The Syndicate

DharmaHelper wrote:I love getting a win without doing anything.

That's how I got my first win ever! Died night one, my team won anyway. Best sort.

Funny that I spent the whole game wanting to be recruited and when it finally happens the game is already over! This is also kinda my first proper win as a baddie :P

Sorry I missed the vote! I have had a hectic (but fun and profitable!) weekend. I don't understand what's going on any more than anybody else seems to but I shall vote 9 because I like 9. I suppose it'd be my lucky number if I believed in that sort of thing.

Since SVS doesn't actually want to fight, I voted Sorsha and Daisy to make it more even.

timmer wrote:Bullz posted this yesterday:

Bullzeye wrote:Well I'm definitely not going out today so I guess I have some more time to try to get my head back into this game! With the other one being in a night phase as well today looks pretty good for me to try to wrap my brain around fight club again.

Two hours later, this:

Bullzeye wrote:
I never planned to. However, LC is coming off more as a frustrated civ now and having been there pretty much every game I've played this year I definitely know the feeling. I probably won't vote for him either.

That alone shows that he is likely at least a recruit.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha I saw this coming a mile off. Still no more a recruit now than I was last time.

But let's look at DH and Long Con. They both were in New Castle Day 1. They both were in Wilmington Day 2. Only two other players still in the game were in NC and Wilm with them. Mister Rearranger and bullzeye. Mister Rearranger was the third Long Con voter in this lynch. Bullz didn't vote for Long Con, and called him a likely civ.

What does starting in the same city as two recruits have to do with anything? I said LC felt likely to be a civ because his posts felt like posts I've made in that position. There's nothing more to say on the matter.

Had to rush out, fortunately got back in time. I'm placing my vote on Keterman because I don't like his aggressive attitude or broad sweeping statements about how people are obviously this or that. I don't see how anyone is obviously anything.

bea wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Well I'm definitely not going out today so I guess I have some more time to try to get my head back into this game! With the other one being in a night phase as well today looks pretty good for me to try to wrap my brain around fight club again.

I'm glad you are going to be around for the end vote. please don't follow mine. I'd like to at least give her time to defend.

I never planned to. However, LC is coming off more as a frustrated civ now and having been there pretty much every game I've played this year I definitely know the feeling. I probably won't vote for him either.

Well I'm definitely not going out today so I guess I have some more time to try to get my head back into this game! With the other one being in a night phase as well today looks pretty good for me to try to wrap my brain around fight club again.

Turns out I may not be going away tomorrow so I might not have to vote early. In that case I'll hold onto my vote for now. It's lucky in a way because I don't know who I'd vote for - I've got so far behind in this game it's unbelievable. If things don't change I'll try to get on before I go out and hopefully find someone I can vote for. At present it would be LC because I think both Dom voters (not counting Llama - I've discussed that I no longer suspect him atm) were suspicious but I don't think Boogs would say he wants to be killed if he were a baddie.

timmer wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

timmer wrote:@Canuckle, the LAST thing I'm trying to do is say "vote Vomps because he's acting weird". I know very well how many times he has been lynched for "being Vomps" over the months, and that his persona works well as both civ and baddie. If anything, I find Boomslang's end of the self-voting more pingy than Vomps, because while Vomps never says anything about his votes, Boomslang had that one weird post that didn't sound legit at all. The main thing with Vomps is the way DH came in and gave him support when he hadn't asked for it.

I went back and looked at your Boomslang stuff and I'm not sure what I think actually. On the one hand, yeah self-voting for something you're obviously not gonna get is weird but at the same time why not? People vote in lynches for players who're obviously not going to be lynched by that point all the time.

In his case it's not so much that he self-voted the second time, but that he posted as if he was trying to make his vote sound legitimate. "As I did not win my fight and can fight again, I vote for me." That pings me. When you can clearly see that you aren't going to fight, posting that doesn't make sense. I'm not advocating for a Boomslang lynch over this one little thing, but I'm pointing it out as pingy. It's the kind of thing I obsess over; posts not written the way they should be, etc.

Fair point, thanks for the clarification. I can definitely see your point of view on that but I guess I just don't see it as so big of a deal?

timmer wrote:@Canuckle, the LAST thing I'm trying to do is say "vote Vomps because he's acting weird". I know very well how many times he has been lynched for "being Vomps" over the months, and that his persona works well as both civ and baddie. If anything, I find Boomslang's end of the self-voting more pingy than Vomps, because while Vomps never says anything about his votes, Boomslang had that one weird post that didn't sound legit at all. The main thing with Vomps is the way DH came in and gave him support when he hadn't asked for it.

I went back and looked at your Boomslang stuff and I'm not sure what I think actually. On the one hand, yeah self-voting for something you're obviously not gonna get is weird but at the same time why not? People vote in lynches for players who're obviously not going to be lynched by that point all the time.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Llama, I've actually reversed my position on you because I feel like you've explained away a lot of the issues I had. I was just making a general observation in response to something BWT said, and when I make big posts like that it's usually a stream of consciousness type thing where I respond to posts as I read them.

