The Syndicate

DDL

Because I hear rumour that prisoner 509 won best civilian in the Slammers 2015.

But also because I think DDL is bad.

Prisoner 740359 wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Prisoner 740359 wrote:

Warden wrote:I hope I didn't miss the opportunity to cast a vote. Are we lynching sig or ika?

WHAT

How can you vote as well?!

This might actually work to our advantage.

I'm assuming whoever the warden is can't vote as both the sock warden and the real player. So we can limit who the warden might be based on which named players don't vote today.

Everyone should vote.

[Host citation needed]

I think the Warden got priviledges just like us, but extra ones since his role is also in the game.

Either that or he just dun goof'd and voted as his sock, which I kinda doubt, since I expect better of Golden.

What advantage I could see, perhaps, is that whoever the Warden votes might not be a cop, especially if it's a name he could bring that person ahead in the tally. But even here, his move could be sheer WIFOM.

Prisoner 509378 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Yes I do. We lynched a baddie because of luck, and statistically that shouldn't happen often again.

It's a bad plan, just like lynching at random is a bad plan. The accuracy is not reliable, the reads by association are not reliable, everything is not realiable. One black swan does not mean you have a good chance of finding black swans in the wild.

There was nothing "random" about it. There were concrete reasons produced in the thread that specifically favored moving the lynch to Fuzz, and numerous players took the opportunity. They didn't pull his name out of a hat. They didn't play powerball and end up with F-U-Z-Z. Nobody advocated CFDing to someone "at random". Of course that would be silly. You're criticizing a strategy that didn't even exist in this game.

I'll let you answer to Epi before I carry on with this.

Exactly. Thats what both Epi AND DDL have been doing. Criticism for the hell of it.

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote: I don't think so Tim

I can't keep up with all these names.

You're Tim!

No, I'm Mark!

You can be both, it's ok.

(It was a Home Improvement reference)

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:Sloonei pulled the wool over my eyes in Watchmen, and then I got lynched right behind him after. But it's not just his demeanour but his role in events that makes me feel good about him.

Did you ever give your thoughts on the moment he moved his vote from Fuzz to Matt 1.0? Did that look good or bad to you, at the time?

I think his words in the thread bore out, at the time, that he always intended to end on Fuzz, and I'm not sure why his brief time at Matt 1.0 would seem all that dodgy... like, what would it achieve from a baddie perspective?

I think it was more so the way he went around it that caught people's attention than it was him actually moving his vote. He was on the train early, maybe he wanted to get off?

I don't think so Tim

I can't keep up with all these names.

You're Tim!

Prisoner 920077 wrote:I need some assistance, peeps.

I'm reading the point in the game where RadicalFuzz made his ika vote and subsequently torpedoed himself. What I need to know, which is tricky due to moveable votes, is who was the other half of "breaking the tie" when he voted ika? The only other person on the poll that seems likely was Epignosis, but was that who was tied with ika at that moment?

Thanks!

It was gleam, hence the gleam vote on day 4.

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:Sloonei pulled the wool over my eyes in Watchmen, and then I got lynched right behind him after. But it's not just his demeanour but his role in events that makes me feel good about him.

Did you ever give your thoughts on the moment he moved his vote from Fuzz to Matt 1.0? Did that look good or bad to you, at the time?

I think his words in the thread bore out, at the time, that he always intended to end on Fuzz, and I'm not sure why his brief time at Matt 1.0 would seem all that dodgy... like, what would it achieve from a baddie perspective?

I think it was more so the way he went around it that caught people's attention than it was him actually moving his vote. He was on the train early, maybe he wanted to get off?

I don't think so Tim

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:Sloonei pulled the wool over my eyes in Watchmen, and then I got lynched right behind him after. But it's not just his demeanour but his role in events that makes me feel good about him.

Did you ever give your thoughts on the moment he moved his vote from Fuzz to Matt 1.0? Did that look good or bad to you, at the time?

I think his words in the thread bore out, at the time, that he always intended to end on Fuzz, and I'm not sure why his brief time at Matt 1.0 would seem all that dodgy... like, what would it achieve from a baddie perspective?

Sloonei pulled the wool over my eyes in Watchmen, and then I got lynched right behind him after. But it's not just his demeanour but his role in events that makes me feel good about him.

I can't speak for sloonei, but I can speak for me.

For me, that EoD2 experience was such that I would be unable to suspect sloonei, SVS, silverwolf, ika or indiglo (hey - s and i are great letters!) without a pretty strong case. We moved the lynch off a townie to a baddie together. This experience gave me a clarity of thought about that group of people.

I don't feel any more connected to sloonei than any of that group, but out of them only really sloonei and ika have taken much suspicion, and so I feel I've defended them more often and harder.

Scotty wrote:So let's do a little summary here.

