The Syndicate

Forgive me, Samson. Requiescat in pace.

lol

Voting Samson.

Cain wrote:I have not been lazing around I am in 4 other games currently.

That information is of no use for me.

Cain wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:I am wary of Cain so far. Day 0, vote threat against meta hunters. Day 1, "what's everyone getting worked up about" skim of the game. I anticipate him to be a low poster type of player, but also the kind that, recalling from a few recent games, has proven to be bad and lasted long enough in the game, whilst the others ignored him or bickered over dealing with him or not. Really don't like his Day 1 comment.

Aww bam you got me!

How quick of a reaction, after four days of lazing around.

Have you found anything noteworthy in your "looking back" through the game?

Linki: same question nevertheless

OMG, everyone who voted the Gospels is.

linki: ninja'd

Oh lol. Nice ...job, Host.

I am wary of Cain so far. Day 0, vote threat against meta hunters. Day 1, "what's everyone getting worked up about" skim of the game. I anticipate him to be a low poster type of player, but also the kind that, recalling from a few recent games, has proven to be bad and lasted long enough in the game, whilst the others ignored him or bickered over dealing with him or not. Really don't like his Day 1 comment.

Lot and Job, what WIFOM do you speak of regarding Uzziah? The impersonation? His rooting for baddies? His defense of Horsemen? Also, Lot, why do you feel better about him after his first consistent post.

That post (as well as his latest), incidentally, make me doubt he would be our Resident Shenanigans Man, because of the quantity of counter-reasoning he offered. But in case he did try to impersonate the abovementioned and dropped the act right away under pressure, that would make me feel a bit worse about him. Sockplaying as if new to the site is one thing, but sockplaying to impersonate someone else is up to no good. Nothing clear about that intention, of course, but it wouldn't make him less suspicious in my eyes.

Upon revisit, his reasoning in that post doesn't hold too well anyway. Job is bad because of Day 0 sockplay banter? Blergh. Job was clearly against meta hunting (to the point where he would want me and Ruth lynched for such attempts) and I don't think he was really basing judgement upon Uzziah for who he might be, but for his baddie rooting. Calling Job obsessed with horsemen feels like an awkward redirect, considering Uzziah's (serious or not) defense of their status in this game. Finally, back to baddie cheering (re: Paul). Ergh. Messy rebuttal.

Early-ish deadline, so I'll try to pop up as much as I can with more thoughts, then finally cast a vote. Samson doesn't look in the mood to defend his unreasoned, coat-tailed vote, so I could very likely vote for him. Uzziah still honorary spot on my stone list. I still don't like how Jeph flipped around Paul's vote and read on Samuel, only to argue he was playing with both sides (and also be the second one to make such a "lolz I was just fishing" switch, after Paul), but I confess it would feel a bit forced to say he's certainly bad for this.

@Ruth: Whilst I can understand why some of us, especially given that we're in the midst of the Champions game, would adopt (or intentionally sockplay using) the old mafia terminology, in particular the word "scum" for Mafia, I would also hope that we don't end up adopting it entirely past this game. It would be unlike us. If I happen to use it, I usually put it between " ", because it slightly doesn't feel right to me. It's a nasty word, indeed, for old-style players who also tend to be a bit (read: waaaaaaay) brasher in their games (just check the Champions games).

Several players have still not posted on Day 1, but Pilate is indeed yet to show up at all.

More:

If Martha's "hunnies" are sockplay (I didn't get the reference, tbh, I'm not that knowledgeable), then I'm fine with it. Sockplay is fine by me.

Don't get the suspicions on Lot, especially for the post that earned him a scumread from Paul. I think Lot's suspicions on Paul have faded since yesterday, yet Paul instead now ranks him 2nd on the scum list and 2nd wagon choice. If it's for that post sounding like he'd wagon for a Paul lynch on Day 1, I still find it a weak reason and a possible misinterpretation as well.