Thanks, Bullz! You're actually the one person I really trust, because I stand by my position that if you had been recruited, you would have been killed long ago by the police.

Which is the same reason you should trust me.

Who are you thinking of voting for?

Haha really? I suppose that's a decent point. I'd like to trust you, but I'd rather it be through my own observations or something someone else points out than because you say so. At this point I could be swayed into a vote for a Dom voter - I've already highlighted my issue with LC's vote and I don't remember seeing Boogs even post. I'm not 100% committed to that though. I'll probably have to vote either tonight or early tomorrow morning anyway because I'll be going out all day tomorrow and won't be around from about 5 hours before the lynch until a few hours after it.

Llama, I've actually reversed my position on you because I feel like you've explained away a lot of the issues I had. I was just making a general observation in response to something BWT said, and when I make big posts like that it's usually a stream of consciousness type thing where I respond to posts as I read them.

Sorsha wrote: To the first reply to me: yes I know Tyler would always pick his recruit but that's if one was actually fighting. Imagine if this theory were true though.... At least we would be able to look at the voting for who fights and be able to learn something from it.

To the second reply to me: no I don't know why I won. I didn't think anyone knew for sure how they won. Those who think they do are interpreting messages differently though. My notification said I beat you. Not, I beat you because of......

What would we learn? Even if Tyler does pick who wins fights, the vast majority of players aren't his recruits and had no way to know that that's the case. As far as our fight goes, I was under the impression that while other things may come into play, there's one major deciding factor. It was this factor that cost me our fight in my opinion.

Long Con wrote: Well, Dom has given me a hard time in the past and gotten me lynched before, so in the absence of a solid suspicion, I tossed a vote his way. It was the second vote on him, and I was surprised to see him get lynched with just one more vote.

I've already laid out my suspicion of you and boogs that Kylemii just mentioned. Immediately after you received your third vote, Llama, boogs gave Dom an equal number of votes, very much saving your life.

I don't buy this explanation. Dom has given me a hard time in many games as well but I've never thrown a vote on him just for the hell of it in a later game. I think all three votes on him were pretty shifty really.

S~V~S wrote:Your optimism is admirable, it is also suspicious. As it also lends credence to my theory that maybe the police are not actually on our side anymore.

Again, theories. Until we get another baddie, no one really knows.

I think the police compromise theory has good and bad points. It certainly seems unlikely to be coincidence that Project Mayhem's first (and only so far) kill happened to hit a police officer, but then none have died since. Wouldn't you think if Tyler wanted the police dead he'd kill them all or recruit them all if he didn't? If I were Tyler I'd want to recruit a cop so he could tell me his teammates and I'd recruit the rest of them, thereby neutralising a major threat without making it obvious I knew who they all were.

Russtifinko wrote: Yeah, it would be pretty interesting. People have been saying the baddies would lynch each other if that were the case; I don't know why that's true. You can definitely have roles who know each others' identities without sharing BTSC; MP did that in Bioshock.

I think the Splicers only knew one person's identity and had to guess who the rest of them were. I managed to fool Dom and a few others into thinking I was one so they'd leave me alone. So if recruits don't know each other they would definitely want to go after someone who genuinely looks suspicious and could then end up killing their own teammate unknowingly like in X-Men where Rey and I were both recruits without knowing it and he got me killed after I'd been suspicious of him for most of the game.

Russtifinko wrote:

bea wrote:LC, that makes a ton of sense what I understood of it. I think I got the basics, but when things turned into a math formula I kinda went numb in the brainz.

Now that DH has been killed by the police and Project Mayham killed INH - I notice - they are not consecutive night killings. I wonder if something has to be achieved to earn a kill? Or if there's some way kills have been blocked on the nights where there is no kill? Or a limit on kills? Dunno...just seems odd to me.

So many things to work out. *aspody head*

This idea also fits with what LC was saying about MP rewarding active players. I think it's super plausible. Could be related to posting, voting, or whatever else MP can come up with.

One thing, though: DH was bad, right? So the police killing him wouldn't have anything to do with the baddies earning an NK, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

What if Tyler can only kill after one of his recruits has been killed? I'm sure I've heard of similar abilities in the past.

S~V~S wrote: But that is based on YOUR idea of who he is likely to recruit; I never recruit civvie sounding people, becasue they have a harder time changing course and get caught easier.

Isn't that why you recruited me in Lost?

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Several nights where he consider them a threat? How would he not consider them a threat at any point during the game? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If he doesn't consider them a threat anymore, it's because they're all dead. Which would also make your theory meaningless.

I agree with this. A baddie who doesn't consider the only people able to NK them a threat is a baddie who deserves to be NKed.

