The Syndicate

Kate wrote:So I need to know, Nev, why did you claim to know that llama and Snow Dog could not be Bob? You had only searched for James one night (you were blocked the other ie did nothing the other ) so why did you claim that you knew they couldn't be Bob??

A) I claimed I had "some confidence" that they weren't, not that they 'couldn't be bob'. Tough to convey confidence percentages without making my role obvious.
B) I was trying very hard to get any support I could find to keep from being lynched under your hard-line campaign of utter confidence, and overstating their probability of innocence seemed like a solid trade for their subsequent good opinion of me.
C) I received answers both times saying "not him", despite that one was apparently blocked.

I was frustrated and confused - you really captured the essence of the show

So how did llama's vote get redirected to me?

Man, I really had no way to win there, huh. I was hoping for a tactical dilemma that boiled down to a gamble (because there aren't really any ways to symmetrically break ties but that one).

Oh well, second place makes me first among losers, right?

thellama73 wrote:What's going on and why do I feel like I am about to die?

I'm as lost as you are.

Sorry for the delay - we're visiting my folks in Knoxville, so I won't be on much until Monday.

I don't really think we will be able to win as a group (I have reason not to believe INHs implication).

Sorry snow :-/

thellama73 wrote:I didn't vote for you, Eric, and I was never planning to betray you. I know ou won't believe me, so here's the proof.

*votes Snow Dog*

If you two want to tie it up, that's fine with me.

I don't really see how that proves anything. It's certainly possible that this was a mechanic or trick, but I see no reason that it needs to be.

I'm willing to give a shot to trying to get all three of us out alive, at least until a mechanic pops up that requires that I trust you to behave against your own enlightened self-interest for my own survival. When that happens, I guess we will have to see.

Audrey tells me that you're the "voice of the devil", and not to be trusted ;-)

That said, I'm willing to tie it up if you are, snow. Let me know how you want this to go.

I think the results were conveyed accurately.
I don't really blame you, I would probably have picked me in your shoes too.

I actually am very curious how he would resolve the last night/day if there were two people left.
Since I don't know that, I really can't figure a good strategy to just win,
So I'm left hoping there is some way to hold the trio alive.

That's what I was hinting at earlier with the hunger games reference. If we all actually try to keep the game tied, we would be forcing the host to either let us all survive, or devise a non-arbitrary stalemate breaker that is both unbiased and not tie-able. That's much tougher than it sounds, except that you've already demonstrated your behavior in a screw-or-be-screwed secret situation.

thellama73 wrote:So what's the plan here, folks? I don't want to kill either of you. I think we all deserve to win, but I don't know how to make that happen. We could all abstain, we could tie up the vote, or two of us could gang up on the third.

Your 'vote' makes me think otherwise

If we tie up the vote, we will most likely get some other kind of event, since that one would lose its punch the second time.
I would love to go for a team victory.. But we don't know that is possible. And also I don't have much faith that I won't get stabbed at your first chance

thellama73 wrote:c) Like Nietzsche, the Black Lodge transcends notions of good and evil.

You're starting to sound like Snow now. Can I join your club?

We're all bad and good at the same time, and SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE, but also delicious. -.O

Anyone remember the ending of the hunger games?

Well, that changes the game a little.

I said I'd kill Llama if I were a killer, but I definitely wouldn't have said that if I'd known we'd have another shot at this.

Now either:
a) he is bad, in which case I'm the obvious target (don't nk me, or they'll know!)
b) he is good, and the real killer is going to kill *him* so that you'll both lynch me to death :-\

Wow, I didn't even realize we *could* lynch nobody. Looks like we get another go of it!

Snow Dog wrote:

Matahari wrote:well, then who do you think sounds the worst? I thought it was strange that Llama never acknowledged what you and I said about the mafia/everyone, so I could see myself voting there.

Gotta finish the dishes, brb

I'm doing dishes too.

