The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:@LC: Because I don't understand what's on topic about it. TH is not even in this game.

Secret players... cunning.

I read it. You went from "perhaps" to "must have been" without any reason that I can see.

I'd also note that, if Rico is on a civ team, he should have thre people defending him. SO far we've only seen Long Con. To me, that means he is either a baddie or Levinah Murphy.

Ricochet wrote: Do not assume my posts looking blatantly bad is the only explanation.
Do not assume others who "defended" Epig (ie didn't board his lynch train, with reasons or without) are worth less investigating than me.
Do not assume Hunger didn't actually join the lynch train, given how laid-back both he and Epig must have been, if it's true they knew Epig can't get lynched.

Why do you say Hunger was laid back. Where are you getting that from?

Zomberella12 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
fingersplints wrote:I think both SVS and LC are playing their civvie game, but they have both fooled me before.
This is what my Civvie game looks like?

I think that coming after Rico as a baddie just because of the poll screenshot thing is not wise. I don't understand what that has to do with being a baddie. A baddie is more likely to try and get a good rep by being as helpful as possible... and obviously such a flimsy strategy would easily work on some of you. I'll have to remember that.
More evidence in my quest against LC. Defending Rico. Probably on the same team.

Nah, Rico is Epi's partner, so he has no other teammates.

I'm just saying that playing purely defensive game is unlikely to make anyone switch their vote without a credible alternative to switch to.

Ricochet wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:@ Rico - are you really on Nauru? That is SO COOL!!!
No, but I hope so one day.

I'm really in Murder Park. In a word, harrowing.

Rico, a word to the wise. In mafia, the best defense is a good offense. Saying "I'm not bad, don't lynch me" rarely works, but saying "Look at player X, s/he is way more likely to be baddie than me" frequently does.

What the heck? Rico had the poll results this whole and didn't say anything about them, even though everyone was asking? That's the shiftiest thing I've ever seen.

Sorry man, I know you feel picked on, but you've got my vote.

Russtifinko wrote:Ok, stop posting so much please! I'm catching up and literally twice as I've finished a page a new one has been added. So at this rate it will be impossible for me to read the thread.

Speak of the devil, and he appears.

Defending Epig from our good friend Rico:

Ricochet wrote:So fill me in on the concept of infodumping. Is it what FZ. did?

Even if he's statistically right about Epig's alignment odds, how do we know what kind of group is FZ. in? And why trust FZ. at all? I didn't hear him suspect Epig of anything so far, either.

Ricochet wrote:This thread is officially wat.

First of all, why are you all rushing to vote / un-vote / re-vote, with one day left, even if the votes are changeable?

Second of all, I don't think I will vote for Epig. I have no idea what he figured out about the game or about the polls (or whatever he won), but I don't think it's a simple bluff. Maybe he's Wasatch and doesn't care about the fate of the other Forces, with the prospect of switching to a civ in the future, but I haven't seen anyone panic as if I'll they'll get lunched instead. He clearly incited a lot of votes his way fast, but this is a primary reaction I won't subcribe to. Outside this conflict, I don't have any read on him being bad.

I'll probably stick to voting for one of the infodumpers, because neither are making themselves trustworthy just by saying "Epi is not in my group and obviously not a Donner, but my group is good". One of them also revealed that infodumping was his way of working his (or his team's) way throught the game, so that'll weigh on my decision too.

Ricochet wrote:
Epig's role - (Secrets) Epig wins lol
I can see it already...

Ricochet wrote:RIP MM.

B-but... Epig!

Rico, it's circumstantial, I'll grant you, but Epig likes to get away with brazen behavior so he can brag about it in post game. Calling out your only teammate as bad on Day 0 is something he would find hilarious if you were to go on and win. Also, you defended him pretty hard.

Also this:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 08#p111105

I'm in the process of reading the thread to look for clues about Epi's teammate. I will probably have more observations as I get through it, but I'm leaving this here.