Sorsha wrote:I can't find the answer but I'm wondering if the policemen and or Tyler & his recruits have some sort of a say in who wins/loses the fight. Like maybe there is a btsc vote? I know from fighting that there is/was something that each fighter could do to help their own chances but I don't think that is the only deciding factor. MP has said that it isn't random.

I doubt that any player gets a say, they'd be too biased and it wouldn't be fair. Tyler is always gonna pick a recruit to win (if one fights) and the police would always pick one of their own (again, if one was in a fight, otherwise they'd probably just pick the one they trusted most which isn't exactly foolproof).

S~V~S wrote:The only way I could see it working for Mayhem without BTS would be if maybe Tyler knew who they were, and could send directions or something like in the movie. You never know who might have been in Project Mayhem in the movie, it could be the guy sitting next to you on the train. Only Tyler know who everyone was.

So this could be a plausible scenario~ but the whole point of Mafia is the uninformed majority against the informed minority. So based on similarity to the movie, it is possible, but only if Tyler can direct the recruits in some way.

If the baddies don't have btsc though I don't see how they're supposed to work together or even know who each other are... Unless Tyler has a way of contacting everyone and informing them of who is cool and what the plan is. Recruits in this scenario don't really get to have a say in their team's direction. Also if they don't have btsc then I don't want to get recruited now.

Sorsha wrote: From what I remember someone just asked "how are fights determined? is it random?" and MP answered that its not random. I'll have to go and find the situation and see.

I do not know why I won my fight. As far as the "being active" bullz and I were both pretty active in the thread before/during our fight. Its not like either of us was a no show/on poster and we were both volunteering.

Are you sure you don't know? I'd been working on the assumption that I knew exactly why you beat me.

I see we've now got some volunteers! In that case my votes will go to MR and Keterman! I won my second fight after losing my first, so I'm happy to give two players a chance to redeem their losses. Not sure if I'll be back before the end of the night so I hope this post suffices for my part in the challenge.

Sorsha wrote: And I don't care.... I'll fight again. You or whoever else.

I don't think you should. I don't really think anyone who has already won a fight should be allowed the chance to become more powerful than the rest of us until everyone who has never won a fight gets to and we're all back at the same level. Letting people get ahead in level might be a bad idea, we could end up making Tyler and his recruits more powerful than the civs.

So now the chaos is over I'm back for the night. This is what I meant with my vote: Llama seems very sure of how Tyler is recruiting, which really makes me wonder. Also the point he makes in the post below is very odd to me.

thellama73 wrote:

unfurl wrote: Quiet people are quiet, it always happend, but if we go lynching quiet people rather then suspects, we are really handing the game to Tyler

That's nonsense, because the police are an effective method for dealing with "suspects", which means Tyler will concentrate on recruiting "non-suspect" or, in other words, quiet people.

He seems to essentially be saying to give any suspicious people a pass and instead just lynch the quiet players, whom I highly doubt are going to be recruited. If I was Tyler I wouldn't recruit a very quiet person and if I were very quiet in this game I would expect not to be recruited. He highly overrates the ability of the police, acting as if they're sure to kill a baddie every night for us when they haven't actually got anyone since DH and there were theories that the police were compromised after INH's death.

S~V~S wrote: Has Juliets given an opinion on you? As someone who was spectacularly fooled by a recruited Bullz, I would like her take on it, and don't recall having seen it. I have to go and look. But having recruited you in the past, I don't think I am seeing bad Bullz.

She did after this post, but I'd like to comment that Lost was a totally different circumstance. I didn't really fool OA or JC, I proved to them irrefutably that I was a civ and was only able to do that because I had been one. They had no reason to think I wasn't anymore, or that I had never been while in btsc with them.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Hmmmm...I actually feel like I have a lot to digest from these results. But I have to run out to my now-former store and then Sockalex and I are hanging out for a bit.

I do know I want to re-read unfurl and Canucklehead now. I have a nagging feeling right now about people who fight and manage to kill their opponent. But I want to see if my theory holds any water first.

I'd be interested to hear more about this theory, as I have one of my own that I don't really feel like I should share just yet.

I'm offering my vote tonight out to the first person to ask for it that hasn't yet won a fight.

Snuck away to quickly vote llama. Can't write a long post but some if his comments about the police and recruits pinged me and its all I really have to go on right now. Will be back in a couple if hours with more to say.

I'm super busy this weekend and don't really know who I'll vote for. Will try to check in through the day and get a vote in. I may or may not make other posts between then and now.

thellama73 wrote:

unfurl wrote: Quiet people are quiet, it always happend, but if we go lynching quiet people rather then suspects, we are really handing the game to Tyler

That's nonsense, because the police are an effective method for dealing with "suspects", which means Tyler will concentrate on recruiting "non-suspect" or, in other words, quiet people.

