The Syndicate

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:31 pm Epi, I gotta ask.

What role did type have in the game?

I know it had some effect on my role as Eevee -- as I got evolution points I would evolve into different types that gave me different benefits. I only evolved twice so what I know is that first I was Jolteon and if I gave an evo vote to another Electric type I would be protected from the NK, and then I became Vaporeon and if another Water type gave me an evo point I would be off the next poll.

mmmm malamar you say?

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:13 pm @Nutella, can you elaborate on your suspicion of DF? I see that it's through the interactions between him and Sprit, but I don't follow it.

I've explained most of it as best as I can. Wilgy (I guess it was Wilgy, I keep mixing up his posts and DDL's) said a few days ago that he thought DF should be "on the chopping block" and IMO sprit's questioning of why sounded like how a teammate might respond to an unexplained suspicion. It's got some WIFOM I guess, or to others it might seem too close to a too-eager defense since DF wasn't really facing a dangerous amount of suspicion, but I already had a weird feeling from DF anyway (I think his meta/style is pinging me bc he's usually quieter as a civ) so there might be some bias to my assessment but he is the one that stuck out to me most in Sprit's ISO. Also, just the fact that sprit only mentions DF that one time, and he's otherwise omitted from all of his lists (he was in G-Man's 3rd category). It's hard to guess where Sprit would have placed his teammates in either his trust/evolution lists or suspicion lists, but I wouldn't be surprised if he left at least one teammate out of both.

And again, I found DF's vote yesterday pingy. Again that probably depends more on Fred's alignment, but I suspect him independently of that for the most part.

G-Man, I have explained why I suspect DFaraday, and it is for sprityo iso reasons -- you keep saying we need to do that, and I already have. DF is probably my strongest suspicion at the moment. I do apologize for sticking your name on that list of three without explanation, but I don't necessarily retract it. I think your behavior in the Eloh lynch could be possible baddie behavior, but really only if we assume Fred is bad, and if I'm right about DF then you and Fred can't both be bad. So you're still on my list to watch, but I take back the "in no particular order" part because after some thinking I guess I wouldn't really go after you unless Fred is proved mafia, and at this point I am more confident that DF is than that Fred is. So you're right, I was hasty and should have explained more (especially since I'm afraid I might not survive the night).

Morons.

Let's lynch, in no particular order: Fredwood, DFaraday, and G-Man. Two out of three of them are the baddies.

1. Fredwood, maybe Neverwhere
2. DrWilgy maybe? Tougher list
3. Absolutely DF. I've been thinking DF is likely bad since I skimmed sprit's iso earlier today and saw him question a suspicion of DF (from DDL I believe?) and thought that could be a soft teammate defense/deflection. Then DF's vote for Eloh today, so if Fred turns out to be bad that seals DF for me.

@Eloh: I do, lol, and I think you're both civ and people who don't just don't know you.

...Yeah I'm definitely comfortable voting for Fred now. Looking back at his posts I am not at all convinced by his defense and continue to get bad feelings.

RIP LC Sensing a pattern here that spells my fate

The Fredwood vs. Mac discussion is going a bit over my head, I think I'll have to reread their posts from the lynch. From what I remember I do kind of wonder if Fred was trying to save Sprit, but I think I could also see it as misguided/well-intentioned. If I have the time and inclination I might look at sprityo's interactions, but if I don't get any leads from that I could be on board with a Fred lynch.

Sweet result!

I don't think Tink is bad, I think it's worth listening to Eloh's judgment there lol. I'd rather vote for sprityo than her -- in fact I've been sitting on a weird feeling about sprityo for a couple days now and haven't really tried to articulate it but he's actually the player I feel most comfortable throwing a vote onto right now. I know it doesn't look great to say that out of the blue in this situation, especially if Tink flips bad, but I don't suspect her and I think it would be fair to give her more of a chance to play.

@Wilgy - G-Man was on my list because he was one of the players I got civvish vibes from on day 0. Nothing more to it really. I think I still feel mostly okay about him.

@G-Man - I get wordy when I damn well feel like it, lol. I post what's on my mind, and during the back-and-forth with Boo I had quite a bit to say about why he wasn't making sense. And yes, I originally suspected him and then backed off because his persistence in the debate felt more like civ behavior.

Aw, RIP speed

LC for the love of god update your photobucket account

sorry timmer :/

I'm not particularly thrilled about voting for timmer, but I think he's more likely bad than boo, so putting my vote there.