The simple fact is, well it seems to be, there can only be one winner. We are all worthy. But we must lynch someone or let it be random. I've known Llama a lot longer than Nev. Should that be my guide? Seems unfair but what else have I got?

You two could split the vote between the two of us. I'd take a 50% shot over just being lynched.

thellama73 wrote:I agree with Snow that none of us is mafia, or all of us are, and that killing one person will not stop the night kills. I based my vote on that reasoning. Since I know that I will not have an NK tonight, I went after the person I thought most likely to try and kill me.

If you think that either none of us is mafia or all of us are, then you can disprove option B by your not being mafia, right? If you're talking about some kind of 'mafia but doesn't know it', then it hardly matters who I am likely to want killed, since I wouldn't have any control over that power.

Here's some direct evidence.

If I were mafia, the best strategy for me at this point (since I already have one vote) would be to wait and see if either of you vote for not-me, and then join you, ensuring a likely survival for myself (and therefore victory).

Since I am *not* mafia, and I think Llama is, I'm going to commit to voting for him now, despite that that drastically hurts my chance of survival - I am convinced that if I survive, but we do not catch the mafioso this turn, I've still lost.

I have consistently acted in ways that would not be optimal for a killer this game. People love to throw wine-in-front-of-me arguments around for this stuff ("he's acting that way to throw us off!"), but those have never really held water, because of the inherent recursion. I am an extremely logical player, and I play the most optimal strategy I can come up with - if I were mafia, I would spend today trying to spread doubt around, and get either of you two to vote for llama *or the other of you*, and join in afterward.

*voted llama*

linki snow:

Snow Dog wrote:I never agreed to anything about being a four man team. Or disbanding it when it was reduced to four. For me it was always the three.

Here is where I outlined what I meant by 'adding someone to the group': viewtopic.php?f=20&t=145&start=200#p19180

Here is where I suggested that we add a player: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=145&start=150#p19146

Here is where it appears that you agreed with that plan: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=145&start=150#p19164

If I misunderstood your comment, I apologize for changing the plan on you, but you really should have complained before now; I've made the endgame plans pretty clear I though.

Snow Dog wrote:ibwaop That sounded rubbish. NEV...if YOU survive who would you kill tonight>?

If I were mafia? Depends on who got lynched of course. If matahari were still around, her definitely; otherwise probably Llama, since he tried to get a lynch mob started for me today.

Snow Dog wrote: We can finish the pact if everyone agrees. I don't mind Nev winning at this stage but I don't mind whoever wins ( if I don't win I mean) even Matahari. I think we have all done very well and maybe it is time to vote with our consciences. Or are "pings" or whatever.

The pact was always intended to be over when we were reduced to our final number. When we added matahari, that changed our expiration date to be "when everyone but us four is dead". That said, I agreed not to vote for Mata in the first vote after we disbanded as part of incentivizing someone to join with us, and I intend to stick by that.

I would have killed you last night, were I mafia, llama. There's no way to objectively say anything about what I would do *tonight* if I were mafia, because I would already have won - there'd be two people left, and I'd have a night kill. As far as my game analysis goes, the tactics all ended last night when we got to our final day - here we decide it all.

I do not have the power to night kill anyone. I've been playing close to the chest, but if you review the events of the last day there is specific evidence of what my role is.

I notice that you suddenly shifted from talking about possibilities to talking about definites, Llama. That is a symptom that you're attempting to steer the vote onto me by controlling the discourse. While that's not necessarily a bad choice for a civ, it's questionable to commit to it this early in the day - I think that you voted early and started steering because I'm a target of opportunity, and you'll win if anyone dies but you.

Snow Dog wrote: Voting Nev is really putting me on the spot. But he did, foolishly in my opinionj, outright say he would have and would NK you.

That's not foolish. I have been up-front and objective about tactics and strategy all game. My point there was that, if I were mafia, I would have killed Llama last night. Since I did not, it follows that I am not mafia. Llama knew *exactly* what I meant, he's seizing on it as a good excuse to vote early, so he can try to steer the vote from a position of group strength.