You can't know that for sure unless you are Tyler. There's no point at all in recruiting a really quiet person because they don't help your team in any way if they aren't getting involved in the game. Also, as Tyler has no way of knowing who the police will target (unless, as was theorised earlier, he has someone on the inside - in which case he can influence the target anyway) so he's better of just not worrying too much about it.

timmer wrote:I feel like I may asked this already, but

@Alex, do Tyler and the Project Mayhem recruits share BTSC? If not, do the recruits know who Tyler is?

I'd been assuming they do. If not, how are they supposed to work together? If all the recruits win together but don't know who the other recruits are and can't plot together then that's not really very helpful to them.

Russtifinko wrote:Will be busy graduating tomorrow! Voting Vomps. Only someone who's been recruited would say they wouldn't mind being recruited.

This is in no way true. I've said it before and still not been recruited. I don't see a problem with people saying that, but then I've never signed up to a game hoping to be a civ, I always want to be bad. So I can understand why others would say things like that. Plus it's Vomp, at least half of what he says isn't meant to be taken seriously.

INH, aren't you dead?

Elohcin wrote:I totally missed the vote :/ I really thought it was pm, not am. I have been sick for five days and am still fighting this cold. I have not been totally with it. I am going to vote for myself again b/c I have not fought STILL and I am getting pretty bored. I will vote myself and boogs again. He hasn't fought either, right?!

Boogs has fought and won, but since you haven't and obviously want to I will give you my vote!

So who wants to fight that hasn't won one yet?

Kylemii wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:You were the first to vote for me. I didn't have a lynch opponent. It wouldn't have made sense to lynch Nev, no, but I don't think it makes sense to lynch anyone on the logic that they can just replace back in. You're still going to be responsible for the death of a civ even if they can come back in someone else's role that's still one civ down.

You keep calling yourself "a civ" as if it's a subjectively guaranteed thing. Obviously lynching a guaranteed civvie so they can replace another probable civvie would be a bad plan but that isn't what the situation was. You know that.

I'm not doing that at all. What I am saying is that you literally said it would be fine to lynch me if I'm a civ because I could replace back in. YOU said that even if I was a civ it would be okay for me to die. You said that.

You were the first to vote for me. I didn't have a lynch opponent. It wouldn't have made sense to lynch Nev, no, but I don't think it makes sense to lynch anyone on the logic that they can just replace back in. You're still going to be responsible for the death of a civ even if they can come back in someone else's role that's still one civ down.

Kylemii wrote: Potato potato :0 you've just repeated the same events that I listed with your own spin on it. I don't expect to be believed. I don't care if I'm believed why would that be important? If I wanted to just get through that vote without attracting attention or whatever I would have just random voted. I voted on a whim out of necessity given time restraints and played with what my only real twitch at the time was. Yes that claim is unverifiable but that doesn't translate to bad. I think baddies put a lot more effort into making sense than civvies do.

What I mean is it basically looks like you were jumping on saying "oh yeah I've always thought he was bad I just never mentioned it before but I totally agree so I'm gonna vote there as well". It looks to me like you were trying to be blendy.

Kylemii wrote:And again, that line about at least if we're wrong then he can be rezzed into that other person's body was like.... barely even about you. it was more an argument against lynching someone just so the host wouldn't need to replace them when that person was most likely not recruited at any point.

Really?

Kylemii wrote:i'm going to a party that won't be over until the poll end time, so i need to vote now. i'm going with bullz.

worst case scenario, if he's an unrecruited civ then he can just replace back in for nevi.

Doesn't seem that way. It looks to me like an argument that it's okay to lynch civs because they can just replace back in. Every lynched civ is one less person Tyler needs dead. So in my opinion it does matter if we lynch civs.

I'm gonna vote Kyle. Partly just in hope of saving myself and partly because his day one vote and excuses are quite shady in my opinion. It's not a lot to go on and if we weren't tied I might've voted someone else instead but there you go.

Dom wrote: Bullz, I'm not hounding you because I'm not completely convinced you are bad-- but you are my biggest suspicion. I'm sorry you seem to be frustrated with this, but I'm not going to abstain from voting simply because I've been wrong before.
My suspicion of BWT has nothing really to do with YOU. It's his post. It's the fact that all of a sudden you're sounding sincere to him-- but you sound no different than before.

I'm not frustrated with you, I'm just annoyed that people are ignoring the fact there's no real reason to suspect me. People brought up this connection to DH that I proved didn't actually exist yet to some that doesn't seem to matter. I do think though that you need to consider your stance on me. Every time you suspect me it always seems to be brought on by some small throwaway remark that you don't like, maybe the reason you always suspect me is just that you don't understand the way I play.

I find it ridiculous that I'm still being voted. There isn't even really a proper case against me and I've shown that already.

Dom wrote: I feel okay voting bulls. He is pinging me and I am voting based on who I am suspicious of. I do not feel guilty for it. I have, historically, been wrong about Bullz, but it's my biggest thing so far. However...