This exchange, between him and Rico seems like the kind of thing Epi would do with a teammate. Gleeful, faux-accusations. He's having too much fun, like he's getting away with something.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 20#p111207

What happened to Rustifinko? He hasn't posted in two days. Did he vote?

Now, at least, we have something to go off of. Epi was Weather, so he has a partner out there. Who in the thread looks like Epi's partner? I shall have to reread.

Zomberella12 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:You can, Zomb, some people just think it's not good to go around and say "so and so is probably this civ and here's why!" and stuff like that. Llama and others will argue that the baddies can figure it out for themselves, so it depends on your perspective.

You're allowed to say you think whatever you want for whatever reason, you just have to be mindful that information you dump in the thread is readable by civilians and baddies.

If Llama were to come under heat, you could say you believe he is civilian and fabricate a reason -- that his voting record has been good, that you agree with him, he appears genuine, etc. etc., whatever you want. That's typically a better way to defend a BTSCmate or someone you believe to be a certain role than saying "I don't think we should lynch Llama because he is such and such role."

Does that make sense?
Yes it does. In a normal game. In this game though, since the baddies have BTSC, they know who almost all of the civies are anyway. Plus, it seems like everyone is getting really hung up on accusations and defenses without explanations. How do I accuse/defend with an explanation and without one (especially if the my explanation is based on facts re. the character roles)?

Baddies have BTSC in every games. The civs usually don't. The point is that a person who is an identified civ role has little chance of getting lynched, and makes a good target for the baddies.

You're doing awesome in your first game, Zomba. Don't let it get you down. Even though Elizabeth Donner apparently thinks you're bad.

I approve of all those "let's not lynch llama" statements, and hope you will continue saying them.

Zomberella12 wrote:
S~V~S wrote: Just an FYI, it is considered bad form to identify who you think to be a civvie role in the thread.
Wait, what?! MP told me it was fine as long as I say that it is what I think. So confused.

I think SVS's point is overstated. She considers it bad form to identify a specific civvie role, because she thinks it makes that person a target for baddie night kills. Not everyone agrees with her though.

Zomberella12 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!
What was your weather/hunger lunch stop theory?
I think that weather killed tamsen and hunger tried to kill someone who cannot be NK'd instead of protecting weather. Also, Levina used one of her three kills to get Epig.
I thought Epi didn't care about getting lynched because Weather/Hunger had a secret (not stated) lunch stop. It appears that might have actually been true.
Or Jacob Donner did a lunch stop to protect Elizabeth Donner (who I think might be Llama).

I don't see how that makes sense, since Epi was the one being lynched.

linki: quite.

Zomberella12 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!
What was your weather/hunger lunch stop theory?
I think that weather killed tamsen and hunger tried to kill someone who cannot be NK'd instead of protecting weather. Also, Levina used one of her three kills to get Epig.

Wasatch is supposed to kill nightly, so he could have killed Epi instead of Levina. Otherwise, we may have an inactive baddie.

RIP MM

I love secret secrets. It adds an element of mystery to the game and stops people endlessly speculating, since they don't see *secrets* in the role list.

I'm still scratching my head about the non-lynch, but based on whta Epi said, I expect more information will be forthcoming to some of us soon.

FZ. wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.
So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?
I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....
If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.
Which would put what I and LC said as acceptable. I was either saying I think Epi is likely a baddie because of something, or was lying about it. Either way, I didn't know he was a baddie. Hence I think llama's vote was a baddie's excuse for voting like that, or an overreaction at best.

I was trying to stop something I saw happening, which is the following: Suppose everyone in the thread had followed your and LC's example. Suppose everyone in the thread said "A, B, and C are my BTSC partners." How long do you think the game would last and how fun would it be? I don't think what you did crossed the line, I think LC came closer (and I also thought he might be lying) but if that line of posting had continued, I think it would have ruined the game.

That is my opinion, and you are free to disagree. But if you think the case on LC was trumped up, recall that I am far from the only person who voted for him, and I gave a better reason than many.