Snow Dog wrote:Ok. Now I truly do not know who to vote for. Somebody killed Roxy and it wasn't me. If you are claiming it wasn't you Llama then it must have been Nev or Mat. I stated I don't mind Nev doing well or even winning (I don't know why I said that, on reflection I guess I don't have to stick to it) so....for the moment I am leaning towards a Matahari vote.

Please don't vote for Matahari - I'm pretty confident one of us three is a mafia member (one of you two really, but I'm trying to talk in objective observables), and if we lynch mata, then the mafia member can kill another of us tonight, and win. If you actually aren't mafia, then llama can hem and haw and eventually vote for her too, and probably win.

I've lost some of my llama-lean - your philosophical assertions earlier could easily be a smoke-screen to cover for apparently illogical (but actually mafiaic) votes. Mata and Llama - is Snow behaving particularly unusually this game?

It definitely wasn't me, unless I am doing it without knowing somehow. Not only aren't I the killing type, I would have taken out llama instead if I were. Roxy wasn't going to be particularly active, and llama is both active and more familiar with me than anyone else is. On the other hand, I'm the obvious suspect (having organized the group initially), so he would almost certainly leave me alive to draw fire.

Well, I guess this tactic has taken us as far as it's going to, huh.

Now we have one day to figure out who is mafia or we lose. Unless there isn't one of course, Snow.
If Mata was mafia, we'd be at 2v2, and have no hope, so I'm going to assume she's not.

I'm leaning strongly toward Llama, but I admit that I don't know Snow very well.
I'm sure whichever of you is not a killer must think I'm a pretty solid suspect,
since I put this coalition together in the first place. And I admit that this would have been my strategy
if i *had* been a killer too. All I can say is *look at that mustache*. It's just sooo evil!

Roxy wrote:Damn you 3 crazy kids!!

llama - post a picture nao of you in a bow tie

Snow Dog - lies! You and I are friendly nemesis

Mati - I want off easy though *pouts*

Linky no ofc it is NOT alright Snow Dog!

I'm in for Kate also, let's do it.

(voted kate)

Snow Dog wrote:True. You can name him. We all see it. Nev. Just a coincidence Nev?

Of course it is. It's so thin, I can't imagine INH even would have done it intentionally to mess with us.
Sounds like somebody is prepping the pool for the oncoming storm though.

I'm leaning Mata+Llama, but I'm already committed to my gamble, so I'll just have to hope I'm wrong about at least Mata :-\

Roxy wrote:Nev - it a vibe gut thing. No info involved.
Yes llama not Kate, let it be me first.

It's cool, I apparently trigger everyone's gut that way at all times.

I'm up for either. Roxy smells like reverse psychology at the moment, so I guess I lean a little toward her.

Roxy wrote:Looks like Nev is the killer. I am defenseless please lynch me.

I'm not, but I'm curious which misinformation you're reacting to?

thellama73 wrote: I'm going to call you out on this, you tricky host. Kate and I both were forced to post lyrics from the Talking Heads song "Psycho Killer." I, however, have not been responsible for any night kills (unless it is happening without my knowledge.) The host is trying to get innocent people killed with this bogus hint (or at least one innocent person. I can't speak for Kate, but I'm inclined to trust her more now that I know I've been framed.) Don't fall for INH's tricks!

I am not confident about the disclosure rules surrounding this alleged host manipulation, and therefore have no comment.

thellama73 wrote: I think we should break up on a day period. There are seven of us now, six on the next day and five on the next night, assuming the night kills continue. Since the non-night killers have little to do at night, it makes no practical difference whether we disband on night four or day five, when there will be four people left.

It's a good point. So we're left gambling basically on whether Mata is a killer?

My (opinion of my) odds of winning afterward are better if she is *not*, and we assume that she's not than they are if she is and we assume she is, so I'm leaning toward holding out till day five.

We're all still good for teamwork, I agree.