One day you will learn. Rather than saying 'historically I've been wrong' perhaps you should say 'of all the times I suspected Bullz and hounded him relentlessly over the smallest things I was right exactly once and even that was only technically because I thought he was on the other baddie team'. You've literally never been right about me but each time we play together you do the exact same thing expecting to finally be right. Have you ever played Far Cry 3? Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?

To be fair, you aren't actually hounding me here but I just wanted to nip it in the bud because it gets tiring.

Dom wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Heck, I'm not even sure about Bullz. I was all gung-ho to vote for him again today, but his defenses are starting to come off as more sincere to me.

So because someone doesn't suspect me (shocking when you consider the bulletproof case against me, I know) they're automatically suspicious?

Kylemii wrote: maybe you will someday feel less unsure about me? there's nothing really going on with me, I voted somewhat lazily for bullz, based on vibes which were enhanced by other people's thoughts, which basically describes like 60% of my thought process in almost every game i play recently until things get narrowed down. He felt that I was being disingenuous about it because i voted for him without having earlier said words about a vague feeling i had about him back before lynch polls existed and there was no purpose in bringing up suspicions.

This isn't why I thought your vote was off. First, I thought you were being disingenuous because you made a completely unverifiable claim and expected it to be believed. Second, you tried to excuse your vote just in case I was a civ by saying I could just replace back in. Again, that's no excuse for lynching a civ. If you'd said it after the fact it'd still be a bad excuse for your vote.

Keterman wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, I had forgotten Keterman had said that. i did not think the Vomp lynch was particularly strong, it was a tie.

Not to mention the lynch was spread all over the place. 20+ votes across 12 people, Vomp only got 5. I definitely don't find it surprising that he hasn't received any yet today, maybe some of his voters from yesterday will want to try again but his vote count would suggest the majority don't suspect him. I doubt he'll get my vote today but then I don't have any idea who will yet. I guess Keterman just isn't used to playing round here yet so it seems unusual to him that join first place in the last lynch isn't automatically on the chopping block today but if you look at the numbers involved that should explain it I think.

Fifteen votes? I would call that strong, even in a game with much larger numbers to begin with. Really any number that results in either a lynch or a tie lynch would be considered strong to me. Also keep in mind that I wasn't declaring that it was strange that he had no votes yet already, I was in fact asking the general community if not automatically being on the chopping block the following day was standard here. Apparently it isn't. Carry on.

Sometimes the second person in a tied lynch would be on the chopping block straight away but I think the circumstances here are different. Vomp's five voters may decide they still want him out but it's not like he was the lesser of two evils in everyone else's eyes, he was just one potential name out of several. It just happened that the vote was spread out enough for him to almost die.

unfurl wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

unfurl wrote:Fair point about DP!

haha, i can not help to notice Bullz name is among the people wanted to go to chicago,
as I voted for the previous period
and then people say they dont see a connection bewteen him and DH

Of course I voted to go to Chicago. It was an entirely new place and I assumed everyone would be drawn there. Go read my posts, I said on the last night in Wilmington I thought that since a lot of people would presumably vote for the new place that Chicago would be a good place for discussion and building theories. How was I to know where DH had voted? We were in separate threads. There's no connection between me and him just a few minor interactions given more importance than they deserve. I've already established that he didn't help me get my fight on day two in any way and nor have I defended him against any accusers while they were present in the same thread.

If you had btsc with DH, you would know where he was going, very simple

Yeah except there's no more reason to believe I do than there is for anyone else. If I had btsc with anyone at all, good or bad, my decision of where to go wouldn't be based on theirs. I'd choose for myself.

Dom wrote:
In addition my second point can be summed up as follows: I feel your statements are reading that people are wrong in their reasons, not their thoughts.
I am not sure when I'll be back. I'll likely have to go into both jobs for extended hours today, so I'm voting Bullz now.

If people's reasons are that there's a clear solid connection between me and DH then their reasons are wrong. There's not much more I can say to that really.

Are we really going to do this again? It's kinda played out at this point.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Never said I was a confirmed civ. Obviously I know I am one though so I do know that my own lynch was incredibly unlikely to result in a baddie lynch. I never said any differently to the idea of it making more sense for an active player to be recruited. In fact earlier in the day I specifically said that if Tyler has recruited an inactive player then he's wasted a recruitment and isn't really playing his role very well.

Bullz, this made me very suspicious of you as I caught up. I think it kind of speaks for itself.

I wondered when you'd chime in Dom! Look at the context. I was telling Kyle his logic of "he can just replace back in" is no excuse to lynch a civ.

Dom wrote: And here's another reason why you are just making me go CRAZY about you today, Bullz, you are defending yourself for the wrong reasons. Rather than saying you aren't bad for reason x, and thus this isn't true, you are saying, "Well, your argument doesn't make much sense for this specific instance." You also fail to realize that if unfurl is right (a big IF, tbh) then you would have BTSC with DH, and thus, you wouldn't have any argument here. Sorry, Bullz, but I'm not buying this.

