a certain role power, it's Sorsha's. As someone else said, that may be more helpful later on when there are not tons of roles left, but it's worth bearing in mind. And MP, BR specifically said we may not have to cycle through every single position. I think that makes a pretty strong case for going for the least bad case. Now, in reality it seems we'll hit each at least one time, but don't we at east want the worst ones less often? If we start on a bad one, since we don't know what will happen in the future, it guarantees nothing except that we have to deal with bad stuff and mayhem for a day.

You are pinging me a lot.

Also, as an aside, threadlike does seem like a power that would be better later on, when people have some idea to go for. I know a civ lynch Day 1 is likely, but it would pretty much be guaranteed if no one could talk or try to form suspicions.

Ricochet wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:The discussion of the thread lockdown ability is interesting to me. This might be a stupid question but would such an ability still be voluntary? If so the person might choose not to use it at all if they wanted. I've never seen a game have it before though so I'm not sure.

According to the Hosts, not sending in powers will not affect the PScore, so personal decisions in how to use (or not) a position might happen. As for the lockdown itself, I imagine it being used to the utmost advantage of the player or his team (if recruited already)... although the idea that by postponing the use of that (or of any position, in fact), you'll have to wait for another rotation and hope to live enough to get to use it again might inspire most to simply use their positions when they're enabled.

So hosts - is every position power usable every time that position comes up, or are some of them one-time-only?

So first, responses to things I saw yesterday and got too sleepy to respond to...

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Im going with number one. Its always best to start at the beginning.

What about Pulp Fiction? Lines for rides at Disney World? Other examples I have?

Roxy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I have a feeling the conclusion of this D0 will be closer to Just Pick Anything (and Hold on to your Butts) than something else.

Having been a recruiter in the last Recruitment game on RM I can tell you the Day 0 poll then had everything to with determining who got to recruit first depending on which poll options that were chosen - I was told what would benefit me before the game started.

I am going to think that some people must have info in this poll so I will look at those who push an option - it was my downfall last game

Thanks for the heads up! I had no idea people would have info. Everyone used to always ask, but it's been so long since there was poll info I guess we all stopped.

Woooo, game! So excited.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I am absolutely stoked to the utmost degree to play this game. LC and BR, I really can't wait to play this out. And the player list is SO EPIC.

It seems this Day 0 poll may be quite meaningful, upon first glance. What do you all think?

The player list is mind boggling!

So I was under the impression that starting off no one would have a faction, but almost all the roles have one listed. Can the recruiters only recruit factionless roles, or can anyone be recruited and lose their current faction?

And is it possible we'll only cycle through 3 positions all game long if we want?

DrWilgy wrote:Pleasure to meet everyone. My name is DrWilgy and I am most definitely a doctor.

Also, Train to Bangkok is awesome!

I see some familiar faces, and some new friends here. Let's all have fun playing together.

DrWilgy is definitely buddying up to everyone. Confirmed bad.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Position 5 results in the least amount of death.

Linki: listen to me when I'm talking to you DH.

This is actually a very valid point. Worth bearing in mind when people decide how to vote!

We have to cycle through all five positions. It might actually be that we are better off getting kills from baddies out of the way now... we should think about and discuss best use of kills. Definitely better to avoid positions with civ kills for now, I would think.

This is something a baddie would say when eager to kill someone. I'm watching you, Golden Boy.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One day when I have nothing else to do I am going to do a lengthy study on adverb usage in mafia and prove once and for all that it's always meaningless.

I'll contribute.

The adverb usage is no different than anything else when analyzing whether someone is telling a lie -- you have to first develop a baseline, and even then, it is far from an indicative factor on its own.

I refuse to buy into the fact that a player's adverb usage is any more effective at finding baddies in online mafia than the roll of a die.

Avoiding adverbs was a major contributor to me winning Watchmen, imo. I believe!


I'm gonna vote Option 5. It seems to have interesting stuff, but nothing TOO interesting like poison or Hunger.