Does anybody agree about disbanding when we're down to 5 instead of four though?

If we end up with four people, and matahari turned out the be the second mafia in that set, they'd win (if they're a team. otherwise one of them would win and not the other).

I think we need to engineer it so that we go into some day period with 5 people alive, and then begin figuring out who is mafia. Not that I know Mata is or anything, but the danger seems significant.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: He was a civ, like the rest of us. But we have to lynch civs. We know that.

We don't know any such thing and I confused as to why you keep insisting that we do.

I think he's just talking about the fact that there aren't any 'mafia' teams laid out in the roles - there aren't roles that we can definitely say are 'civ' roles. It has been a little confusing though.

I think that *secrets* roles are probably more likely to be mafia than others (if we do have a real mafia), so I agree that the outcome was fairly solid.

If you're going to have to vote early again, I'd rather have a short warning and discussion window - undiscussed voting, whatever the stated reason, is the best way for a mafia member to swing the rest of the group like a hammer, and it makes me nervous.

thellama73 wrote:If we are all civvies, explain who is doing the night kills.

I think that 'able to perform night kills' might even be a decent definition of the term "mafia", given the current context. The alternative to having any of those is that INH is screwing with our heads, which we have some evidence that he has done in the past. I think that's a bit of a long shot though.

Matahari wrote:Je me lance, vers la gloire ... OK.

Qu'est-ce. Que c'est? (Wow, it's been a long time)

Snow Dog wrote:SVS claimed I was lying. A bit harsh. Civvies have no reason to lie. I may be mistaken of course, that is another matter. It doesn't matter anyway. It is every man for himself ultimately in this game. The three of us are sticking together for now, unless one of our number is Nk'd by one of you guys .

Four of us. Though we may need to disband at "5 left"; if Matahari is mafia, waiting until it's just four will definitely lose. No offense or accusation intended, Mata. Your thoughts?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, sorry for the triple post, but for anyone who has said there is apparently no mafia role in the roles, look again. There is more than one role with *secrets* behind it. Just because there is no apparent NK doesn't mean that this is an LMS game. I do think it very unfair for it to be an LMS game if there is one of us killing at night as well.

You misunderstood me. As I have stated over and over, I agree that there is a mafia member among the three of us. ONE mafia member. That was one of the primary observations we made immediately. (In case you didn't notice, the reason we think it's an LMS is that inh said it was, not because there're no nk roles)

That one mafioso and the two civs alongside him all have their best chance to win tied up in making it to the final three as a group and then presenting their evidence or lies. A term-limited pact for mutual benefit. If there were any evidence that the civs could win as a team, it would be a different story, but I've seen none.

Adding Mata changes the endgame a LOT, but all three of you joining simultaneously sort of scrapped the original plan for group survival.

Im not really sure what snow has been getting at, though I suppose it is possible he's right and inh was just messing with us.

Cinqo party, out for a while here.

MovingPictures07 wrote:My vote doesn't seem to matter much at this point, so I went ahead and threw a vote at Nevinera just more of a message than anything.

I'm sorry, Snow and whoever else believes this, but anyone who thinks that there is NO mafia between Snowie, Nevinera, and llama is misguided because the mafia has consistently killed and you three have been in the game from the beginning. It's very evident to me that there is one mafia among those three.

I do, however, agree that it would make sense that there was a second player to join a mafia-aligned role when Kate, S~V~S, and I joined the game, and it's not me, so hopefully it is S~V~S. I'm not sure I believe this to be true as much as the former paragraph because we have evidence that mafia have been killing from the beginning and those three have been alive since the beginning. It's also very evident that whichever of you three IS mafia would LOVE to have that three-player voting block because then they have a very strong chance of winning the game. I disagree with you, Nev, that maintaining that block helps your chances. If anything, I would seriously consider voting one of your fellow voting block players out if you are not mafia, because one of them pretty much has to be.