While I'm flattered you're so crazy about me, I'll defend myself how I think is best. The arguments I've seen trying to connect me to DH don't make much sense because they take things out of context and make them seem like more than they were. That is my defense.

Dom wrote:Timmer, I have really enjoyed your analyses this game. Just curious, I don't remember sharing a thread with DH, so could you tell me when I did?

Weren't you in Wilmington on day two when half of Newcastle arrived there?

S~V~S wrote: Linki, I had forgotten Keterman had said that. i did not think the Vomp lynch was particularly strong, it was a tie.

Not to mention the lynch was spread all over the place. 20+ votes across 12 people, Vomp only got 5. I definitely don't find it surprising that he hasn't received any yet today, maybe some of his voters from yesterday will want to try again but his vote count would suggest the majority don't suspect him. I doubt he'll get my vote today but then I don't have any idea who will yet. I guess Keterman just isn't used to playing round here yet so it seems unusual to him that join first place in the last lynch isn't automatically on the chopping block today but if you look at the numbers involved that should explain it I think.

Keterman wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

unfurl wrote:Fair point about DP!

haha, i can not help to notice Bullz name is among the people wanted to go to chicago,
as I voted for the previous period
and then people say they dont see a connection bewteen him and DH

Of course I voted to go to Chicago. It was an entirely new place and I assumed everyone would be drawn there. Go read my posts, I said on the last night in Wilmington I thought that since a lot of people would presumably vote for the new place that Chicago would be a good place for discussion and building theories. How was I to know where DH had voted? We were in separate threads. There's no connection between me and him just a few minor interactions given more importance than they deserve. I've already established that he didn't help me get my fight on day two in any way and nor have I defended him against any accusers while they were present in the same thread.

Same here. And although it goes against the pet theory at the moment, I'm more weary of those who didn't vote Chicago. A new city to check out and they didn't vote for it? Why the lack of curiosity? Do they already know what the rest of us were going to find out?

I wouldn't really say anyone is suspicious for not voting (or indeed voting) Chicago. I just assumed a lot of people would do since it was new, and back in Wilmington Dom and I had a bit of a discussion in which I said perhaps our best bet is Chicago because we're likely to meet a lot of people there and together we might work things out better than separately.

S~V~S wrote: I know I didn't vote for it since i was going back to touch base at DC every other day, and the day Chicago appeared was that day. Although i likely might not have voted it anyhow, it was new and the popular option, and i have always been a contrarian

Unfurls paranoia is full swing, and she comes up with some pretty wicked theories when she is in paranoia mode. Her analysis is interesting, although I still think you sound genuine, faux Bullz sounds more "Aw Gee" than real Bullz.

She's definitely paranoid if she's seeing a connection between me and DH. The thing that kinda gets to me is that all the things that supposedly indicate this connection have been taken out of context and blown way out of proportion. If people took five minutes to read the relevant posts properly they'd see that.

S~V~S wrote:I will say though, that you did make one remark up there that got my attention~ if you had recruited DH to your team, or had both been recruited to the same team, you would know how he voted via BTS. I still find it highly unlikely that I will vote for you, though.

I liked Timmers list; I am going to comapre to Unfurls list.

Well yeah. But I don't see why a btsc team would feel the need to all be in the same place. You'd spread out to maximise knowledge and influence. I'm losing track with all these lists, theories, hypotheses and notions, I think a thorough readthrough is in order tonight.

juliets wrote: Sorsha, I looked at that same thing and the first thought that occurred to me was that the recruiting was done. But then I thought about this: there were 38 players that began this game. With 38 players you would normally see two mafia teams of 3 with the ability to recruit 1 or 2 teams of 4 and/or a SK. Assuming Tyler started recruiting night 1, he would have had 4+1(Tyler)=5 recruits at the time MP posted that message. That would make 5 baddies. I just don't think 5 baddies are enough in a 38 player game which is what led me to believe he is still able to recruit. Maybe there is some other mechanic at work here and I just don't see the full picture but for now I can't understand how MP would leave the baddies with only 5 (assuming of course DH hadn't died).

I have no idea who I'm going to vote for tomorrow but looking at those lists seems like a good way to me to find a baddie.

Nothing special to add here but I do think this is a very good analysis! 33 against 5 wouldn't be particularly balanced.

Keterman wrote:I'm curious as to why no one's voted vompatti yet. Is it normal over here for a strong yet failed lynch to garner no votes for quite a while the following day?

I'm not even too sure where the Vomp votes came from. I tend to be wary of voting for him (as a civ anyway) because half the time he's only getting votes because he plays in an unusual way.

timmer wrote:@Keterman, you bring up a decent point about Vompatti. MP said the lynch was indeed a tie, so he MAY have survived by random chance. But, certainly if Alex knew this phase of the game would happen, he could have built in a lynch dodge to Tyler's role. And I stand by the weirdness of some of Vompatti's actions in this game. And before anyone jumps on me for using Vompatti and weird in the same sentence, I mean that Vompatti has at times NOT been weird, which for him is... weird. He asked for a letter in the siggie contest. Normal Vompatti would request "K". That he requested anything, but more importantly a D and not his standard "k" comment is odd.

