The Syndicate

How are the names of my teammates from previous days going to help you, and how is you knowing them going to help me?

What do you mean I have nothing to lose? I cold be night killed tomorrow. I could be lynched the day after that. I have everything to lose, and the longer I go without fnding baddies, the more likely it is that I do lose.

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Black Rock wrote: No, the first rotation didn't do much at all and the second rotation was completely different. New group, new roles, new people. Nothing was the same. I don't see how a pattern could be seen in this. I got a group PM so I don't know what you mean by who moved first.
This is what I mean. There's no way for us to figure out how the role switches work, but FZ's statements and questions (who moved first?) either indicate she has info on the role changes (which I doubt) or she is pretending to.
What if I had a pact? And Roxy approved it?

What if you just want us to think you have one?

Black Rock wrote: No, the first rotation didn't do much at all and the second rotation was completely different. New group, new roles, new people. Nothing was the same. I don't see how a pattern could be seen in this. I got a group PM so I don't know what you mean by who moved first.

This is what I mean. There's no way for us to figure out how the role switches work, but FZ's statements and questions (who moved first?) either indicate she has info on the role changes (which I doubt) or she is pretending to.

I just meant that I have no ongoing pact other than what my current role gives me.

Thank you for your get well wishes, FZ. You are a true friend.

I'm sorry that I am finding you less and less trustworthy.

FZ. wrote:
Long Con wrote:Sounds overthinky to me. Do you have an idea of the pattern of role-rotation, FZ.?
I have some, but I'm not sure I should discuss it.
Can you tell me why you trusted BR, Splints and Russ up until this day, when it's obvious they were not your BTSC all days?

This post, for example, has me all tingly with worry. What better way to gain civ cred and ensure you're kept around for awhile than to insinuate you understand the game (which nobody else does) and can use it to the civs' advantage?

FZ. wrote: And llama, I'm a little disappointed in you for suggesting that a less active FZ is a bad one. Believe me, and ask whoever has played with me, when I'm a baddie, I am just as active and giving it my best as I am, when a civ.

I didn't suggest you were bad. I asked what people thought of you and said you were skulking under the radar a bit. Defensive much?

Reading back on your posts, the first few days were characterized by an almost desperate attempt to figure out the game mechanics, with almost every post being a question. That read pretty civvie to me. Your posts today seem to suggest you that you know how the role rotation works, at least to an extent, but I do not believe you know that. It's giving me pause about you.

Regarding alliances, I am, and always have been, a lone llama.

Guys I'm sick (dying) and will probably not be leaving my bed today. I will vote, but I have no idea for whom yet.

Also, what do people think of FZ? I feel like she's been skulking along under the radar more than she usually does.

I'm probably going to be looking @Ty and Zombrella today. Ty feels like he is being led (which may not mean much because of all the civ BTSC) and Zombrella seems too eager to assume a leadership role.

Well the Blooper kill makes no sense. She was alost certainly going to be lynched today, so why would the unseen forces waste their kill? Is a redirect possible?

S~V~S wrote:Well, let's see if they do.

What if I purposefully remain ignorant of what my new role and/or powers are? Is that against the rules? I tried it in a game of Bang! once and was immediately killed because people fear the unknown.

Russtifinko wrote:Yeah it looks likely she is/was. But it seems roles'll change before the next lunch anyway, right?

I feel awful bad for whoever gets Wasatch next. This has basically turned into "find the lone baddie by everyone vouching for BTS partners and seeing who doesn't get a vouch".

Role's may not change though, so Blooper is not off the hook.

S~V~S wrote:So does that mean Blooper is Wasatch? I don't even keep one spreadsheet, so

Unless someone else has another explanation of the lunch, I think we have to assume that. Unless the name "Wasatch" can change in the role power to someone else, but I see no reason to believe that's the case.

Well there's no lunch switch in the roles, so I guess Splints got the "you die first is Wasatch is lunched or NKed" power. That's not a great power to have as a civ role.

