The Syndicate

Okay, my truncated, general responses to things happening since i voted:

-BWT needs to read a little more thoroughly. The list of 8 I posted were the 8 players with the fewest posts out of the players who I had no read on whatsoever, not necessarily the actual the bottom 8. I'm surprised only a few people took notice of his error.

-I was intrigued by how disparate the reasons were for voting BWT. It was far from a cohesive lynch train. I was also intrigued by how some thought his mistake on the 8 was shifty rather than lazy.

-I had notes worked up on the roles Rico may have missed but you guys covered that well already.


Now to look at the positions so I can vote for that...

DharmaHelper wrote:

G-Man wrote:Time for me to disappear into RL for the weekend, so I have to vote now.

Of the 16 players who failed to register a positive or negative score on my newfangled setup, I took the 8 who made the fewest posts. From there, I removed the three female players because I am a gentleman. Of those five remaining players, I eliminated the one who hasn't posted yet during Day 1 because I am fair and want all players to have a chance to post during the day before I vote unless I have good reason to do otherwise. Of these final four, I voted for the player who had the least compelling content in their posts.

Voted Tranq.

So you put everyone into a randomizer and came up with a convoluted way to explain your vote.

Nope. Here are the 16 who failed to register:

bea
Boomslang
Canucklehead
Devin the Omniscient
DFaraday
Dom
DrWilgy
LoRab
nutella
reywaS
Roxy
Spacedaisy
TinyBubbles
Tranq
Turnip Head
Typhoony


The lowest 8 posters at that time were:

Boomslang
DFaraday
DrWilgy
LoRab
nutella
TinyBubbles
Tranq
Typhoony


Then I removed the three ladies:

Boomslang
DFaraday
DrWilgy
Tranq
Typhoony


Then I removed the one who hasn't given us anything to chew on yet Day 1:

Boomslang
DrWilgy
Tranq
Typhoony


And then I looked at their posts. Any other questions? If so, too bad. You probably won't see me for at least 19 hours.

Time for me to disappear into RL for the weekend, so I have to vote now.

Of the 16 players who failed to register a positive or negative score on my newfangled setup, I took the 8 who made the fewest posts. From there, I removed the three female players because I am a gentleman. Of those five remaining players, I eliminated the one who hasn't posted yet during Day 1 because I am fair and want all players to have a chance to post during the day before I vote unless I have good reason to do otherwise. Of these final four, I voted for the player who had the least compelling content in their posts.

Voted Tranq.

aapje wrote:Change of plan: the next person to change their vote will get mine for fucking with my spreadsheet.

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Which general topics are you referring to?

Also regarding the llama/Rico/MP stuff, are you saying you agree with Rico, and distrust the other two?

That post is nearly as unclear as your magic eight ball posts.

No clue. I'd have to go back and look at his posts but I'm at work and it's time to do some billing.

I may feel drawn more to Rico just because I think we're cut from a similar cloth. Llama plays a mustache-twirling shifty sort of game and MP peed in my face once.

Sorry?

You don't have to be sorry, I just look forward to you clarifying some more when you are able. Otherwise it felt like a post with a lost pseudo-opinions, with it offering any real, direct opinions. I would like to hear what your opinions actually are though.

I'll do my best. I literally have a sticky note here at my desk that I wrote notes on as I caught up at a brisk pace. On it it says "Timmer: Good points in general but not 4 people direct."

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Which general topics are you referring to?

Also regarding the llama/Rico/MP stuff, are you saying you agree with Rico, and distrust the other two?

That post is nearly as unclear as your magic eight ball posts.

No clue. I'd have to go back and look at his posts but I'm at work and it's time to do some billing.

I may feel drawn more to Rico just because I think we're cut from a similar cloth. Llama plays a mustache-twirling shifty sort of game and MP peed in my face once.

Sorry?

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Two things:

1. I'm here but I have to catch up

2. I'm having trouble with my iPad the last couple days, so bear with me trying to post.

Off to catch up.

Anyone else think that MP should give SD a better title now that they're hitched? Henchman just doesn't cut it in my book anymore

Too true! He may be The Don, but she's now The Boss.

Oh hi there. I'm still playing, I swear. I'm also caught up on reading. Can I get a slow clap?

