The Syndicate

Yay! A winner is me!

I will totally play Donner Party, it sounds amazing! But you should put the thread in the Drawing Board and PM SVS if you want it in the queue.

Helios wrote:Early. :o

Back to the Sun with you, Helios. You have no business here.

I reread hedge, and DP (I do not think juliets is bad) and I'm not seeing enough in either of them to deter my intentions. Hope you enjoy my vote, MP!

Russtifinko wrote: llama: Please address your future posts to me in sarcastic orange, since they are clearly sarcastic. Feel free to be a dick, but at least follow site protocol.

Nope.

They might well be mostly civvies, but I don't know which is which, so I'm looking at all of them. I've basically learned that I can't read DP at all, since I always think he is bad no matter what, so I don't really know what to conclude about him. I'll have to look more closely at Hedgeowl before voting.

I do think all the Lizzy voters are suspicious. The way that bandwagon shaped up was really weird. But I still blame you for starting it. :P

Epignosis wrote:I believe she means that you will not mention whether or not you have received it. That's how I read it.

Oh, that makes more sense. Yay ambiguity!

Also, I am very confused by this.

Roxy wrote:[quote="Mad Bomber"]This is to be passed person to person via the host throughout Day 3. You will NOT post in the thread if you have or have not received the bomb. Watch your PM's!!

[/quote]

Does this mean that none of us are supposed to post no matter what? Isn't "have or have not" mutually exclusive, covering all possibilities?

Awesome job voting in the poll, Russti. Were you saying something about accountability earlier? I was going to look at your vote record, but oh wait! You don't have one!

I am going to be largely incommunicado this weekend, so I will be brief. My suspicions fall heavily on MP today. He clearly said that if I voted for him, he would vote for me back, but when I called his bluff, he inexplicably backed off and voted for Lizzy, starting a bandwagon that resulted in a civ lynch. I also think he has been less helpful at making cases than he usually is, instead just saying things like "oh golly, I don't know, someone else come up with an idea I can latch onto." That is atypical of his play, and I don't trust him one single bit. If nothing changes between now and vote o'clock, I will be bringing the hammer down on MP...HARD!

juliets wrote:
Mr. D wrote:Which of ya wants ter spend the chuffin' night freakin' wif mr. d? Damien Hirst Heap Of Coke ter guess correctly wot number I am thinkin' of from 1-10 gets it! some aint utilizin' their btsc wif me. it's a bloody shame I say! wahn would fin' wahn would loike ter kna wot the bloomin' night poll is aw abaht, but maybe that's just me.
i guess number 6.

I already guessed that! nah yogi bear!

Mr. D wrote:Which of ya wants ter spend the chuffin' night freakin' wif mr. d? Damien Hirst Heap Of Coke ter guess correctly wot number I am thinkin' of from 1-10 gets it! some aint utilizin' their btsc wif me. it's a bloody shame I say! wahn would fin' wahn would loike ter kna wot the bloomin' night poll is aw abaht, but maybe that's just me.

I guess ya 're thinkin' of the bloody number Tom mix!

juliets wrote:Can someone tell me what Hammer and Tack means in these cockney posts?

Windjammer and tack is Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for Hammer and Tack.

I'm votin' Joanna coz I loike the chuffin' tinkly-winkly sound wot the bleedin' dancin' fleas make, innit? russ aint tryin' very 'ard ter win Hammer and Tack me trust. rip lizzy. I am very suspicious of the lizzy voters 'oo seemed ter react against 'er svs vote.

Pluto wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I am also beginning to wonder if one of Llama or S~V~S is a baddie. Seems others are mocking the whole "there's nothing there" thing, but now I wonder.

Curious if DP has more thoughts to bring to the table as well.
If llama and S~V~S are faking an argument, I'll eat a sock. A wooly, black sock.

But seriously, I don't see either of them being the types to pull something off like that. If they're going to be devious, I think it would be in BTS ways.

Hammer and Tack ter the underworld, pluto. ya 'ave nah business 'ere.

Mongoose wrote: I am a lil' concerned that a few of the bloomin' more aggressive players 're bein' a bit blendy this game. they 're contributin', Bobby, but it's aw pretty innocuous stuff. this bein' such a radical departure from their usual m.o. 'as me a lil' bit ka-wonk-a-wonk.

Crikey! that was just me finkin' abaht ol' sock-o-lantern, if ya catch me drift.

Cor blimey, looks loike svs 'as sum defenders!

Mongoose wrote: Oi, you're talkin' ter a lydy, sir.