Not quite sold on Jephthah's reply to the suspicions on him. It wasn't a case of defending, then accusing Paul, but of siding with his action at first, then siding with the others who questioned his action. He says he intentionally did a bit of both - again, this "shakin' things up a bit" that Paul also claims hard to do, hmm. All this Jephthat wrote as a paragraph inside a larger, broader post about us marking people for unusual play and about Paul vs. Lot. A bit awkward defense, if you ask me. What does everyone else who noted Jephthah's flip think now?

BTW, can we try Jeph for a nick? Would that be ok with you, Jephthah?

Honorary suspicion for Uzziah's scum-rooting post, although, I have to confess, it also instantly made me think of someone in particular and, in case it's true, it's a case of "here we go again" and it's shenanigans.

Catchin' up.

Judging by Samuel's long awaited reply to Paul's scumread on him, I'm a bit surprised he only addressed the part where he asked the Host about the need to figure out players behind the sock. Do you really believe that is why Paul called you scum, Samuel, or were you intentionally skipping the real accusation - your agressive opener, that not only Paul, but several others have deemed suspicious. Furthermore, in the same post, Samuel is eyeballing Ruth for her attempts to flush out players who seem/act new, even though he has questioned the Host if there is any purpose in doing sort of the same thing. Something feels a bit odd about this.

Then again, everything suddenly seems water under the bridge now between Samuel and Paul, with Paul right away saying

Paul wrote:Samuel glad we're cool but why do you only comment about Ruth

Paul wrote:yo Samuel you want to be best buds? you seem like a cool guy

and later insisting on the fact that he voted and scumread Samuel only to fish / test reactions and get the ball rolling. Whilst I understand this tactic, I must confess I'm still slightly irked by this switch, especially given that he voted before doing any of this. As in, absolutely everything he has done so far.

Onto the issue of Paul's play being a total pretense, which if I'm not mistaken Ruth, Martha and Lot have brought it up: my gut tells me Paul is indeed new to the Syndicate, because it would take a great amount of fabrication to create such a persona. However, I'm not rejecting the idea either, given that it's such a nice timing, with the Champions game ongoing and such, to take advantage and adopt a different tactic and vocabulary, in addition to hiding under the sock. I'd give it a few more days to judge this, on the belief that if he will remain obstinate in how he plays, it will actually become a sign that it is a possible pretense cracking under limitations (sticking to "scum this, scum that" and other rebuttals) rather than that he is a natural "outsider" who's very much sticking to his own style of mafia.

If Paul is indeed new here, he is no doubt experienced otherwise in playing mafia, therefore he is not a "noob" and I would have no problem with him being voted, even as a "new forum player", if anyone deems him bad. He wouldn't have a problem with it either, from what he says, so game on. On the hand, I don't suspect Rebecca and others who may bring the "BOTD/no newbie d1 lynch" card, because it's such an old and constant debate over here and we never really seem to reach a resolution either, every time it happens.

I don't understand, nor like Samson's follow vote for Samuel. Samson has otherwise said nothing of value or to back his vote, except supporting Paul's actions earlier on. I would just note that Paul's initial reaction was

Paul wrote:wow someone followed me on my vote cool

followed after a split second or so by actually questioning Samson's vote and later turning Samson into his main scum lead.

Bottom line w. Paul, I don't like that he voted first and then has done everything else, his scumreading/fishing switch of intentions strikes me as odd since he is usually defending his actions as being meaningful baddie hunting. I also don't recall him giving any reasons for Nicodemus being a third choice (or 2nd wagon) on his scum list.

Can't say I condemn it, myself.

linki: Wasn't Bass the first? :P

Aargh! A Kraken.

Re: the Horsemen, I don't think they can be trusted at all or be expected to side with the Righteous. It's a heavily obscured, in terms of win condition and abilities, and terrifying, canon-wise, quartet. What Jonah said about finishing off the Heathens in order to win the game being "too easy" reminds me of Death Note: civs only had to eliminate four players (out of 27) to win, but bickered over an entire rogue faction being civ-friendly or not (granted, they were destined to receive the power to kill at certain point- although they never did), and almost all the four players that needed to be eliminated won the game unscathed. My point being we should primarly aim for the Righteous' win condition: take out the Heathens.