That's not what we wanted to see happen.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
fingersplints wrote:Although I do not like both bass and Ty's votes there.
I wholly agree.
Why?
Seems bandwagony.
Oh, and the FZ, and splits votes didn't?

Pointing to bad behavior to justify other bad behavior.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
fingersplints wrote:Although I do not like both bass and Ty's votes there.
I wholly agree.
Why?

Seems bandwagony.

fingersplints wrote:Although I do not like both bass and Ty's votes there.

I wholly agree.

Anyway, I'm not leading any attack.

Zomberella12 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Voting for Zombrella. I feel like she has been directing the thread a lot more today, and I sense manipulation.

linki FZ: Yeah, sorry. Work has been really busy lately. I'll try to do better tomorrow. I don't know how Roxy would handle that. We should ask her.

linki again: I just told you.
What the ... Llama!?! Unbelivable! I can't belive you voted for me. Somebody told me that it would be easy to lunch me because I post so much but I never thought that you would lead an attack against a teammate after what happened to you earlier.

Against a teammate?

Voting for Zombrella. I feel like she has been directing the thread a lot more today, and I sense manipulation.

linki FZ: Yeah, sorry. Work has been really busy lately. I'll try to do better tomorrow. I don't know how Roxy would handle that. We should ask her.

linki again: I just told you.

FZ. wrote:Is there any chance llama came back as something other than his role?

There's always a chance, but this did not happen.

FZ. wrote:llama, do you have any reason to trust Bloop?
What are people's opinion of Russ?

None whatsoever. I need to vote soon, don't I? Let me quickly review.

What's all this hubub about Ninja Blooper? Do you guys really think she is bad? I'm not seeing it. I am looking in several other directions today. More details to follow.

Isn't it impossible for one role to change? Wouldn't it have to be at least two?

I ahev to say though, I am rather pleased that Ricochet role outing himself by spite killing me resulted in his own death.

S~V~S wrote:Welp, that is not a surprise re Ricochet, but Welcome Back llama are you the same Llama?

Wait, what happened? I'm alive? What? Oh. Yay!

As far as I know I am the same llama. I have not been told otherwise.

Does my vote still count?

Ricochet wrote: Didn't you hear? Making others believe you are not bad doesn't work in Mafia.

I'm never giving you helpful advice again.

Have fun twisting in the wind.

Zomberella12 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
fingersplints wrote:And I just realized that Metalmarsh was Tamsen Donner. That really really sucks for the Civvies, Tamsen could have been the key to winning the game.
Here is more of my evidence against LC - "That really sucks for THE CIVVIES!?" Don't you mean - "That really sucks for us?"

I see the evidence against Rico, it is fair, but not as good as the evidence I see against LC and Russ (and now maybe TySlayer thanks to FZ). I will keep my vote for LC to ensure that he doesn't fall off the civvie lunching radar for D3.

@FZ - thank you for your analysis of how hard it is to make a real case in this game without being accused of some sort of bad sportsmanship. However, I will do my best to soldier on and find the bad guys wherever they may be! Watch out Wasatch, Hunger and GSLD - I'm looking your way!!

I seem to have done a pretty good one on Rico without using any info.

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Although, the fact that FZ seems so pissed off about this is starting to make me hesitate...
Nah, just wanting to be sure.
I'm pissed about the info dumping stuff, not this

The thing that's making me hesitate is the fact that he did indeed defend Epi more than once, which maybe in this game is different, but usually baddies don't defend each other strongly, and the fact I don't see any reason for him to admit as a baddie that he had the screenshot and then not give it.

By the way, llama, what do you think of SVS?

She's always a tricky one for me to read, but I think I am seeing her civ game, at least so far. She's being helpful and logical, and she's agreeing with me, which is a rare treat indeed.

Thanks for the response, I feel better about my vote now.

Although, the fact that FZ seems so pissed off about this is starting to make me hesitate...

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I agree that each one of my suspicions about you is weak on it's own, Ricochet. As you rightfully point out, I defended Epi too (it helps that I know I'm not bad though, so I don't need to make a case on myself.)