So here are my general thoughts because I didn't feel the need to comment on every little thing:

-The whole Epigknowitall vs. Goldenothavingfun didn't phase me at all at first because I've noticed that two people usually get into some kind of exhaustive debate the first day or two around here. That being said, I hope both of you stick around and find more useful and instructive things to fight about. And if you say you're going to drop it an ignore the other, for God's sake, follow through on that. Otherwise the back-and-forth reaches the point of



-Seeing the Llama drama with Ricochet gave me mixed feelings. Ditto for MP07 socking it to Ricochet a little.

-I thought Unfurl was talking good sense about just being different. I like to openly challenge playing conventions from time to time and I see nothing wrong with people who choose to operate just outside of them.

-Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

-Maybe the sign-up poll wasn't a means for picking experienced recruiters but perhaps a way for the hosts to force recruitment from either groups of players? Like maybe each recruiter will be allowed to try to recruit one experienced player and a newbie to the recruitment aspect. Just a thought.

-I'm looking the low-voter way but I am also working on a prototype system for ranking how I feel about people. You earn or lose points based on how I feel about things that you post. It's a very crude system right now but I'm hoping to use it as a way to improve my ability to "read" people. For today, I'll look to vote for someone hasn't made much of an impression on me at all, coupled with the number and quality of posts. There are a lot of low-posters on that list so far.

-Changeable votes? Bah! My spreadsheet does not approve.

Turnip Head wrote:

G-Man wrote:Printing checks here at the office at 10:00 pm.

Can you print one for me please

Sure, just give me your full name, address, social security number....

Epignosis wrote:I'm a lay preacher. For realz.

So you preach best after you get laid? :P

Printing checks here at the office at 10:00 pm.

I see I have a lot of catching up to do. I think I was up to page 14. Yikes. Looks like I'll be playing from behind for a while. Forgive me for not responding to every page (because that went over so well for me before). At the very most, I'll pick out 2 or 3 posts per page, if there's anything to touch on. Otherwise, I'll comment on the macro stuff. I knew it was going to be tough to keep up in this game once we got into full swing but I'll do my best to not get a full day behind.

Epignosis wrote:I'm going to bed myself. I want people to read Golden's answers a few times over. I think he's a naughty recruiter.

Interesting theory. I'm not opposed to lynching anyone except me today but I'll see how Golden the Coward handles the rest of Day 1.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oh and I also had beer with the pizza.

Mmm. Beer. I cannot tell you how long it's been since my last one. Probably a year ago.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

Hmm. A change of play style? Interesting. I support your line of thought, however.

Catching up in fits and starts...

Ricochet wrote:Ok, so today's package is

Lynch Pardon (civ leader)
Redirect Night powers (civ leader)
Immune to NK/Lynch (mafia leader)
Power Steal (mafia leader)
Insanifier
Seduction
Mind Control
Role Nullifier
Tracker
Heal
Randomly blows votes
Cremates a body (does this actually require a body, i.e. a dead player to cremate, possibly making him unrezzable q.m.)
Immune to all Kills
Untargetable
Can’t die as long as [lover] is alive
End day period early
Seemer
Message to the thread through host
Switches two targets
Dead role check
Boon
Picks Player
Picks 3 minus or plus votes
Kill a Sorcerer
Switch three roles powers
Randomize three players, block one, protect one, kill one
Finds out how many of each clan are recruited or unrecruited, and the status of Clan Leaders
Magnetically repel night powers to random targets
Knowing who a Position 1 role targeted
Message to the thread
Protects all Guardians (indy leader)

But I also have half past three am on my clock, so see you tomorrow.

Discuss lynching llama until then, please.

I purpled the roles I am unclear on. Not sure what seduction is. I've seen blocking roles that use their block by being alluring to their target. Does that fit or have things changed since I've been away?

Role Nullifier could be dangerous if it nullifies a player's role/position powers for the whole game. That's how I read it, because it would just be a fancy way of saying 'blocker' if it's not permanent. A kinder, gentler interpretation could mean that the Warden gets to block a specific role instead of a player (even more of a shot in the dark).

The Pyromancer sounds like it destroys the body, making that dead player unrezzable and uncheckable.

I have no idea what a Boon is aside from the main character who dies first on Lost. Can someone explain that one?

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?