Wilgy, I had been feeling pretty good about you, but what's with the "let's lynch these two people, or maybe these other two people, whatevs" post? DF's criticism of your apparent hypocrisy merits a response, but I think even outside of that, your post was rather suspicious in the number of lynch candidates you tossed out willy-nilly.

I can't quite decide whether I actually suspect Boo. I certainly did earlier, but I think his tone and persistence in his back-and-forth with me seems slightly more like civ behavior. Not sure how to feel about his Timmer vote; he may actually be right about Timmer's style.

Damn, RIP Jack

boo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:52 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:30 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 pm

sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view

In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.

Here's the post boo is taking all of these assumptions from. "Spreading votes around among the people we think we trust" is exactly what I am doing for the next few nights. I am not piling votes on one player, because for one thing -- bear with me here as this might be hard for you to understand -- it's not allowed. If it were allowed, I suspect only baddies would do it; I don't trust anyone enough at this point to give them evo points two nights in a row. And as I have said multiple times, I don't know whether LC and Speed intended for the pact to last longer, but I personally have not committed to it for more than two nights, so if I end up targeting one of them a second time after that it would be because I strongly trusted them.

Votes are being spread around, but you're probably going to die because votes aren't being spread around.

Wut?

Well, technically, LC and speedchuck are the ones that made the decision to both give me votes tonight. I didn't ask them for those votes, but I didn't turn them down either because of course I want myself to get votes. It's preferable from my point of view to have someone I know is civ (i.e. me) to get more than one vote and likely evolve, rather than have every civ get one vote and nobody evolve, while the baddies will almost certainly have someone evolving soon due to being able to guarantee two of them voting for the other. Fortunately, it just so happened that I know at least two people decided to trust me enough to give me votes, and at the same time I am also voting for someone I trust.

I think part of your misinterpretation issue here is that you're conflating two different senses of "spreading" votes -- one being the spread of votes from different players on one night, and the other being the spread of votes from the same player on different nights. Synchronic and diachronic, if you will. My original statement was about the latter, and you have twisted it into being about the former, whereas in fact my statement about voting for whomever you trust each night does not at all preclude having one person receive several votes in one night, if multiple people choose the same person. Which is exactly what several players were trying to coordinate on day 0 -- try to distribute votes among a smaller group of "trusted" players so that the votes would cluster a little bit more -- it's just that, as I said in the original post, since it's early game there isn't really a consensus on who to trust so it ends up being an individual decision that may result in some overlap.

Anyway, I'm probably going to die anyway since it's public knowledge that I'm getting at least two evo votes

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 pm

sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view

In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.

Here's the post boo is taking all of these assumptions from. "Spreading votes around among the people we think we trust" is exactly what I am doing for the next few nights. I am not piling votes on one player, because for one thing -- bear with me here as this might be hard for you to understand -- it's not allowed. If it were allowed, I suspect only baddies would do it; I don't trust anyone enough at this point to give them evo points two nights in a row. And as I have said multiple times, I don't know whether LC and Speed intended for the pact to last longer, but I personally have not committed to it for more than two nights, so if I end up targeting one of them a second time after that it would be because I strongly trusted them.

Boo, I have already explained why I have not been contradictory. You are reading things into my comment about double targeting which aren't there.

Does anyone agree with boo? If so, please explain to me how planning to vote for two different people the next two nights is the same as voting for the same person two nights in a row.

boo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:35 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:10 pm I personally am not particularly impressed with Boo right now. He's twisting everything into an interpretation that fits his preconceived notion that I must be bad, and he keeps twisting beyond recognition what I have said about what I think baddie motives would do, when I have clearly explained why everything I have done makes total sense with civ motives. I was going to give my votes to Speed or LC anyway since I have been getting strong civ vibes from them; they just decided to make it into some official thing that I'm benefitting from by getting two evo points tonight. I'm happy to agree to that, because I think my role could be a pretty helpful one when it evolves. I have made no explicit promises to stay in their exchange for more than two nights, but I might if I continue to trust them. Boo has been willfully misinterpreting everything I have said on this topic.

No, I've quoted you contradicting yourself multiple times. I haven't twisted anything you have said, you have said things and then taken actions that are in direct contradiction to what anyone reading what you have said should rationally expect.

...No, that's just simply not true.