There are currently 5 prisoners that we know are part of the mafia families (6, if you count dead LC). That leaves 8 prisoners without an apparent win-con or motive, that [probably] can vote in this lynch.

Does that not bother anyone else?

Yes. It's why I figure that can't be that they each have a vote that counts as one.

If the 14 of you actually account for 14 votes, that would be massively unbalanced. I'm guessing that you don't.

Prisoner 483934 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Prisoner 483934 wrote:

Golden wrote:Oh great, the prisoners are going to break out and lynch me.

Fucking fantastic.

There is literally zero doubt I'm on my civilian game for anyone who wants to even try thinking about it half-assed. Everyone who knows me knows it.

You're on your civilian game, that's great.

Doesn't make you a civilian yo.

Yes it does.

Time to feed you a little bit of NO!

Time to feed you a little bit of YES!

Prisoner 483934 wrote:

Golden wrote:Oh great, the prisoners are going to break out and lynch me.

Fucking fantastic.

There is literally zero doubt I'm on my civilian game for anyone who wants to even try thinking about it half-assed. Everyone who knows me knows it.

You're on your civilian game, that's great.

Doesn't make you a civilian yo.

Yes it does.

Prisoner 813142 wrote:

Golden wrote:Oh great, the prisoners are going to break out and lynch me.

Fucking fantastic.

There is literally zero doubt I'm on my civilian game for anyone who wants to even try thinking about it half-assed. Everyone who knows me knows it.

What's the matter? Huh? What's wrong? You don't like that? You gonna cry? Huh? You gonna cry?

I doubt there will be tears.

There might be toy-throwing, though.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:

Scotty wrote:Some of these guys aren't even playing for the hometeam. Some of these people are actually prisoners. I don't like this.

Look, if you're gonna vote for a player today, at least give them a reach around first.

Some of them could actually be undercover cops, for all we know.

How many undercover cops could there actually be?

Like, there aren't even that many arrested parties + cops alive, are there? Some of these people are actually scum from a separate world and don't seem to have a grasp on this game. Like that Prisoner who just voted you because 'nub Golden'

Probably a dutchie

Scotty wrote:Some of these guys aren't even playing for the hometeam. Some of these people are actually prisoners. I don't like this.

Look, if you're gonna vote for a player today, at least give them a reach around first.

Some of them could actually be undercover cops, for all we know.

Oh great, the prisoners are going to break out and lynch me.

Fucking fantastic.

There is literally zero doubt I'm on my civilian game for anyone who wants to even try thinking about it half-assed. Everyone who knows me knows it.

Prisoner 813142 wrote:Goddammit. I'm gonna throw this frickin' smartphone in the frickin' river. Throw me a bone here!

There are definitely non-player prisoners, because there are 14 of them (see OP). I figured that out before I claimed one was JJJ.

Prisoner 740359 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Prisoner 740359 wrote:Golden is the Warden, taunting the escapees with his pointless role-guessing shout-outs. Discuss.

I don't think they are pointless. I mean, they might not be useful, but from my perspective the point is I'm having fun trying to guess.

If they serve no point to the game, they're pointless.

I don't like you. But also you should use a dictionary. The words 'to the game' won't be in there.

Anyway, stop trying to poo poo me trying to bring some levity. It will make me lose that funniest poster award all over again.

PS - I'm civ in this game, discuss that!

Prisoner 740359 wrote:Golden is the Warden, taunting the escapees with his pointless role-guessing shout-outs. Discuss.

I don't think they are pointless. I mean, they might not be useful, but from my perspective the point is I'm having fun trying to guess.

So, thinking that some prisoners were not actually original players, in which case...

Hi, JJJ!!!

S~V~S wrote:Christ I need to type better.

Your confession has been heard and you are absolved.

@Indi - I'd add DDL.

Obvi-LC. I mourn your loss.

I wonder what would happen if we lynched the warden...

Prisoner 740359 wrote:matt is so paranoid, that reading that Wilgy was killed so couldn't have been arrested (and it fact an arrest on him failed) doesn't work on him.

linki: homie50 making such a thorough post already is making me dizzy

linki: who are i

Sig. You come from the alternate universe in which we lynched you already.

Hi Diiny!

Prisoner 888206 wrote:Hosts, are votes changeable in these lynch polls? It's hard to remember, being in the slammer for so long.

Linki: You said that you won't get the Funniest Poster Award because you take the game too seriously.

Hi, LC!

Prisoner 888206 wrote:

Golden wrote:Tell us, what was going on in the Prison Yard?

Well, most recently, we had a competition based on 15 quotes from this thread, and we had to decide who said each one. It was our third challenge, and it won us our chance to have this prison break! We needed to get ten out of fifteen quotes correct, and we got... 10/15.

What did I say?

