The Syndicate

Scotty wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know if this has been said, but I don't think voting people who haven't checked in yet is a good idea. Think about it, if they win they get a treasure or prize or whatever you want to call it. If they aren't active UT doesn't benefit the town at all. We gain no info from actions or whatever happens with these treasures. For that reason I can't get on board with that kind of vote.
We may never get info from treasures. Do you know what they do?

what is UT btw? All I see is Utah

Yuck.

There are 38 players; this game figures to last a while. I am sure the benefits of winning a duel will show themselves eventually, and I think Bass's point is sound. Give me one suspect among the people who have more than eight posts.

Dunny wrote:Ive read over everything since ive been to sleep and i understand the votes against me, i can see how ive come across suspicious.
Honestly i dont know where I am going to vote as i have no suspicions on anyone right now.

I guess i will just wait a few more hours and see if anything else happens

I have some questions for you:

1. What have you done that has drawn suspicion upon you?

2. Why do you feel this is understandable?

3. How do you feel about the players who have cast suspicion upon you?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:We're under 7 hours away from the deadline. That's sooner than I anticipated. If I voted right now I think it'd be for Russ and Dunny. Y'all quiet people get in here and say suspicious things so I can yell at you.

Under 9 hours. Math.

We're under 7 hours away from the deadline. That's sooner than I anticipated. If I voted right now I think it'd be for Russ and Dunny. Y'all quiet people get in here and say suspicious things so I can yell at you.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Dom wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:On a side note it feels so good to play with everyone again and have enough time to keep up with the thread. I am trying to be 200% more active this game then my last few poor showings .
Better keep this guy to his promise. I know this bass guy very well and believe me, if this post comes and flakey happens-- plenty of people know it's true that he's bad.

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016.
I'm confused by this ? Are you saying g if I'm active I'm bad?
He's saying that if you're inactive after having made the pledge to try to be more active, you're bad. I think that's bunk though. Russ is a suspect.

Oh, Dom said that not Russ.

Weak, Dom.

nutella wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Actually I'll ask you this, nutella:

You suggested you could name several GTH town reads. Who would those be?
You, DDL, Quin, Jan, probably a couple others but those are the strongest.

I've heard a little about DDL and Quin already. What makes you feel okay about Jan?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Dom wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:On a side note it feels so good to play with everyone again and have enough time to keep up with the thread. I am trying to be 200% more active this game then my last few poor showings .
Better keep this guy to his promise. I know this bass guy very well and believe me, if this post comes and flakey happens-- plenty of people know it's true that he's bad.

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016.
I'm confused by this ? Are you saying g if I'm active I'm bad?

He's saying that if you're inactive after having made the pledge to try to be more active, you're bad. I think that's bunk though. Russ is a suspect.

Actually I'll ask you this, nutella:

You suggested you could name several GTH town reads. Who would those be?

I think I understand the notion that a post can appear too "clean", though I didn't really get that vibe from nutella's post.

Quin wrote:Take a look at the dialogue between MP and I. Would you civ read me after that? Although it's true, my excuse sounds sketchy af.

I don't think your excuse sounds sketchy. It sounds honest. I can understand MP leaning in a positive direction for you. I wouldn't understand him stating with total confidence that you are town, but that's not what he did. He threw you a town GTH read based upon the content he had generated talking with you. I don't think that's suspicious, perhaps because it's so much like behavior that is typical of me. I think MP's methods resonate with me more than most because a lot of them are shared between us.

I think it's important to see the mindset that brought MP to his eruption. When people see a highly defensive action, I think they tend to instinctively view it as suspicious for the wrong reasons. This is what people see when they look at MP's initial defensive response to accusations about his green reads:

What??!!! I cannot *believe* people would accuse me for this. This is outrageous! I am aghast! Ridiculous!

When this is what really happened:

Oh for f***'s sake, here we go. A guy posts reads and people freak out. J.H. Christ.

I'm not saying this is specifically your perspective, Quin. This is what I see in his reaction though, and it leads me toward a town read. That read is made even stronger by the incredibly fast acceleration of his frustration to the point of leaving the game. He was not in a position where he'd need to panic and lose his shit as a baddie. He was annoyed as hell that he was already dealing with misguided suspicion five minutes into Day 1.

Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:MP is my top town read. I know frustration can come from either alignment, but it tends to come in different appearances and under different circumstances. MP blew up at the first sign of suspicion while he had no votes on him -- this is not how baddies tend to behave at all. That is how someone who is on edge outside a game behaves.