I personally am not particularly impressed with Boo right now. He's twisting everything into an interpretation that fits his preconceived notion that I must be bad, and he keeps twisting beyond recognition what I have said about what I think baddie motives would do, when I have clearly explained why everything I have done makes total sense with civ motives. I was going to give my votes to Speed or LC anyway since I have been getting strong civ vibes from them; they just decided to make it into some official thing that I'm benefitting from by getting two evo points tonight. I'm happy to agree to that, because I think my role could be a pretty helpful one when it evolves. I have made no explicit promises to stay in their exchange for more than two nights, but I might if I continue to trust them. Boo has been willfully misinterpreting everything I have said on this topic.

As I see it, (since I didn't vote for one of them on night 0) I am voting for three different people on the first three nights of the game, which is as much "spreading" as is possible up to that point. After night 2, I will re-evaluate whether I want to stay in the pact or not, and I may well vote for someone else anyway. Get off my case, I'm just playing the game.

boo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:40 am

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:09 am

boo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:48 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:46 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:38 pm If you can't read rules, you shouldn't be playing Mafia.

No double targeting. That goes for evolution points.

That is far from clear in the rules.

Who wants to be the third party who is participating in what I hope is an ongoing mutual assistance program that speed and I are members of? If speed agrees, you will qualify for two evolution points tonight. You just have to reciprocate.

Presumably not LA... :P

Poor presuming on your part. Speed and LC are the two players I trust most at this point (despite the fact that they missed the rule).

You're joining an ongoing voting group in this post, immediately after saying this about ongoing voting in your last post:

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 pm

sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view

In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.

I can stop voting for LC and speedchuck any time I like, if I decide I do not think they are innocent. And it's still not double targeting if I am alternating between them. You call me out as if I'm a hypocrite but I am in no way contradicting what I said, as double targeting is not allowed and therefore I'm still spreading votes around on the people I would have voted for anyway.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:50 am

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:09 amPoor presuming on your part. Speed and LC are the two players I trust most at this point (despite the fact that they missed the rule).

Cool, you just became the third Musketeer. We both choose you tonight and you alternate between us. Cool?

Sounds good

boo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:48 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:46 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:38 pm If you can't read rules, you shouldn't be playing Mafia.

No double targeting. That goes for evolution points.

That is far from clear in the rules.

Who wants to be the third party who is participating in what I hope is an ongoing mutual assistance program that speed and I are members of? If speed agrees, you will qualify for two evolution points tonight. You just have to reciprocate.

Presumably not LA... :P

Poor presuming on your part. Speed and LC are the two players I trust most at this point (despite the fact that they missed the rule).

sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view

In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.

Damn, I missed it. Sorry. Got caught up in a few errands and forgot to pop back on.

I agree with LC's suspicion of Boo. I think it's very likely Boo asked that question from a baddie perspective, and his defense about "civ thinking from a baddie mindset" is weeeeaaak. Occam's razor tells me Boo is mafia.

I keep sort of forgetting this is a speed game. We only have 4.5 hours left to lynch someone

I think neverwhere thought the poll was for the evolution point/she otherwise intended her vote on me to be a positive thing. -linki ok she just cleared this up

@Eloh, not sure if you were alluding to giving an evo point to yourself, but the hosts already confirmed that that is not allowed.


I want to feel good about Timmer, but I kind of agree with DDL in that I didn't like his "I won't vote for people who ask for it" policy. In fact I almost commented on it right after he posted, because I am one of those people who wants evo votes because I think my role will be beneficial. I can see why he'd decide something like that on principle as it's often a quandary that comes up in games when we have similar votes (e.g. the prefects in ROT3K), but I think ultimately it's unproductive as there will certainly be honest civs who ask for it (and those who don't ask/don't seem to care about getting votes may be because their role wouldn't be as important). I can believe that he was coming from a good place, but I don't like that he made it a strict rule for himself right off the bat as it's rather naive and limiting.

I have sent mine.

So we have to send in our evolutions in the next hour and forty minutes, yes?

G-Man wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:57 pm If I vote for someone on Jack's list, it won't be because their name was on Jack's list. If I vote for someone not on Jack's list, it won't be because they weren't on Jack's list.

Same.

For what it's worth, here's a list of players I'm considering sending my point to:
Jack
G-Man
Long Con
Speedchuck
Dyslexicon
Timmer

Nice analysis Jack, I appreciate the consideration I would consider giving you a point as well, as well as the other candidates you've mentioned. Fwiw, since you haven't played with them, I'd endorse both G-Man and Timmer as strong players.

Btw, I didn't realize Dizzy was on the player list for this; I think they're indefinitely gone from the site after alluding to some sudden life stuff, so hosts might want to consider looking for a replacement unless you've heard back?

evolve me yo