Prisoner 888206 wrote:I recall gleam being a hot topic of discussion earlier in the game... I see you lynched him and he was a Civ. What conclusions have people drawn from that?

That baddies would have been resistant to move from the gleam wagon to the Fuzz wagon, so it ups the likelihood that people who did are civs, on average.

Tell us, what was going on in the Prison Yard?

Prisoner 740359 wrote:yo homies

You are definitely a doctor.

Prison break! Go civvies go!

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And don't ask me what are viable scumhunting methods. I don't know. I've hit a point where I'm just hopeless about my (and this site's) ability to win games as civ.

This is the point. If you criticise and discredit others without a solution, it is not in any way helpful, but only serves to make others look bad.

You can check who wins how many games are won by each faction in the Hall of Fame. Since I've arrived at the site, at a quick glance (I didn't do the math) it appears to me civilians have won about 40% of games. When you consider that a great many of them have two mafia teams and so if such a game is balanced the civs would only win 33% of the time, its probably pretty much right where it should be.

What about you, quin? What are your thoughts?

I really wish I had a better idea of why people were vouching for sig. I'm relying on it, without understanding it. Yesterday's vote for gleam was, for me, just as much about not lynching sig because of the vouches (zebra and TH, but mostly zebra), as it was about gleam actually being lynched.

But, I think my reads on who is civilian are far more reliable than my reads on who is bad. If I have a very strong read on someone as a civ, I don't tend to be wrong. Sometimes you can really sense someone is on their civ game. Especially true in a game with only one baddie team.

Sure. I need to get to bed, but I'll give you a start now.

DDL would be first. Maybe I'm tinfoiling, but he is criticising the tactics the civs use in this game but he has been one of the floatiest of all, standing for nothing and going with the tide. His posts are so regularly used in ways that could strongly affect the way others think... for example, his reaction to CFD being to tell people to 'wait until tomorrow to lynch your person'.... when the call was to move from a now known civ-gleam to bad-fuzz... his reaction on day 4 to be 'avoid a close lynch to avoid cop mainpulation' when this is the ideal thing for a cop to say if they know all the manipulation that day is in the hands of the civs... and his recent idea that our whole way of thinking is wrong, and we shouldn't lynch people who just play odd...

If DDL is bad, it would prove to me an awful lot. I think he has been overtly manipulative. Now, manipulative can also come from a genuine townie mindset. But, if he is bad, I think there are things that can be read in. For example, his recent criticism of us going after people with odd play styles and us needing to focus more on standard regulars who blend in would be perfect if his team was mostly made up of people with odd play styles.

Another thing that bothers me about DDL was his effort to paint me as bad after EoD2. He put so much effort into talking about how I would bus, that it only served to make me more aware of the fact that he well understands the value of the play. He's seen me win twice as scum doing it. I think he hoped I would be an easy target (and I did look like I was one, for a little bit there) because he can hit touchstones other people know - games in which I have been bad, bussed, and won. But, DDL has SEEN me win twice doing it. Once it was him I was bussing. Do I think he would bus Fuzz if he thought it was the right thing to do? In a heartbeat. He talks about my adaptability under pressure. I think he would be just as able to demonstrate it. He appreciates from experiences how it works, and how effective it can be.

Note that last post, where he talks about the people who contribute to the high scum win rate here. I can't recall playing with FZ when she is bad, but she is certainly an ace civilian. Ricochet is a lean mean monster no matter what side of the fence he is on, but his civilian performance in Talking Heads was majorly influential in the civ win there. I was an important part of town wins in Roger Rabbit, Bibilical and Dune. Why did he choose those three names? Two of them aren't even in this game... none of them are genuinely contributing to some kind of win imbalance (including me). What DDL doesn't know about me is, in my pre-TS life, I was never known for my baddie gameplay. Economics was the game of my life. I used to be known for my supatowning, and strong civilian instincts. So, here is the thing... the only thing that post achieves in terms of naming me, Rico and FZ as contributing to a high baddie win rate... in terms of this game... is making ME look like a baddie maestro.

I also think maybe llama knows he is right

Sig would be second.

Quin wrote:\_(T:)_/

I think things are progressing well, and I'm the one with 3 votes

I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not too late to start pulling the threads through and getting some good lynches in.

Thats how I feel too, quin. I really do. It's not time for 'omg, worst civ performance ever, lets throw out baby with bathwater'.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I am open to a Sig lynch but I want to think hard about it. No more foregone conclusions. We have 72 hours to work on this shit, let's use the most of them we can, not just the first and the last hour.

I mean, look at this...

Which lynch so far was a 'foregone conclusion'? In what way can the townie effort in this game possibly be described as an effort derailed by foregone conclusions?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Golden wrote:Know why you're really bitching, epi?

Because you didn't agree, and wanted sig gone. It's as simple as that really. You don't like that sig survived another day.