The point is there are lots of different reasons why I think you might be bad, and they are not mutually exclusive. Taken together as a whole, to me anyway, they make you more likely to be bad than not. Yes, each one can be explained away individually, but as a group I believe they make quite a strong case. It's possible I'm wrong, I don't think I am.

I'm sorry that you seem to be so hostile towards my advice on how best to defend yourself. I was sincerely trying to help. I've played a lot of mafia games, and I've never escaped a coming lynch by simply refuting the claims against me, because such claims can't be refuted. They are based on gut or interpretations, or perceptions. You can write all day long about "here's why I'm not bad" but I'm telling you from experience, it doesn't work. The only thing that works is to find someone else who looks worse than you, and convince people to lynch that person instead.

The personal attacks on my playing abilities are unnecessary. I realize I've been on a baddie-hunting cold streak lately, but if I'm so bad at mafia, why am I the second most winningest player on the site after SVS?
You agree that you lunch case is weak, but you push it anyways and I'm still the greatest lunch candidate. A lunch case made up of weak charges can still be a solid, strong lunch case. I'm more likely to be bad than not for doing on D1 what you have done and what others have done.

Good to know.

I did look for someone else, read my first post of the four. It obviously doesn't work, so you are thus free to lunch me for your original claims. Regardless of that, I believe I have the right to regard or not your advice, considering you are the one who is leading the lunch on me.

I have not made personal attacks. I do honestly believe the flaws in your reading/hunting are exactly that, flaws.

No, I said the individual data points were weak, not the case. A collection of many small clues can make a strong case, because while the odds of ONE of them being wrong may be high, the odds that ALL of them are wrong is low.

It's worth remembering that in mafia, the standard of evidence is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather "the preponderance of the evidence."

I agree that each one of my suspicions about you is weak on it's own, Ricochet. As you rightfully point out, I defended Epi too (it helps that I know I'm not bad though, so I don't need to make a case on myself.)

The point is there are lots of different reasons why I think you might be bad, and they are not mutually exclusive. Taken together as a whole, to me anyway, they make you more likely to be bad than not. Yes, each one can be explained away individually, but as a group I believe they make quite a strong case. It's possible I'm wrong, I don't think I am.

I'm sorry that you seem to be so hostile towards my advice on how best to defend yourself. I was sincerely trying to help. I've played a lot of mafia games, and I've never escaped a coming lynch by simply refuting the claims against me, because such claims can't be refuted. They are based on gut or interpretations, or perceptions. You can write all day long about "here's why I'm not bad" but I'm telling you from experience, it doesn't work. The only thing that works is to find someone else who looks worse than you, and convince people to lynch that person instead.

The personal attacks on my playing abilities are unnecessary. I realize I've been on a baddie-hunting cold streak lately, but if I'm so bad at mafia, why am I the second most winningest player on the site after SVS?

Zomberella12 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:LC clearly wants to be lynched, which is usually a good reason not to lynch somebody.
Why not a good idea? Just because it won't take?

Perhaps. I can't think of a civvie reason for trying to get lynched though (except the Llama Gambit, but that has been pretty thoroughly debunked). I am just distrustful of allowing myself to be manipulated, which is what I think LC is trying to do.

This is Rico's second game, the first being Film Director in which he is still alive.

LC clearly wants to be lynched, which is usually a good reason not to lynch somebody.

I think what Russ is saying is that, since some people voted for Epi based on FZ and LC's claims that he was not on their team, we shouldn't have lynched Epi, and that therefore we shouldn't use the fact that Epi flipped bad to make deductions about Rico for his alleged connection.

I think find this argument a little convoluted and unconvincing however. Not everyone voted Epi for those reasons, and now that we know he is bad, it seams silly not to look for his teammate.

Ricochet wrote: I don't understand what you understood from what I wrote. Like, at all.

You admitted that the evidence against you looks bad, but cautioned that it might turn out that you are innocent. I responded that such reasoning is always the case in mafia. Anyone who looks bad might be good, but the observation is meaningless, because any of us could use the same defense.