There are no arguments here that are new or even really arguing in favor of anything. You make obvious statements, and then claim that they should imply specific behaviors.. But my reasons and logic are well documented, and yours are not even stated.

Why do you disagree? That's kind of the important part.

Did you intend that vote to add you to the block?
I think we are all fine with that, but id like it to be clear :-)

Snow Dog wrote:It's Ok Nev. This is about survival. We have done it and they need to do it too. It's all fair.

Oh I'm not angry here or anything, I'm trying to nail down some information.

By voting for you without discussing a target, he has basically forced his whole group to do the same,
Because otherwise our block stays and they die (unless one joins us, but he leaning really hard on the us-or-them
to keep that from happening. That offer is still on the table btw.)

That's an aggressive move, and it ought to indicate that he has some information about you.
If you flip civ, then that info is either wrong, or based on his having btsc with not-you.
If you flip mafia, then we can draw the opposite conclusion.
Either way, we need to get his reasons before everyone bandwagons, because he has to be a lot more careful with his explanation until everyone comes along (at which point he can pretend he picked randomly and "oops").

So, SVS - did you pick snow for some particular reason? Did you decide not to talk about it at all first for the same reason?

Linki mata - glad to see you didn't silently die!

S~V~S wrote:Turning on Llama, are we?

His unilateral voting has piqued me, but there is no 'turning on' him going on.
I have no intention of breaking our truce, even if he out and said he was mafia
(that would actually make the endgame really easy).

*Your* unilateral vote has me similarly disturbed however.
Do you have some justification for targeting snow?
If everyone goes along with you, him flipping civ (or not) ought to say something about you, eh?

Snow Dog wrote:^I meant out of Llama myself and Nev...why me? It was Llama who decided that you would be the poor victim. We had to follow.

I agree. Llama seems the obvious choice, why snow?
Do you know something I don't, or is he acting uncharacteristically?
I don't know him that well, I'm afraid.

S~V~S wrote:Some of the roles have BTSC potential, and one or two members of your coalition may gain BTS with a non member, thus adding secret loyalties.

Although regardless of BTS potential, i think if you added a fourth member to your coalition, that person will be the first to go, having read your three way loyalty oaths.

No, the plan was always to keep the alliance until it was just us, and then end it. If we changed the plan, we'd just end up with four people when we disbanded instead of three.

Any of the four of us has a better shot away from you three. If a fourth person joins your coalition, one of you three will still be the winner, thats the bottom line, and i think we all know that. We stand a better chance competing with each other than with three people who have a three way pact~ a fourth will just be a fifth wheel.

That's probably how it would have worked if you and Kate had formed it, sure. It's not how I play the game though.

The block was formed around mutual benefit, and when that changes it will dissolve.
There's no 'loyalty' going on here, unless Snow is being honest.
I definitely intend to win, and I don't consider Snow or Llama winning to be 'almost as good'.
Knowing llama, he'd say the same if he were still here.

I would go so far as to agree that, should someone join the coalition, I will *not* vote for them in the first vote after disbanding.

MovingPictures07 wrote: How do you figure this? I'm just curious. Because it seems to me a mafia is killing people every night. If this were an LMS game, would that not give the mafia member(s) an advantage?

It would, but the block only has one mafia in it. The endgame was intended to be "three left, now figure out who it is" - if we picked wrong, mafia wins, buts that's better than our chances in a free-for-all. Add in that we have powers that can gain us information over time, and I put my shot at around 50%.

The four-player endgame is murkier, because we dont have a good way to tell if the fourth was mafia too..
but it still beats getting picked off as a threat after one turn.

Do you have a compelling argument to the contrary?

Kate wrote: And nev I can't wait until end game to tell you what happened on night one. Since you know I wasn't bad you have to realize by now I didn't try to get you lynched on purpose.

Well, I strongly suspect that, but I certainly don't 'know' it - our host has been playing with our heads a lot this game.