Juliets is the bloody only lydy in this rub-a-dub.

Mongoose wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: I can't understand these posts by llama at all, but I do see he seems to be saying I caught his attention... for the post I just addressed above this one? Why would that make me baddie??? If that's what he's trying to say, it's utterly ridiculous IMO and if he votes that way, I'll honestly probably vote for him back because if he is a civvie he would be doing none of us any favors by floating such inane reasons to vote, but I find that less likely because it seems very illogical of llama to vote for someone for that reason.
A llama does not respond 'eaven and 'ell ter threats! I am always deeply suspicious of people 'oo agree wif others wifaht addin' thoughts of their Jack Jones. I fin' that is wot ya 'ave been doin' so far this game, and I am votin' for ya. if ya fin' a revenge vote Hammer and Tack is a smart fin' ter do, be me guest! *votes sock bloke*
Why the Liz Hurley vote? daan't ya fin' sum more shenanigans might occur this afternoon?

Chinese Blind ya Jack Jones business

MovingPictures07 wrote: I can't understand these posts by llama at all, but I do see he seems to be saying I caught his attention... for the post I just addressed above this one? Why would that make me baddie??? If that's what he's trying to say, it's utterly ridiculous IMO and if he votes that way, I'll honestly probably vote for him back because if he is a civvie he would be doing none of us any favors by floating such inane reasons to vote, but I find that less likely because it seems very illogical of llama to vote for someone for that reason.

A llama does not respond 'eaven and 'ell ter threats! I am always deeply suspicious of people 'oo agree wif others wifaht addin' thoughts of their Jack Jones. I fin' that is wot ya 'ave been doin' so far this game, and I am votin' for ya. if ya fin' a revenge vote Hammer and Tack is a smart fin' ter do, be me guest! *votes sock bloke*

'rmenia, city in the chuffin' apple pie, is the bloomin' Mae West Din' Dong by the 'oo.

Russ wants ter kill me 'cause 'e can't bloomin' 'andle 'a cockney I is, innit?

juliets wrote:Ah! I got it! This is my cover of Sympathy for the Devil

'ave a Gertie Gitana, poppet.

Movin' dolly mixtures 'as caught me attention by repeated me analysis of day wahn votes almost dicky richard the third for dicky richard the third wifaht addin' aahhht original. for that reason, I intend ter vote for 'im today.

S~V~S wrote: And after recent experiences, I will vote for anyone pushing low posters, especially the first few days, not just llama. I just think they're bad, bad, bad.

Ah onny av 'un pin sa far, 'n it's not eur la posta.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Regarding spreads vs. not on Day 1, I would think spread votes would be in a baddie team's favor more so than a straight up lynch. They can much more easily control the vote and avoid a Day 1 baddie lynch and cause some chaos. However, they could also run the risk of outing themselves, so that's a consideration. Additionally, a not spread vote can give very little information, especially when it is a civvie lynch, and many baddies can bandwagon. So I guess it does depend on strategy and what actually happens.

Excellent regurgitation of the post just above yours, MP.

Russtifinko wrote: Hi Hedge! Now I need to come up with some insulting names for you in case we get in a fight, because you already seem really well-prepared. I don't know if anything can top Mr. cRusstipants. That poor PE teacher....

What about Hedge-Foul, or Dredge-Bowell?

Russtifinko wrote: Thanks for the clarification, juliets. I'm not sure I agree that baddies like big vote spreads on Day 1. In my experience, yes, a civ almost always dies, but when I've been bad it's always been a nightmare for my team to decide where to put votes so we aren't actually the ones who kill the unlucky civ, because Day 2 is a revenge lynch as often as not. It actually seems to me that a tie is the best possible outcome for civs on Day 1. We learn about lynch mechanics and/or vote manipulations, and sometimes no one dies. However, that's all fairly academic at this point. Now that I'm hopping back into mafia I'm trying to get new perspectives and not play just like I did before. I appreciate your willingness to explain, and for now I have no reason to doubt you.

I made a long and well-reasoned argument a few games back that a spread out vote on Day 1 basically guarantees a civ lynch, since one vote can tip the balance so easily, whereas if there is unity, the baddies cannot affect the outcome without outing themselves. This was mostly ignored, but someone did offer the compelling counterargument that if we unite and lynch a civ, there is no information to be gained by analyzing the voting record.