FZ. wrote:Well, you said that my theory made sense, hence there was a logic in voting for Epi, when did that get lost?

thellama73 wrote:Snowman and FZ both make a lot of sense, but I'm not seeing the post where Epig says or implies that everyone is/should be afraid of him. Did Dom just make this up?
And you also said Rico seemed baddie to you (you also said that he always does). But this means you had at least 2 options, yet you decided to "punish" someone you thought was not lying, because you accused him for info-dumping, hence you decided to take out someone you thought was a civ.

When did I say I thought he was not lying? I explicitly raised the possibility that he was lying.

And yes, process of elimination would work if we all said who our BTSC partners are, but that is not the game I want to play.

It was Day 1, we had no thread evidence because there had been no lunches yet, everyone was gunning for Epi, who I did not think was bad, so I decided to use my vote the only productive way I could, to disincentive bad behavior. What do you want for nothin', a rubber biscuit?

FZ. wrote:I just want to address the info dumping issue. The only thing that I said that could be considered as something of the sort is saying that Epi wasn't on my team. Had I just said that the probability of him being a baddie was higher for me because he wasn't a Donner, and then voted for him, would you not know he's not on my team?
The only way people would vote for someone on their team, is if they were baddies and then they'd probably move that vote before the actual deadline. So I am now convinced I didn't info dump, and I take my apology back.
And people voting for those who allegedly info dumped are not looking very civvie like in my eyes. *eyes* llama

You don't scare me.

I voted 2. Manicheanism, ftw.

No lunch, huh? I'm not sure I like that, and I'm still hungry.

This poll ends at 7 pm on a Friday. I have a feeling not a lot of people will be around (party!), leaving ample opportunity for deceptive last minute vote switching. Very troubling.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Epignosis wrote:She danced around a vote for me.

She easily voted for you when she had elsewhere expressed a distaste for voting for new people (welcome by the way).

She criticized my methods but didn't vote for me.

All of this is antithetical to what I believe a good S~V~S would do.
Nah, I am good. And I think you know it. We can change votes here unlike in Film. But I totally dislike her analysis on Snowman, whom I believe to be good.

So this reaction makes me feel OK about switching my vote to you. Thanks for giving me a clear reaction so quickly

I'm curious: Do people believe this or not?

Not saying whether I do or not, but I want to see what everyone thinks. All I have to say is that I've never seen S~V~S vote for a newbie, EVER, without acknowledging it.

This is such a weird game. Everyone has BTSC. No one knows what team we will be on at end game. I don't think odd behavior is all that odd, given the circumstances. I doubt a baddie SVS would be so careless as to act contrary to her stated forum philosophy.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm hopping on the Long Con bandwagon.

The bandwagon of one?

Benefit of the doubt.

I have no problem voting for new people if you think they are bad. Once, in a game of Bang!, I killed a new person before they got a turn. Oh how I laughed.

Epignosis wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Semantics. You know what i meant. People who try to feel superior through word quibbles are not scary, IMO. You used to scare me, but i found a new POV.
I didn't know what you meant. I respect people enough to go by the words they use and not what I assume they mean. At least I try to, because it drives me crazy when I attempt to be as clear as possible in my meaning but someone assumes I meant something different.

Excellent summary, MP. I was going to give one, but you said literally everything I was going to.

Welcome, Splints!

Zomberella12 wrote: Llama seems pretty upset about posting who's in what BSCG with who. I get that it's against the rules but he seems overly upset about it. Perhaps that's his nature, but it seems to me that a civie wouldn't really worried about that kind of information getting out because it would be protective. However, who else would make such a brazen attack on Epig and MP via the message from Mrs. Donner? I'll wait to see how he reacts to this comment.

Yeah, because only baddies care about not cheating. He said, pretty sarcastically.

I figured someone would make that accusation when I posted what I did, but you can't lynch me today anyway, and by tomorrow, who knows what role I will have?

You have one vote, chill out.