I play mafia completely rationally anyway, so you don't really have to worry about me holding it against you.
Watch out next time someone claims direct info that way though - you've just made it a realistic gambit to try :-)

I still think that a voting block with a negotiated expiration date is each of our best shot at personal victory.

thellama73 wrote:Right, I'm going to be out of the house most of the day, so I'd better vote now in case I am not back in time. Kate was nice to me in the other thread, MP is mostly absent, Roxy is in the hospital and SVS is trying hard to break up our happy family, so I am voting for SVS.

I'm going to vote for SVS also, since I agreed to vote with my block.. but you just painted a target on your back llama.
I hope you *are* mafia, because I'm pretty sure they're about to lynch you to end the block now.

Kate wrote:I doubt mp wants to appear clannish

Oh jesus, is he from PA too?

It's not my fault all the cool kids come from the same place!

MovingPictures07 wrote:I think, given that the mafia has killed from the BEGINNING of this Black Lodge game and given the "voting bloc" idea, that it's incredibly likely one of Snow Dog, llama, and Nevinera must be mafia. Is this not a sound conclusion?

And one we have already drawn. But since civs don't win by killing all the mafia, the usual game plans are out.
The voting block is not related to that conclusion however, it is merely the best chance we each have at victory, mafia or not.

If snow dog okays it, would you like in, mp? Best shot at survival to the endgame, which gives us long enough to apply informational powers to figure out who is killing people.

S~V~S wrote:Cause voting blocs just lead to betrayal So sad

Oh we were always planning on that :-)

What's your opinion, Snow?

thellama73 wrote:If "mafia" is plural, does that mean the singular is "mafium?"

I would be happy to recruit Roxy or MP into our little gang. SVS and Kate are a little too cozy for my liking.

While one of them did pretty much singlehandedly civ-lynch me and the other got her off completely scott-free for it,
I don't think that really matters to the current game - I don't think they'd end up both mafia or anything,
and if one of them wanted to ditch the other and ride out the block I'd still go for it.

But if it really mattered to you, I suppose I could go for that. It does reduce the chances of us getting a taker though.

S~V~S wrote:Oooohh, I just read all there "friends to the end" posts, lol. Whoever is the killer is gonna blame it on us. The new people.

Not quite sure how he'd get away with that, since people were dropping like flies before you joined.

I do suspect that there's one mafioso among you, since there's only one hidden in our group of three, and 'mafia' is plural..
but since it's not listed in the roles, and our expressed victory condition is 'last man standing',
our probabilities of victory are all higher if everyone else dies first.

If the mafia has their usual win condition, they'll prefer that outcome too until we're down to four, which means we may have NK assistance.

What do you think guys? I would lean towards picking up the first person to vote not-us and upsize the block.
It'll make the endgame a bit messier, but guarantee us a couple of days.
Mafia's odds do go up a bit, but so do ours..

Snow Dog wrote:Staying alive would be good.

That does seem a likely prerequisite.

And the other game's thread has been renamed to 'The Waiting Room', so it's possible they won't all be joining us at once,
in which case our block can continue to keep us alive until the end.

I just brought it up in case changing circumstance necessitates a change in strategy soon. I won't do so unilaterally, don't worry.

Well that was interesting. The other game appears to be over, and INH said "If this were the real game..", rather implying that we are in the 'real' one here.

It appears that we're about to be joined by at least three other people who were on a team until today, at which point our block will be insufficiently large.
Russ got killed by the mafia before that was apparent, which suggests to me that there is still at least one mafia in our group,
and I'd be surprised if the incoming group didn't also contain at least one. I wish I knew what my win condition was :-\

insertnamehere wrote: I prefer intentionally vague.

That is a better way to put it. No insult intended, of course :-)

I find it very frustrating, but I found the show frustrating in a similar way.

Snow Dog wrote: What I am uncomfortable with is that we are all civs that know we are lynching a civ. Very unciv behaviour I would guess. A paradox even, as in normal games one tries to find the mafia to lynch.