It's not because the gleam votes weren't well reasoned.

We lynched gleam because he is bad at the game. By bad I mean, he plays in a way that seems not optimal most of the time. It is possible he may not actually be that bad.

We lynch Sig every time for the same reason. We have also lynched people like Metalmarsh, Scotty, Vompatti and many others.

We look for a standard in towniness and lynch anyone who doesn't follow them. Then after we lynch the same player as a civ over ane over, we finally learn they work that way and move on to the next new player with a weird playstyle that shows up. So we can lynch them over and over.

Meanwhile, scum players who are skilled at following the standard and looking town, like Golden, Ricochet and FZ, own this site and contribute for it to have what might be the highest scum/town win rate of the internet.

That has to stop. We need to stop lynching weird players for being weird, anf learn to read them more. I am guilty of that toi, but I am not the only one.

No, you know what has to stop in this game?

People assuming the lynches aren't coming from reading people.

People painting others motives as uninformed when they are anything but.

I get told I'm arrogant by you, but then this? Come on!

If you think you know how to catch baddies, then catch them. Get on with it! You must be the great baddie catcher!

I don't think any of the four people who have been lynched have been lynched for the same reasons. Nor have any of the reasons been lazy or uninformed. That includes the two people who were lynched that I didn't agree with. All of them were lynched for proper, well-reasoned thought processes. No-one is phoning it in.

Trying to make it look like we are 'doing something wrong' and there is some objective baddie-finding standard we are all, as a community, failing to meet has just one word to it, in my opinion...

Manipulative.

VERY VERY manipulative.

If people weren't really thinking and trying to solve the game, sig would have been lynched unanimously two days ago.

My win rate as town is pretty good. I don't contribute to a 'high scum win rate'. Since I arrived at this site, I've contributed just as crucially to civilian wins.

I don't look for weird play styles. I never wanted to lynch sig because he 'plays weird'. I wanted to lynch him because, in a period of what would have been stress to the baddie team, he came out looking worst in that short period of time. LC wasn't lynched for playing weird. Fuzz wasn't lynched for playing weird. Diiny wasn't lynched for playing weird.

You speak for yourself as to why you voted gleam. I didn't vote HIM because he 'played weird' either.

In truth, if we had caught two out of four cops in the first four lynches, town would be well ahead in this game. We'd be feeling like we were doing really well. Criticising the entire town for playing the game wrong when they've only managed one out of four is, to me, just.... I don't even have a word for it.

I don't like the narrative you and epi are both trying to push. It's really false.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:If you think gleam was cfd, yes. There was no aspect of aiming for chaos or seeing how people reacted. I just voted for who I thought was most likely bad.

After zebras vouch for sig, I had and still have much more doubt about sig.

That just makes no sense to me. Eat a camel if sig is good. How do you say shit like that and then vote somebody else?

(Well, I've had this picture of a chocolate camel to use if he comes back good)

If you think gleam was cfd, yes. There was no aspect of aiming for chaos or seeing how people reacted. I just voted for who I thought was most likely bad.

After zebras vouch for sig, I had and still have much more doubt about sig.

And I can't do anything about you thinking gleam vote wasn't well reasoned. You're wrong. But that's not my problem.

Like, quite literally, one was 'half an hour to go, don't agree with any of the votes, lets all just agree a new candidate'

Day four was 'here are my top two candidates, both of whom I've been saying I think are bad for a very long time, which of them do I think I want to vote for most'.

I couldn't have cared less if sig still was lynched, or if the two of them were close either. It bothers me that DDL was hung up on worrying about them being close. Makes me think he is a baddie who knew the baddies didn't have manipulation, and were worried about the civvies using it to lynch one of them.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:So, epi, you are accusing me of arrogance for saying I'd eat a camel if sig is good on one breath...

And on the other criticising me for not sticking with voting for him?

These two things don't compute. Either I'm arrogant about my opinions, or I'm demonstrating proper rational thought and exercising reason.

You don't get it both ways.

My sig vote and my gleam vote were both reasoned. So was my Fuzz vote, for that matter. None of my votes haven't been well reasoned. Anyone who tries to portray it as anything less than reasoned and rational, I don't trust their agenda.

PS - this game has changeable votes. That means I can get on and off whenever I like. Fun, innit.

Yep. I am accusing you arrogance, inconsistency, and foolishness. All three. You have NOT exhibited "proper rational thought."

I am asking people to be more responsible with lynches. Just because you caught Mafia (Cop) because of craziness Day 2, doesn't mean resort to craziness every time. That's foolishness.

Be more responsible please.

I'll do whatever I think is right. I resorted to craziness on day two because I didn't agree with any of the lynches. Day 4 was not crazy, and I don't understand how anyone can think it was. To me, the two were chalk and cheese.

Indi and I continue to basically be the same person.

It's kind of freaky.