Long Con wrote:Ok, so saying a player is not in my group is considered infodumping. Got it. Am I still allowed to say "i am a civvie"?

You're allowed to say whatever you want unless the host says otherwise. I'm allowed to vote for you because of what you say.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:another possibility is that rox told us roles will switch around just to mess with our minds, and it will never actually happen

That is brilliant.

Ricochet wrote:So fill me in on the concept of infodumping. Is it what FZ. did?

Even if he's statistically right about Epig's alignment odds, how do we know what kind of group is FZ. in? And why trust FZ. at all? I didn't hear him suspect Epig of anything so far, either.

thellama73 wrote:
Roxy wrote:Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.
Well, there go my plans to lynch Dom. Guess I'll have to come up with something else.
There goes your 6666th special post as well.

Oh shoot! I forgot! Haha!

Anyway, it is generally considered infodumpping to claim a particular role, out someone else as a particular role, talk openly about things that are only happening behind the scenes, reproduce host PMs, or anything of that nature. If we all come out and just name our BTSC partners in the thread, the game wouldn't be very fun. I object to that kind of playing, and while I think FZ was guilty of it as well, LC's was more blatant so he got my vote. Also, either of them could be lying, and I think LC might have seen FZ's post as an opportunity for such a lie.

Long Con wrote:I thought a game like this was designed to require infodumping, given the random nature of people's roles and alignments. If there's a 'no infodumping' rule in place, then... I guess the plan I thought of off MP07's idea won't work, because it requires signalling which Group you're in to your former Group-mates.

YOu can play how you like, but I don't like all the role hinting and infodumping that has become the norm in recent games, and I plan on signalling my displeasure with my vote.

In fact, I see no reason to wait. I'm voting for Long Con.

Snowman wrote:I'm new to this, but I'm not new to social deduction games, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this version works. I see four possible perspectives:

1) I don't know what team I may be on during the final round, so the best strategy would be to eliminate the most potent competitors, regardless of what team they may currently be on,

2) I will role play my current affiliation, and behave in a manner that is completely loyal until I'm told that loyalty has changed,

3) we've been told that affiliation/powers may not change every night, so I should remain loyal to my current group because there is a chance that they will remain my group the following day,

4) the pre-determined alternation of groups can't be predicted or planned for, so there is no reason not to simply fire blindly into the crowd, because as long as you remain alive personally, you have no influence over who will be on your team the following day.

Personally, I'm leaning toward strategy #3...or am I?

Theis a very thought ful and good analysis. I have a few comments.

1. This makes logical sense, but I don't like the idea of just gunning for people mbecause they are perceived as "good at mafia." That doesn't seem fair to me, although partially this may be because I have been on the receiving end of it.

2. This seems shortsighted to me. As I understand it, all of us are more likely to change at some point than not, so it is foolish to ignore that.

3. This makes a lot of sense in the short run, at least.

4. "Firing blindly into the crowd" is putting it strongly, but trying to lynch people based on their actions as in a normal game makes sense to me.

I would also like to add that I don't think we should be openly discussing who is or is not in our BTSC groups. It seems like infodumping, and it seems against the spirit of the game. I may vote for an infodumper today.

Roxy wrote:Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

Well, there go my plans to lynch Dom. Guess I'll have to come up with something else.

Snowman and FZ both make a lot of sense, but I'm not seeing the post where Epig says or implies that everyone is/should be afraid of him. Did Dom just make this up?

Snowman wrote:Llama, do you have big plans for post #6666? I expect it will be epic!

Oh, I've got plans all right.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Where did I say the word stupid?

Right there:

MovingPictures07 wrote:The civilian self-voting needs to stop.

At least randomize your vote, for goodness sake. Who would have ever thought I'd be saying THAT?

Then I will vote the first person who does it because I think it's ridiculously stupid.

I know we're not typically supposed to discus other games in progress, but did it occur to you that maybe I just got burned hard for leading an unsuccessful lynch and it might be nice to let others do some work for a change instead of expecting me to build all the cases for them?

Search found 175 matches