How about if we should lynch you for already deciding who you're voting for with little explanation?

Also, I completely forgot who you said you're voting for so yeah there's that...

Would you like an explanation? I would be happy to provide one.

linki Golden: I don't think the lynch save should be used on the person I will be voting for, because I think that person is bad.

Well Golden's post reminded me it was Bubbles. So yeah, either an explanation or a link back to your reason why would suffice for now.

I asked Bubbles if she was bad, and she said she was. Why would she lie about that?

You remind me of Absalom.

I did not read bubbles post as a statement of fact, but as a sarcastic response to your question, and won't be voting that way myself. I did not mind her reaction. I think it spoke to neutrality, and I don't think she would have been a likely choice for a recruit after that point.

Ha! I was thinking the same thing. Kind of like the Uzziah case all over again.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:POST. hi everyone

POST. Hi Tinybubbles. Did you finally get a mafia role this time around?

hi MM i'm afraid not. i think i'm going for a mafia record here lol

She also said this ^^

So you are preferring to take her at her word for one post but not another?

In fact, she said that first.

SVS - help me with a bit of theorycrafting. (For anyone who asks, I asked SVS specifically because I know her brain works a lot differently to mine and so I think her perspective can be very helpful to me, but I'm interested in anyones view). If you were a baddie leader, what would your preferred approach be on day one - try and recruit someone you know is a major FEB and could be a big asset to the team, or try and recruit someone no-one would suspect?

That's a hard question.

I would either recruit someone who I would have fun with, OR i would recruit someone who has what i lack (which was my strategy when i used to hire my own assistants irl). Someone who was a better strategist (I am a good tactician, but a poor strategist) and perhaps better at the technical game, sussing out roles, etc. which is something I am the suck at. I have done both in the past. I don't think it matters if they are a FEB or not, tbh. That would not come into my considerations.

Does that answer your question?

Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

I think SVS's take on recruiting makes the most sense to me. Pick people you know or think you'll work well with but don't be afraid to take a few chances. Otherwise it could just become a popularity contest and newer people may be discouraged by getting picked last. Then again, the people who are known to be major FEB's can be something of a liability to a recruiter because a reputation for being an awesome baddie may get someone lynched or NK'd early. Same goes for super-civvies. There's lot of reverse psychology at play though, because what I just said would suggest it's best to go for those middle-ground players first while at the same time putting a target on their backs, making the theoretically less attractive players more attractive again. But that just starts us spinning round and round. Recruiters probably have their 'power rankings' (to borrow a sports term) while also not wanting to seem too obvious. I'd be way to susceptible to overthinking recruitment decisions, so I'm glad I am not one of the recruiters.

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

Too bad reputations get you lynched and NK'd early. Especially if you've had a good run lately and showed some serious skill/luck on one or both sides of the game.

Golden wrote:G-Man, I had a lot of help from you in Death & Taxes too. No mafia win is the product of a single individual, but those were games where I played well. Guess Who, not so much.

linki @bullz - G-man talked out of his ass a lot that game.

The lesson here is that even when Golden isn't playing well at all, he is still capable of masterfully fleecing everyone when he is a baddie (Guess Who).

Let's lynch this mofo.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I suppose if I want to be recruited, I am going to have to show the leaders what skills I have to offer for their team. Some include:

I can juggle.

I am known for playing table tennis well enough to frustrate my nemeses.

I am a professional at making fun of the music of Creed

Making fun of Creed does not impress me. It was a regular pastime junior year in college. One of our suitemates was a huge Creed fan and we made fun of him dearly for it. That also led us to make fun of his love of Bruce Springsteen too, even though Springsteen doesn't suck.

Golden wrote: I do, however, agree with JJ that begging for a recruit is not at all desperate, obscene or try-hard, so I present for you my own unique skills.

Roger Rabbit
Death and Taxes
Biblical

Unfortunately, I have no link to me juggling, but it wouldn't convince anyone.

Biotch please, you know you had a LOT of help from my ASS in Biblical. Don't try to pass that one off as a solo achievement.

Turnip Head wrote:We should probably lynch Golden first, just to be safe.

Now THIS I can get behind!


Sadly, most of my mafia credentials here on The Syndicate include ass jokes, silly posting gimmicks, and a dirty bet with MP07. I did win a singing contest once though!