He was trying to get the thread moving in a productive direction, so he put some reads into the thread. He didn't force any red reads while he had none (baddies would force at least one). I think he'd be a dumb candidate for a duel and I don't envision myself supporting that any time soon.
I don't think that the way he responded initially is how a baddie acts, nor do I think it's how a civ acts. I think it's how someone who is very stressed out acts, and I don't think it's got anything to do with his alignment.

It's not his lack of red reads that I'm suspicious of. It's who he chose for his green reads. I agree with MacDougall when he not-so-delicately said that it looked like buddying.

I think that is too complex an accusation for the circumstance being assessed. MP's green reads were players who had mostly been active in the thread so far -- that makes sense, because those players had something to judge. He'd also specifically engaged those players in conversation before posting that list, so it's not hard to follow the progression that got him to those reads. The reason he got so frustrated was that he knew it was coming -- every time someone posts reads early in a game, people get on their case for it. It's stupid. I got the same crap in Triskaidekaphobia for doing basically the same thing.

MP is a calculated baddie. He is well aware that posting a bunch of greek peeks at the start of Day 1 isn't going to earn him town credit.

MP is my top town read. I know frustration can come from either alignment, but it tends to come in different appearances and under different circumstances. MP blew up at the first sign of suspicion while he had no votes on him -- this is not how baddies tend to behave at all. That is how someone who is on edge outside a game behaves.

He was trying to get the thread moving in a productive direction, so he put some reads into the thread. He didn't force any red reads while he had none (baddies would force at least one). I think he'd be a dumb candidate for a duel and I don't envision myself supporting that any time soon.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Ok so I just saw MP's bigger post about being busy so what Quin said about him makes sense.

I've heard stories about baddie MP having meltdowns though, so I'm paranoid about that.
Don't you remember the Town MP Bean Dip Meltdown of 2015?
Not sure if I was in that game.

Economics.

Russtifinko wrote:You didn't like it, you shouldn't have posted a platypus picture. You say those pursuing power shouldn't get it, but went ahead and pursued away yesterday. Dunno what to tell ya, I had an idea. It was pointed out to me that it could in theory be used to work out even better for the baddies, and after thinking about it, I agree.

This does not make sense. By posting a platypus picture I secured your vote. I trust me. The problem is that you have no reason to trust me and you didn't seem to care about that.

Russtifinko wrote:You even think this is true when the strategy that you propose each side would promote is demonstrably, mathematically better for their opponents? Please. This is ridiculous. I'm an economist, and incentives just do not work that way.

It is not demonstrably, mathematically better for their opponents. It is theoretically better for their opponents in certain situations. I am sure we disagree on many economics concepts, and this isn't about that anyway. You can be an economics scholar; I am a Mafia scholar.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I think you bring up a good point though, Sock. Jay, why are you sick of anti-you paranoia on Day 0?
It's annoying to be at the center of consistent illogical paranoia even when it's understandable.
So it's both illogical....but understandable?

How does that one work?

Humans are illogical creatures. They say illogical things and behave illogically. Even if I think a perspective is lacking in logic, that doesn't imply it's lacking in sincerity.

Understood man. Do whatchoo gotta do.

0.8% chance MP/his replacement is bad, btw.

MovingPictures07 wrote:OK, Mac, if you're going to make fun of me, that's fine, whatever. You're proving my point in that yes, I'm always fucking busy, and I'm pretty sure we've never even played a game together where I was civilian because I say the same shit every game I'm in, but whatever. I should have listened to my better judgment when it told me it would be a mistake to get back into mafia, especially now. This game infuriates me way too much; I'm getting out now before I waste more of my time on this. This game is just not fun enough for me to continue, and I'm going to bow out before I can cause any more drama.

I don't think Mac intended to be insulting; he has a way of sounding like that when it's not his intent. If you can find the motivation, I'd encourage you to give it another go. The game is quite young and people are just dipping their feet in the waters of suspicions.

Dunny wrote:In regards to not giving you the same response, from what ive seen people just didnt seem to get on board with the idea not that it was odd that boomslang had mentioned it

Turnip Head wrote:Yeah, I feel like the response has been focused towards the idea and less about who came up with the idea.

That could be. In any event, I think the relevant parties have said their piece in this discussion and I'll leave it for others to talk about before we eat up too much thread space. It's a long day phase.

Turnip Head wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The thing that I would call "suspicious" is more the thoughtless discard of Boomslang's idea as if it's an obvious and undeniable truth that what he said is objectively wrong given what we know right now on Day 1. Not everyone has shown that attitude, and context is always important.
You keep calling it Boomslang's idea even though you posted it first. Any reason for that?

He's the one that seemed to get more direct responses for that, and my suspicion of others stems from their treatment of him. I have given both of us credit for the idea; I said earlier that I like where his mind is at because he arrived at the same idea I did (with the appearance that he wasn't just parroting me).