I don't understand your last point, Russ. I didn't vote for you after Roxy told me not to. I do not plan to vote for you tomorrow now that you've shown up (that could always change.) So how am I not being accountable to my votes? If I had actually cast a vote for you, you may have had a point, but I never expressed any intention of doing so after Roxy said you would be modkilled, only regret that I had to rethink my initial plan. You were the only thing I had to go on, and in the my vote for DP might as well have been random for all the info I had, so I was frustrated by that. I don't see how I am ducking accountability though.

Russtifinko wrote: You've played with me plenty of times and know damned well that I do my best to respect the game. I don't recall if you've ever hosted me (besides in Minimalism Mafia now), but I do put a lot of thought into my posts, try to make the game enjoyable for others, and express gratitude to the hosts for putting in what I know is an incredible amount of work. So in the politest way possible, BACK OFF.

Welcome Russ! Glad you could make it. One at a time:

Russtifinko wrote: I could decide not to take this personally, but it seems more fun to be argumentative. Llama, I see your point about wanting people who refuse to play out, but on Day 1? You're not even willing to give someone one day to check in and to find out the game has started??

You had Day 0 as well, so in a word, "yup!"

Russtifinko wrote: I'm curious why you seemed so stuck on me. I counted 5 posts where you mentioned wanting to vote for me, and iirc 2 of those came AFTER Rox told you I was being modkilled anyway. Why the crusade? And "doesn't show respect for the game or the host?" Really? That if nothing else actually does strike me as personal.

I could have made no posts and been all "derpy derp I don't know. Randomized," and avoided all scrutiny, but I think that is a lazy way to play and it is not my style. If you don't like me coming after you, be around to defend yourself.

Russtifinko wrote: You've played with me plenty of times and know damned well that I do my best to respect the game. I don't recall if you've ever hosted me (besides in Minimalism Mafia now), but I do put a lot of thought into my posts, try to make the game enjoyable for others, and express gratitude to the hosts for putting in what I know is an incredible amount of work.

True, and I like you as a player and as a person. I'm sorry if you took what I said personally. I was responding to the behavior, not the man. I am exceedingly glad you are here now. The game will be more fun with your presence.

Russtifinko wrote: So in the politest way possible, BACK OFF.

We'll see.

MovingPictures07 wrote:To add to the discussion, I have to say this:

I always hated randomizing, but the more and more I've played, particularly this year, I think I feel somewhat similar to Hedgeowl in that I have come to empathize with their cause. As a civvie, you really have no idea who is baddie, and I find that personally in the past I always felt pressured to scrutinize everyone's words and actions more just so I wouldn't seem like I was blending in -- after countless failures of any of my leads being accurate so early on, game after game. For many games, I felt my observations and leads were legitimate at the time, but realizing that my success rate was terrible, I started wondering if I wasn't just making incorrect conclusions time and time again. Taking this into consideration, I tried randomizing on two separate occasions, both of which nearly got me lynched because of my previous expressed hatred for randomizing. It was almost as if I've trapped myself with my inability to randomize and sometimes now I feel like I have to come up with a reason that I convince myself to be true in order to find someone to vote for on Day 1.

Yes, someone who randomizes avoids blame and responsibility. It is so much easier to randomize than it is to come up with a legit reason for voting someone as a baddie and explaining it. Thus, baddies can use it to their advantage. But on the flipside, as a civvie, sometimes you really just don't know.

All of this to say I'm not sure I feel the way I always did on randomizing anymore. I still don't like it, but sometimes what else do you have so early in the game? And the correlation of randomizing players to being civvie or baddie doesn't seem to be anything enlightening. Similar with self-voting, despite what others may say, and despite the fact that I don't like that even more than randomizing (at least randomizing, if you are a civvie, has at least SOME chance to catch a baddie; if you're self-voting, you're doing nobody a service).

I agree with you on most of this and I am not as hostile towards randomizers as I initially was. What I do not understand, however, is when people go after each other for having a "weak" reason behind their Day 1 vote, yet give randomizers a pass. There is no weaker reason than "random.org told me to do it."

S~V~S wrote:
On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad
Explain how this works with 3 baddies and 6-9 civvies (last three listed before the baddies, not totally sure about them~ they are listed under "Respectable" without a different heading, but are in a different color, so )? How is it with 2 or 3 to one odds of a A Person (or a person) being a civvie, everyone has an equal chance?

If we assume the Midnight Rambler is civvie-friendly, then there are 9 civvies and 3 baddies. With no other information (we have very little on Day 1) the odds of any given person being bad are 1/4. As I said, everyone has an equal chance(1/4) of being a baddie. I clearly did NOT say that there is a fifty-fifty chance of a given person being a baddie. You said that.