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

Okay, so now either Position 1 will win outright or there will be a tie between Positions 1 and 5.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.

This is true. My analysis is only worthwhile today. Your's will probably be a better guide after the recruiting starts. That being said, your analysis is limited as well. Some of the powers in your Negative Effects column could be powerful tools in the hands of civ-recruited players. Vote manipulation, phase ending, and blocks may seem negative but they are only truly negative if they were in the hands of a baddie. In the hands of a civvie, Position 3 or 4 could actually be the most potent for civs if they can get their hands on the negative powers. It's all relative to how the recruitment turns out.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Those numbers are so different from my beneficial numbers, I don't even

Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

DharmaHelper wrote:Why must you destroy my happiness.

You can just choose to ignore reality. Ignorance is bliss.

Dom wrote:

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much-- we're gonna hit them all eventually. It'll matter more later in the game, I think.

True, but it'd be nice to start out on a more civvie-friendly position if at all possible.

Neither Position 2 or 4 can win given the votes remaining to be cast. Position 3 can only tie Position 1. Who knows what that could bring. In light of all this, I shall vote for Position 5.

Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Position 1 because if you ain't first you're last.

What color is that supposed to be- pontificating purple?

I'll vote during my lunch break after I build that position spreadsheet.

Bullzeye wrote:

Boomslang wrote: The whole adverb thing is ridiculous. I don't see why it would be relevant for the theme (in terms of being a requirement for a given role). I also think generalizing that baddies use adverbs as a form of distancing or overexplaining is spurious at best. Also, MP clearly has a few sentences that don't use adverbs, so he's not even completely consistent.

As someone else already said, it doesn't work anyway if you don't take into account individual differences in language use. The past seven years in education have conditioned me to use loads of adverbs just to pad out my writing and get closer to expected word counts. Doesn't mean I'm secretly evil in real life and planning to kill off my lecturers or something...

unfurl wrote:What is all this averb talk, am I taking a grammar class?, I did not know thats what I signep up is over my head
,

Adverbs are evil. Look up the phrase adverb in the dictionary and you will find it says "A sure sign of malice". Maybe. Probably not.

I too was taught to use many adverbs to create, flowery, descriptive prose. That was middle and high school though. The first conference with my English Comp professor (who was also the Dean of Faculty and went on to become president of the college) was eye-opening. He gave me the best advice on writing I ever received: "Forget everything your high school English teachers taught you about writing."


As Messrs. Strunk, White, and King advise...

Okay, I agree with whoever brought up the poison issue. Position 4 will not be getting my vote.

As nice as those position lists aapje made are, it'll be more helpful for me to see all the roles and position powers all at once. You know you're playing a game for the ages when you need to make a spreadsheet just to figure out which Day 0 poll option to select!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Day O is followed by Day P.

If that's the case, then I suggest everyone be nice to MP07 on Day P. :P

I can see why people are avoiding positions 2 and 4. Position 2 is rife with chaos and position 4 seems rife with chaos and carnage. Maybe I need to go back and re-read them one more time but position 3 didn't stand out to me as a bad option. Is it just that positions 1 and 5 seem more pro-civ that position 3 is getting passed over?

thellama73 wrote:

G-Man wrote:Only five pages? I'm disappointed in you guys. I expected this thread to be up to seven pages at least. I expect the page count to be at least 15 by the time I check in over breakfast tomorrow.

Now to check out those role/position breakdowns...

What, no insane posting gimmick that makes it impossible to understand you? You must be bad...

Read much? You must be bad.

Only five pages? I'm disappointed in you guys. I expected this thread to be up to seven pages at least. I expect the page count to be at least 15 by the time I check in over breakfast tomorrow.

Now to check out those role/position breakdowns...

Bullzeye wrote:

aapje wrote:Yay game

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Votes are not changeable in this poll. Just sayin'.

So why position 5?

Actually I might vote position 5... It's where most roles seem to have the coolest options, so it could make for an interesting start.

Interesting thought. The orderly, accounting nerd in me sees Position 1 as the logical place to start. I'll have to peruse the roles and their positions a bit more before I make my choice.

Hey aapje! Long time, no see. How's life?

Golden wrote:Why did I let MP beat me.

Because you're a coward.