I don't really know why I haven't gotten the same response.

Dunny wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dunny wrote:And here MacDougall has basically elaborated on my point, does that make him suspicious also?
No. Mac and I had a conversation, and he also acknowledged the validity of the assertion I made that you've been questioning. I'm not a fan of your "why me?" defenses.
Its not a defense at all, just trying to understand your way of thinking when multiple people have made the same statement yet you only acknowledge two as suspicious is all. Im sorry if my curiosity offends you

The thing that I would call "suspicious" is more the thoughtless discard of Boomslang's idea as if it's an obvious and undeniable truth that what he said is objectively wrong given what we know right now on Day 1. Not everyone has shown that attitude, and context is always important.

I would have suspected Quin too had I seen his post before he told me to see his post. I am not "offended", that's a bizarre word choice. I am voicing suspicion in a Mafia thread.

MacDougall wrote:No I am asking for an actual scenario. The details. Paint me a picture.

Someone just died and was revealed to have some kind of role/alignment-checking power. They were constant and harsh in their suspicion of a single specific Player X while they were alive. Player Y has survived multiple duels and/or volunteers due to having special dueling secrets to duel the implicated Player X to maximize the likelihood that he/she is destroyed.

The alternative is to pit an alternative suspect Player Z against Player X and just hope that both the suspicion on Player Z is accurate and also that he/she is potent enough in a duel to get rid of Player X. It might be a better alternative, I don't think it's clear cut.

MacDougall wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:But here's the other thing: your idea to willingly put a civilian up for a duel makes no sense on any level. It is not +EV (positive Expected Value) for town to make this play in any situation.
I don't agree with this, but I understand the perspective. I don't think we know enough yet about this game to discard this notion entirely, and I do think there are plausible scenarios where it'd at least be worth considering. If I am close to 100% sure someone is bad, I am not going to feel great about throwing other suspect-fodder against them and hoping they die (because the Nanman faction is so potent in dueling power). If I have reason to believe there is a stronger dueling candidate available who I suspect less, I wouldn't be immediately averse to that vote.

The bigger issue I think is that it'd require a great deal of voting coordination which is probably not practical in a game without vote changes.
Could you please give 1 plausible scenario where it's a good idea that isn't a complete reach?

I just did in that post.

linki: I agree TH that we shouldn't be doing it this early. I have no intention of voting for anyone other that suspects for the time being.

Turnip Head wrote:But here's the other thing: your idea to willingly put a civilian up for a duel makes no sense on any level. It is not +EV (positive Expected Value) for town to make this play in any situation.

I don't agree with this, but I understand the perspective. I don't think we know enough yet about this game to discard this notion entirely, and I do think there are plausible scenarios where it'd at least be worth considering. If I am close to 100% sure someone is bad, I am not going to feel great about throwing other suspect-fodder against them and hoping they die (because the Nanman faction is so potent in dueling power). If I have reason to believe there is a stronger dueling candidate available who I suspect less, I wouldn't be immediately averse to that vote.

The bigger issue I think is that it'd require a great deal of voting coordination which is probably not practical in a game without vote changes.

Dunny wrote:And here MacDougall has basically elaborated on my point, does that make him suspicious also?

No. Mac and I had a conversation, and he also acknowledged the validity of the assertion I made that you've been questioning. I'm not a fan of your "why me?" defenses.

Dunny wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dunny wrote:Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?
No, it is the same type of response. The difference isn't in the response, but in that Quin took that response and mashed it against my face saying "what about me? Huh?". I appreciate that behavior even if I don't like the post.
What im saying is, you didnt even mention Quin until he smashed it in your face, even though his comment on the subject was the same as mine yet me and TH are on your suspicion chart. I just dont understand that

I didn't notice Quin's post until he did that.

MacDougall wrote:I don't want to say it, people don't like it...

who cares about people

MacDougall wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?
I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).
If someone volunteered to battle a consensus Mafia read I would actually be quite suspicious of that player. Would be a fantastic way to bus for cred would it not? I doubt many civilians would nominate themselves, nor do I think it would be a good idea for a civilian to risk themselves like that, even if they did win, when there is a better alternative. Also you're basically removing the voting right for the civs and the voting risk for the Mafia of all the players by coordinating the votes that way.

Fundamentally, the idea is just nowhere near as good as just putting the top two consensus reads together. It seems like a really convoluted strategy and I don't get it. Let everyone make their reads and vote, the top two battle. It's pure, it's good.

I don't necessarily disagree. It was my initial idea but I will probably be voting solely for suspects until further notice.

By the way, why do you want Wilgy and I to kill each other?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Ok so I just saw MP's bigger post about being busy so what Quin said about him makes sense.