This is why I objected so much, in the recent game of Champions, to the idea that Made was forced to tell a lie that he was caught in by a secret role mechanic. Anyone can use that defense. "I know my actions look bad, but maybe I was forced to do it, even though there is no mechanism in the rules for that."

A defense that can be equally used by anyone regardless of circumstance is not a defense.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.
You agreed, as soon as you launched the case against me, that it can be truly circumstancial. Why are you keen to give me 0% BOTD on the whole thing being "truly circumstancial".

You also started by saying you'll do a whole re-read of D1 to search for Hunger, then you simply got stuck at me (along with most, I should add). I already said one should not assume it to be the sole explanation.
All cases in mafia are circumstantial. In order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have to find someone I think is more likely to be bad than you. I have not found such a person. If you have suggestions, I will happily listen to them.

I finished my Day 1 read and you remained my strongest candidate.
I meant my desire not to join others in lynching Epignosis (or what you so call defending him) is now circumstancial, in light of Epignosis flipping bad. Of course I'm the strongest candidate, by Day 1's read. Everything I've written now looks horribly bad, since Epignosis turned out to be bad. I only wish to signal that all this could be err circumstancial. Or, to use a better word, a complete irony.

Then again, you once said you usually go the Occam way in these types of cases, so I can sort of understand your decision. It will prove itself ironic once the lynch is complete.

I'll focus tomorrow on searching myself someone I suspect - as you yourself suggested - but I have little doubt it will be all for naught.

Otherwise, fine by me.

I don't understand the point you're making.

I could be bad but I might not be.

That's literally true of everyone. How is that supposed to convince me not to vote for you?

TySlayer wrote:Hmmmmmm..... I'm not totally sure who to vote for. Honestly, there are very few bad guys in this game, and if I vote now I'm not sure I'll hit that small window. I suppose I'm open to suggestions, if anyone has any.

Lots of people have suggestions. That's what we've been doing all day. You should read some of them and see what you think.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.
You agreed, as soon as you launched the case against me, that it can be truly circumstancial. Why are you keen to give me 0% BOTD on the whole thing being "truly circumstancial".

You also started by saying you'll do a whole re-read of D1 to search for Hunger, then you simply got stuck at me (along with most, I should add). I already said one should not assume it to be the sole explanation.

All cases in mafia are circumstantial. In order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have to find someone I think is more likely to be bad than you. I have not found such a person. If you have suggestions, I will happily listen to them.

I finished my Day 1 read and you remained my strongest candidate.

FZ. wrote:Okay, thanks for clarifying, Roxy. This means we're back to looking for baddies.

I have three questions:

1. What do people make of the fact that two people "defended" Rico? Do you think it's just their assumptions or does it look like he could be legit? Since they defended him before we knew the roles will be switched at the end of the day, defending someone on your baddie team would be very dangerous. So if their defence seems real, I'd trust that he's a civ. If it just their opinion, then Rico could be Epi's team mate.

2. Any theories on why LC self voted too?

3. Since it's the other team's turn to kill the next night, will it make any change if we lynch one of them in terms of the kill?

1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.

2. I don't understand why anyone self votes, ever. Never have, never will.

3. Both teams kill every night. If Rico is Hunger, as I theorize, then one of the teams will be eliminated, and we will have less to worry about.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I doubt the actual role changes will take effect until the end of Day 2. That would just be madness. And it's only 2 hours away.
One day and 2 hours, you mean.
Well obviously I meant that.
...ok.

Do you still believe roles won't change, in that case, even if the Host said they would? If so, why?

That's why.
vvvvv

Roxy wrote:Last clarification on this Rotation - it will not become active until the end of the day. You are still who you are until the end of Day 2.

FYI - you guys are making me giggle uncontrollably.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I doubt the actual role changes will take effect until the end of Day 2. That would just be madness. And it's only 2 hours away.
One day and 2 hours, you mean.

Well obviously I meant that.

I doubt the actual role changes will take effect until the end of Day 2. That would just be madness. And it's only 2 hours away.

You guys are sure demanding on our poor hostess. Just let her do her job.

I am in the same boat as the rest of you, regarding role changes, it seems.

Search found 175 matches