If I don't find a better target today, Vomps will be my fallback lynch target.

Hmmm... I see what you're saying here but at the same time does he usually change up his playstyle as a baddie? I can't recall him ever actually being bad off the top of my head.

timmer wrote:So the roles say the cops have btsc... so if one gets recruited, the others are goners, I guess? Yikes...

I thought about this. It actually benefits a recruited cop to not kill off his teammates, because eventually it'd get down to two cops left and the nonrecruited cop knows it's not him, so he can target his surviving partner and kill a recruit. I think. The cops probably shouldn't get killed off one by one but they may have been compromised given INH's death. A smart recruited cop should know not to wipe out his or her teammates so quickly.

unfurl wrote:Fair point about DP!

haha, i can not help to notice Bullz name is among the people wanted to go to chicago,
as I voted for the previous period
and then people say they dont see a connection bewteen him and DH

Of course I voted to go to Chicago. It was an entirely new place and I assumed everyone would be drawn there. Go read my posts, I said on the last night in Wilmington I thought that since a lot of people would presumably vote for the new place that Chicago would be a good place for discussion and building theories. How was I to know where DH had voted? We were in separate threads. There's no connection between me and him just a few minor interactions given more importance than they deserve. I've already established that he didn't help me get my fight on day two in any way and nor have I defended him against any accusers while they were present in the same thread.

juliets wrote:RIP INH, the way i read an unrecruited police death by Mayhem is that one of the police has been recruited and knew who to target. Though why they didnt just recruit him instead I don't know.

Also welcome back Metalmarsh and good luck with the new baby Nevinera.

One thing I thought about that would support a theory that DH was recruited early is that early on he was not receiving heat from everyone regarding how much his plan resembled llamas early on in the game. If i were recruiting people I wouldn't want someone who is getting a lot of negative attention because as happened, the police are more likely to check that person out and find them to be bad. Again though, as unfurl says, this whole thing is just a theory.

Speaking of the police checking people receiving negative attention, I wonder if they checked llama and found him to be ok. When I put myself in their shoes he would have been one I wanted to check out. Just a thought though, I am not police just trying to think like them.

I think you could be right. The fact that they got a policeman with their very first kill (right?) seems too lucky to be chance to me. I'd suggest the police start targeting themselves at night just in case so they can flush out any potential recruit. If it's true though, I'm kinda jealous of whoever it is, being a double agent is a hell of a lot of fun. I also agree with your thought about recruitments. You wouldn't recruit someone about to be lynched.

Kylemii wrote: See... You're agreeing right there that it makes more sense for someone like you to have been recruited than for an innactive player who is seeking replacement. The risk of you rplacing in as a baddie in that circumstance was basically negligible. Anyways you're saying that as if you were a guaranteed civ which is not at all true. No matter how you look at it a bullzeye lynch was far more likely to result in a baddie lynch than a nevi lynch would have been.

I'm not obligated to share every single thought and idea I have, and I usually don't unless its something no one else has noticed. There's really no point in saying things you don't feel strongly about.

Never said I was a confirmed civ. Obviously I know I am one though so I do know that my own lynch was incredibly unlikely to result in a baddie lynch. I never said any differently to the idea of it making more sense for an active player to be recruited. In fact earlier in the day I specifically said that if Tyler has recruited an inactive player then he's wasted a recruitment and isn't really playing his role very well.

Voted Boom and Hedge, seems like a good idea.

unfurl wrote: Im wondering, if we going to see a nightkill now that is sort "normal" or the fight will be instead? or both?

I'm pretty sure I saw one of the roles said they can't be killed by Project Mayhem, and the policemen can kill recruits, so I think it's possible we'll see at least one.

Kylemii wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Kylemii wrote:i'm going to a party that won't be over until the poll end time, so i need to vote now. i'm going with bullz.

worst case scenario, if he's an unrecruited civ then he can just replace back in for nevi.

This is really lazy. You haven't actually contributed to anything against me, just said you'd been thinking about it earlier. When exactly was this 'earlier'? We were only in the same city twice iirc, right at the beginning when only DH wanted to fight and then on day 3 when I was injured and couldn't post. Also saying it's fine to lynch a civ because I'll just replace back in sounds like you know you're wrong and are coming up with an excuse before it's proven so you can fall back onto it later. Pretty weak really.

no, it's just good strategy. the poll was leaning towards voting a player who was likely not a recruit. we've seen dead unrecruited civs replace in in the past so there is precedent for it.

i hadn't contributed anything against you because there was no motivation to do so. we were all neutral until very recently and there was no lynch mechanic.