I've heard stories about baddie MP having meltdowns though, so I'm paranoid about that.

Don't you remember the Town MP Bean Dip Meltdown of 2015?

Dunny wrote:Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?

No, it is the same type of response. The difference isn't in the response, but in that Quin took that response and mashed it against my face saying "what about me? Huh?". I appreciate that behavior even if I don't like the post.

MacDougall wrote:Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

MacDougall wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have a much easier time getting town reads early in a game than scum reads.
Well I guess I'm wrong about that being a normal thing. Maybe just a me thing.

You use your Day 1 scum finding powers and I'll use my Day 1 town finding powers and with our powers combined GG.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Catching up. MP looks angrier than his hsual self. Wonder if that is alignme t indicative.

I don't think so. I see a progression that nets frustration:

1. Encounter minor pings, question players about them, decide they seem fine.

2. Put reads in the thread.

3. Immediately get crap from multiple people for putting reads in the thread (but but but it's SO EARLY)

4. Eyerolls for days

5. Respond to annoying accusations with visible evidence of being annoyed.

I'm fine with MP right now.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Yeah I dont get it either. If anything you look slightly suspicious to me.

Why?

Your explanation works for me, MP. I agree with your perspective on each of the five except Turnip Head. With TH I actually have the opposite perspective -- I don't see critical thinking, I see him poking at easy points to contend with.

I have a much easier time getting town reads early in a game than scum reads.

Quin wrote:Where do I place then, JJJ? You missed me.

Quin wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.
I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.
And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.
Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.
That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

I think your response to Boomslang fails to acknowledge the point he is making. I'd be less inclined to call you "suspicious" for it though since you're shoving it in my face right now.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I mean I agree one is easy and one isn't but I feel like a good mafia player would push for the civ against mafia option.

"Good" is a relative term. I know which side I'd be taking if I was a bad guy and it's not that one. To make that proposal (Boomslang's proposal) draws attention to oneself, because it is atypical and it places a civilian read at risk. This at face value sounds problematic, even if there is a perfectly valid rationale for the idea under the surface.

The single most frequent signal that a player is bad is that they aren't thinking critically -- they are taking the surface-most interpretation of posts and basing all of their reads on that. They think in fewer levels of complexity than townies, not because they're dumber but because they already know more about the game than townies know.

If I'm bad in this game, I'm quite content to suggest we pit suspects against each other knowing full well that town's ability to actually determine who should be called "suspects" is inherently flawed. I'd also be confident that there wouldn't be a townie out there telling everyone their initial perspective might be backwards like I'm doing now.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.
Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?

Yes, absolutely. The former option is obvious and easy, the latter is not.

Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Russtifinko wrote:Agreed, JJJ.

Hey, I REALLY like the idea of the "whoever does ____ first, gets my votes" posts. They prevent people from finding excuses to give votes to baddie teammates. So I'm gonna do one too, and would suggest others do the same (even though it's an itsy bit late for a few).

The first two people to post pictures or emojis of platypi earn my votes.

DDL brought this post up and I think his concerns were valid. Russ, it appears here that you are attributing a meaningful strategy to what I would perceive to be typically arbitrary Day 0 behavior. This method removes the responsibility from your votes and increases the likelihood that they will be given to people who are in deliberate pursuit of power for whatever motive. Indeed, the two respondents to your platypi request were INH and I -- both eventual prefects.

I'd like for you to talk about this, please.

I'll let MP talk before I freak out. I do think a lot of people are often too chicken town read each other early in a game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I'd like to see the inspirations for these reads, just briefly.

MacDougall wrote:Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

U shook mate?

Hi Mac.

I'm willing to state an early town read on Boomslang. I understand people's doubts about his strategic mindset right now, and those doubts are probably valid -- but Boomslang came upon this idea quite similarly to me and I appreciate the synergy of our mindsets. The best course of action is probably to just keep it simple and pit suspects against each other, but I don't think Boom has an ulterior motive in his proposal.

I have a bad feeling the "UTR" crew will be more than half of the player roster. :P

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:My opinion is that we should just lynch the people we want to see dead the most. But in case of endgame situations, putting a warrior on the battlefield against a strategist just to get the strategist killed sounds like a smart move. I mean, look at those odds. Of course, that's assuming we know who are the warrior and the strategist.

It's difficult to say. I think people would have to volunteer themselves for a duel, but that could also approach the realm of infodumping. It's also a risk to expose those people to night kills. It may be better to just pit suspect against suspect. We'll learn more as we go I'd imagine.

Host:

If you're able to say, what is the result of a tied roll in a duel?

EBWOP

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:In the immediate present

Search found 179 matches