S~V~S wrote:I have no patience with people who want to lynch people for reason unrelated to whether or not they are civs

So you agree with me about randomizers. Good. I look forward to seeing you go after those people in the future.

There is a difference between a low poster and someone who has not even checked in. I have no patience for people who refuse to play at all, and I want them voted out. Always. Since I can't know their alignment on Day 1 (I dispute the notion that goodies are more likely to be inactive than baddies) I would rather get rid of someone who is not playing than someone who is. On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad, so why not go for someone who doesn't show respect for the game or the host?

Sorry to see Matt go. RIP. Hopefully we will have a better idea of what to do tomorrow. For now, I'm voting box C, because I just had a box of Chinese food and Chinese starts wit a C, as does Cookie, as in Fortune Cookie, and I want good fortune. It makes total sense.

S~V~S wrote:I went with my gut and voted Llama. I view wanting to vote out ultra quiet people, especially so early, as a baddie ploy.

Even though I've done it in every single game I've ever been in?

Well, I really wanted to vote for RUss, but since I have been expressly told not to by the host, I guess I won't. Therefore, I am voting for DisgruntledPorcupine, because it is traditional and because he randomized and because he went after juliets, who am liking at the moment for being an interesting participant. I would like to add that I am not inclined to believe everything that Mr. D says, since I do not think Roxy would include a character that would just out people as bad. It wouldn't be fair. So I don't take Mr. D's eye in juliets' direction to mean anything.

juliets wrote:Thank you Roxy. Well, if someone doesn't get my attention I will use my day 1 default which is to random amongst the low posters. I'm really hoping not to do that though.

Well, SVS thinks low posters are automatically good, so you're just asking for trouble.

Wait... I think I got that backwards...

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
juliets wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Alright, weekend over. Time to get serious about this game. Unfortunately, I have no leads whatsoever at this point. Anybody have any pings? I sure don't.
Yes, I was thinking the same but I don't have any pings or niggles.
right now I'm inclined to vote for Russ, since it annoys me when people sign up and then don't play, but that's only if I have nothing else to go on before vote o'clock.
Right now I am inclined to vote for you since my experience tells me that some people are quieter when civ, and a quiet civ is better than a dead civ.

A quiet civ is indeed better than a dead civ, but a quiet dead civ is considerably worse than an active dead civ.

juliets wrote:maybe llama has some questions.

Stop "pushing" me, juliets! If I have questions, I will ask them in my own good time.

juliets wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Alright, weekend over. Time to get serious about this game. Unfortunately, I have no leads whatsoever at this point. Anybody have any pings? I sure don't.
Yes, I was thinking the same but I don't have any pings or niggles.

right now I'm inclined to vote for Russ, since it annoys me when people sign up and then don't play, but that's only if I have nothing else to go on before vote o'clock.

Alright, weekend over. Time to get serious about this game. Unfortunately, I have no leads whatsoever at this point. Anybody have any pings? I sure don't.

I forgot to say that I would prefer 24/24.

Here's my awesome Stones song posting. Contains my favorite guitar solo ever.

A Person wrote:Is that why the avatar is Ryuk, a god of death from the anime Death Note?

Oh, I thought it was trying to be Beetlejuice.

Roxy wrote: For not knowing (or pretending not to know) who Mr. D is your next post should contain who exactly Mr. D is and who came up with it.

Ha, you don't scare me with your veiled threats. You can't make me explain that Mr. D is a Canadian sitcom that debuted in 2012. You can't force me to give credit for its creation to comedian Gerry Dee and explain that the show's title comes from a nickname he got as a high-school physical education teacher.

And you certainly can't make me admit that the role is really an allusion to the song "Dancing with Mr. D" from Goat's Head Soup, with the eponymous character referring to Death, and the lyrics written by Mick Jagger.

Rebellion! Anarchy!

Hedgeowl wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
Hedgeowl wrote:Air Hockey Table + Ale + Apple = Party!
It's a wonder the Animal Sanctuary Squad isn't totally hungover today!

A.S.S. reunited!

Mr. D wrote:
Mongoose wrote:Mr. D, can you tell us what really happened to Brian Jones?
I can tell you lots of things, if only you manage to ask the correct question.
For being the first (and sadly... only) person to address me, you will be handsomely rewarded when the time comes.
Everyone else will rue the day they ignored the great Mr. D.

Mr. Who? Doesn't ring a bell.

Since each selection can only have one vote, I want dibs on the beer!

Search found 48 matches