Well, I wouldn't say we 'know' that we are lynching a civ. It does seem likely though. But BWT isn't really a helpful civ, since he's not going to be around at all. If we had a strong reason to believe that Russ was a civ, then I'd be right there with you, but I have no reason to believe that as yet. I've also got a few logic traps lying around that I'm hoping will yield some results (those don't normally work well in mafia, but everyone here seems to be pretty analytical).

OK let us presume one of our alliance is mafia as Vomps obviously wasn't and I presume BWT was just too busy and pretty much ruled himself out of playing.
Do we try to ferret him out or do we trust him to stand by the alliance? So far he has by getting rid of vomps and I presume the next target will be Russ. So we are safe for now you think?

I am in favor of quietly figuring out who he is while directing attention and votes outward, heading for a big reveal later. As I've mentioned though, that might not be the best tactic for either of you who has a role that does not gain information over time by some mechanism or another. Or if you're mafia and so is Russ. In that case though, I'm rather anticipating a mafia kill on myself in the near future, so I'm gambling against it :-)

Snow Dog wrote:I still don't see how there can be a mafia member here. All the roles are civ roles.

I gave up trying to read the rules for answers. This game does not appear to be particularly .. structured. :-\

Russtifinko wrote:That's fair, llama, but according to my math 4 is even worse odds than 3. If it's a lynch you're at 25% chance of getting the mafia, then they win with an NK, tied lynch, and another NK. If it starts with a night period you're back to 33%. I'd argue for 5 instead of 4, then you're at least guaranteed 2 real chances at a correct lynch.

Your math starts with the assumption that we gain no knowledge of or information about the other players, which is startlingly unlikely. It also assumes that there is never going to be a second mafia member, which also seems unreasonable (why call it the 'mafia' if it's only ever one person?).

But the plan was never to get to a lynch period with 4, it was to get to a night with 4 - we'd stop lynching when there were four, the mafia would kill the fourth, and then we'd have to figure out which of us three is the mafia. (The mafia would kill the fourth because otherwise our prior deduction that the mafia was in our group would allow whoever was left lying around to pick someone to die, as the two remaining of us three vote for each other). The logic I'm using to deduce that our group has only one mafia member doesn't work for you Russ - I can't be confident that you aren't a second one, which would basically guarantee our loss if you joined us.

I'm confident that I can gain data over time to skew the endgame odds well away from being random. If neither of you is similarly confident, then it would be in *your* best interest to follow Russ's plan (and I'm willing to follow along if both of you want to).

Whichever of you is mafia would probably prefer my plan, unless russ is also mafia.. to further complicate the intrigue :-)

Voted BWT

Russtifinko wrote: Thanks llama And hi Snowie and Nev! As I mentioned in the other game, I'm on a short trip and will be back in full force tomorrow. So thanks for not lynching me just yet.

I thought I'd bring up one piece of food for thought: we know there's a mafia among the 4 players who were already here, and you don't know if I could even possibly be mafia. I'm not, despite my recruitment last game, but it's ok if you don't believe me. Anyway, I'm just saying that for the non-mafia members of the group, after BWT it makes sense to try to lynch the mafia because if we get them there's a chance the rest of us all win. I expect heated resistance from at least 1 of you on this, and I don't really think you'll go for it, but I wanted to at least say it. I expect I'll be NKed tonight anyway, though, honestly. However, if I survive, you don't go for my plan, and you decide you need a fourth, I'll be willing to join up with you. I think it's a likely mafia win scenario, but it's also my best personal chance at long-term survival

I definitely don't like that plan, since it discards our existing advantage before it's used up.
I'd rather take my chances at playing the four-player endgame than toss it back into a free-for-all.

I still think the 3-player block has more advantages than disadvantages for us, despite that one of us is most likely mafia.
I strongly doubt you are both mafia (since I picked you both), and the odds are low that there were two mafioso's already in the game when we started.

"you don't know if I could even possibly be mafia."

Don't be silly, of course you *could* be mafia. We know *that*.

linki vomps - sorry sir.