Jonah wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Certainly an interesting start. At first I felt relatively ok with Paul's vote, but now I'm working my way through the details. He certainly did let us know that he'll vote right away for a suspect and he delivered that with brio. Samuel's opener could definitely be read as "scum", especially to a newbie, but I'm really not sold on it yet. I personally took it as the check-in banter and witty sock referencing that most of us did during sign-ups and Day 0. Waiting to hear from Samuel.

As for the rest from Paul, I suspect a culture clash between his way of playing and ours, but it's too early to tell how we'll truly get along. He calls players scum first, reasons second - first time (on Samuel) not before being asked to reason, then (on Lot) he reasons right away, which may be a bit of "fine tuning" on his behalf tbh. His reasonings are a mixed bag so far, some points looking like decent reads, others either reading too much into or simply poor as such - for instance, calling Samuel sus for his avatar (if he really mean it, of course; otherwise...wut); or shooting down Lot for saying "he'd consider voting" as a way of wagoning - in which case he might be unfamiliar that it's mostly an expression some of us use when debating over suspicious players throughout the course of the Day, especially when votes are not changeable, thus we literally save the voting part for last (that's my take on the issue, but I also think it's very little to accuse Lot of). Not to mention he says he "found one scum" in Lot, apparently forgetting he already called Samuel as well, which would make two, in his view. Very, very confusing.

This post feels wishy washy without asking any specific questions like you wanna stay on the fence but still act like youre discussing things. I got my eye on you Shazzy

That's how I do things, I'm slow on verdicts. Ain't gonna change just because we seem to be clashing mafia styles.

You like me less than Ruth even though she pushed harder for flushing new players?

I notice Jephthah started Day 1 by finding Paul's vote tactic agreeable, lashing a bit (imo) at Balaam for questioning Paul's reason for voting Samuel, then suddenly considering, like several others, that Paul "hastily wasted" his vote and questioning himself Paul's reason for voting Samuel. For why?

Absalom also said something about many people randomizing or self-voting on Day 1 which pinged me a bit, because it is certainly not common practice over here (or, if it happens, it certainly doesn't go by without raising suspicions).

Certainly an interesting start. At first I felt relatively ok with Paul's vote, but now I'm working my way through the details. He certainly did let us know that he'll vote right away for a suspect and he delivered that with brio. Samuel's opener could definitely be read as "scum", especially to a newbie, but I'm really not sold on it yet. I personally took it as the check-in banter and witty sock referencing that most of us did during sign-ups and Day 0. Waiting to hear from Samuel.

As for the rest from Paul, I suspect a culture clash between his way of playing and ours, but it's too early to tell how we'll truly get along. He calls players scum first, reasons second - first time (on Samuel) not before being asked to reason, then (on Lot) he reasons right away, which may be a bit of "fine tuning" on his behalf tbh. His reasonings are a mixed bag so far, some points looking like decent reads, others either reading too much into or simply poor as such - for instance, calling Samuel sus for his avatar (if he really mean it, of course; otherwise...wut); or shooting down Lot for saying "he'd consider voting" as a way of wagoning - in which case he might be unfamiliar that it's mostly an expression some of us use when debating over suspicious players throughout the course of the Day, especially when votes are not changeable, thus we literally save the voting part for last (that's my take on the issue, but I also think it's very little to accuse Lot of). Not to mention he says he "found one scum" in Lot, apparently forgetting he already called Samuel as well, which would make two, in his view. Very, very confusing.

I don't disapprove of meta in sock games, but I hardly expect great results from it either. It is indeed far-fetched to think that players can fully and precisely out themselves in such circumstances or that, instead, a full and precise profiling of a player can be achieved - and I myself am not pursuing any of this. However, if meta crumbs or trails surface, I will make note of them. That being said, I also think Ruth is pushing it a bit.