I know dead civs can replace back in, but it's not an excuse for lynching them. If I'd been lynched and then replaced back in you wouldn't have been able to rid yourself of your part in my death by saying "oh it's okay he came back in". Plus for all you know that 'strategy' could kill an active civ and then replace an inactive baddie with an active one. Maybe not in this game where it's likely that the recruits are players who'd been relatively active, but still.

Plus you saying you'd had similar thoughts to people airing suspicion of me is completely unverifiable since you never mentioned it before, and since you never gave any examples of things that had made you think that it could just as easily be a lie. Basically your vote feels like a classic low flying bandwagon vote. I've done it before, used a prior engagement as an excuse to drop a quick throwaway vote onto someone who looks like a likely bandwagon target and hoped my vote would be forgotten in the shuffle.

thellama73 wrote:If you guys still think Bullz or Vompatti are bad, I would be willing to fight either of them and try to kill them.

And I suppose you'd be doing this favour to us all out of the goodness of your heart and not for any personal gain like an increase in fighting skill? My preference would be for two people who've never fought but want to, or one or two who've lost a fight and want redemption but if people want to make you their executioner I'll happily fight you.

Keterman wrote:I think we're all a little too eager to jump on the vote-for-those-that-haven't-fought-yet train. I don't think it's a bad idea either but let's consider all of our options before we choose one.

The benefit of voting people who haven't won a fight yet is it means that nobody becomes especially powerful. Right now we have basically two levels of power - people who've won one fight and people who've yet to win. If we keep voting non-winners until there are none left then eventually we're all back on the same page and nobody is more likely than anyone else to win. It re-levels the playing field assuming that no roles have extra fighting skill built in.

By which I of course mean johns2jj, who I've always referred to as JJ, rather than JJLehto. Just realised after casting my vote that there are two people who 'JJ' could possibly be referring to!

In hope of saving myself, and because of his very weak vote, I'm going to have to vote JJ.

bea wrote:Timmer - that's an interesting point about sgettie.

I'm thowing my vote on john today. I know it's not much, but his vote feels the weakest atm. Gotta get to work now.

I hadn't even realised JJ was playing, let alone had voted. I just looked him up and yes his vote looks very weak, I actually missed his explanation on my first read through his posts.

timmer wrote:Bullz has a point, here. In many ways this is like a Day 1, and the points I brought up about him and DH, while I feel they could be valid, aren't exactly concrete, so for people to jump on that blindly is very poor.

I'm going to look at things a bit differently now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we even know when DH was recruited? I've been thinking that it was night 1 when he fought, but who's to say it wasn't night 2, or 3? Everything I pointed out about Bullz is irrelevant if DH wasn't yet recruited.

So let me point something else out, that I just found that feels pingy... gimme a sec to put it together, the lack of quoting sucks.

I think he might have been recruited night one. If you look at his posts on day 2 he was kind of cagey about the process of the fights. Boogs and BWT were honest and said everything that happened while DH at first claimed he was just told he won and nothing more. It was only later that he admitted to being told his fighting skill had gone up and he'd seriously injured Kate. My thinking is he was trying to keep quiet that he'd gotten stronger for some reason and I don't see why a civ would.

thellama73 wrote:Why does everyone keep saying bandwagon? Bullz has four votes. Nev has three. I have two and so does John. There are still something like 20 votes to come in , and literally one could tip the balance. But of an overreaction, don't you think?

Half the votes on me come from people latching onto arguments made by others without adding anything themselves. People are acting like a few minor comments mean I'm blatantly attached at the hip to a proven baddie. I call that bandwagon behaviour.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I think it's ironic that I'm getting bandwagoned because I'm supposedly a recruit when I'd been really hoping to get recruited and never did.

Maybe you'll get recruited tomorrow! Hope springs eternal.

If you do, be sure to let us know though, okay?

I have four votes already and 75% of the people who voted for me never actually made any contribution to a case against me. Dom is injured (and always suspects me anyway) so he has an excuse but the others are clearly just jumping onto what's easy. I'm clearly today's bandwagon of choice. That said, if I miraculously survive then I promise I'll tell you whether or not I get recruited.

While I'm here let me just summarise the "connection" between DH and I:

I agreed with something he said before he could ever have been recruited.
He made two non-commital posts in support of me fighting on day two then didn't even vote for me - this is him helping me.
I felt that something he'd said was misrepresented and said so twice when it no longer really mattered - this constitutes me defending him.

I encourage people to think for themselves and do their own reading rather than just latching on to poorly made cases from others.

I think it's ironic that I'm getting bandwagoned because I'm supposedly a recruit when I'd been really hoping to get recruited and never did.

Yeah, I got told I was seriously injured and couldn't post or vote until the next day.

Linki: What he said. Except I did get a PM after my winning fight.

Roxy wrote:Question to all who fought a fight - did you receive a PM after the fight was over?

Yes. It either said you won and your fighting level went up, or you lost and whether or not you'd been injured. I can't remember if it told me Dom was hurt when I beat him.