Rachel wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Job wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:
Linki @ Job: why do you ask for confirmation? are you also new to the site?

Irrelevant. Why does it matter?

First evasive answer of the game.

Does it matter?

If he is new or local? No.

If he answers "Doesn't matter. Why does it matter" to a question? Maybe.

Job wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:Rvs = random vote stage.

yea this

I thought every mafia community used rvs i don't understand how does d1 happen

What do you mean? When does Day 1 start or what do we do on Day 1 in terms of voting?

In terms of voting

d1 starts at end of this phase?

Almost every time Day 1 follows after Day 0. We've had Night 0s before, but that is totally exceptional and up to the Host.

Voting on day 1 falls under regular mafia tactics, i.e. voting for the player you think is scum (bad). You will be able to vote only once in the poll (meaning votes aren't changeable). To sort of meet you halfway, I can tell you we do not collectively use the rvs tactic - we do our best to find a player we think might be scum (bad), based on the D0 interaction.

Linki @ Job: why do you ask for confirmation? are you also new to the site?

Irrelevant. Why does it matter?

First evasive answer of the game.

Paul wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:Rvs = random vote stage.

yea this

I thought every mafia community used rvs i don't understand how does d1 happen

What do you mean? When does Day 1 start or what do we do on Day 1 in terms of voting?

In terms of voting

d1 starts at end of this phase?

Almost every time Day 1 follows after Day 0. We've had Night 0s before, but that is totally exceptional and up to the Host.

Voting on day 1 falls under regular mafia tactics, i.e. voting for the player you think is scum (bad). You will be able to vote only once in the poll (meaning votes aren't changeable). To sort of meet you halfway, I can tell you we do not collectively use the rvs tactic - we do our best to find a player we think might be scum (bad), based on the D0 interaction.

Linki @ Job: why do you ask for confirmation? are you also new to the site?

do players generally talk more b/c how can you find scum based on fluff

Belshazzar wrote:we do our best

.

Bottom line, if you find the setting of this game and how we usually play different from your site, maybe it would be best to take the opportunity of this Day 0 interval and ask the Host to clarify things.

Linki: Well, we have to start somewhere. Slips can sometimes happen very early on, but it depends, again, on your own definition of a slip up.

Define evidence.

Paul wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:Rvs = random vote stage.

yea this

I thought every mafia community used rvs i don't understand how does d1 happen

What do you mean? When does Day 1 start or what do we do on Day 1 in terms of voting?

In terms of voting

d1 starts at end of this phase?

Almost every time Day 1 follows after Day 0. We've had Night 0s before, but that is totally exceptional and up to the Host.

Voting on day 1 falls under regular mafia tactics, i.e. voting for the player you think is scum (bad). You will be able to vote only once in the poll (meaning votes aren't changeable). To sort of meet you halfway, I can tell you we do not collectively use the rvs tactic - we do our best to find a player we think might be scum (bad), based on the D0 interaction.

Linki @ Job: why do you ask for confirmation? are you also new to the site?

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:Rvs = random vote stage.

yea this

I thought every mafia community used rvs i don't understand how does d1 happen

What do you mean? When does Day 1 start or what do we do on Day 1 in terms of voting?

Deborah wrote:

Uzziah wrote:Repetitive Visual Stimulus

Nicodemus wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:I'd study The Law to compare it with Babylon's own.

Not a fan of Daniel's book.

Intrigued by Barnabas' color & BTSC question and Paul's use of the term scum. Are you new to the site, brothers?

That or they simply wish to appear as such.

A wise assumption, no doubt, but let them speak first.

I'd study The Law to compare it with Babylon's own.

Not a fan of Daniel's book.

Intrigued by Barnabas' color & BTSC question and Paul's use of the term scum. Are you new to the site, brothers?