The Syndicate

So now some of you are actively looking at low posters, huh? Interesting.

Is the reason none of you are willing to vote lovedelic because he's new to the site?

Typhoony wrote:

juliets wrote: I'd like to know where you're thinking to put your vote today and why?

Not sure, but I know I'm not staying at the Docks.

What's at the docks? (It's ok, explain in code that only I will understand)

EBWOP: that isn't to say I currently suspect Golden, but he's usually such a high poster regardless of his alignment.

sig wrote:Okay thanks, for the amount of conversations you'd think we would have something bigger.

What does everyone thing about DH speculations that the mafia are more likely to be silent and avoid conflicts since there are only two of them?

Well technically there are 4, but I think that's what you meant.

I think it would make sense for at least 1 on each team to be content to hide out in their hovel hole and not stir up trouble, but I wouldn't rely on that assumption for everyone. I mean, hell, someone like Golden has a bell glued to his head whether he's mafia or not.

Well that was a fugly post. I hate doing this on my phone. Sorry y'all.

[quote="TurnipHead]
I dislike how strongly Scotty is campaigning for lynching a no-show. I mean I get the sentiment, it sucks to play with someone who isn't playing, but it doesn't help us solve the game at all and it's basically admitting that the last 1000 posts were worthless. I feel pretty good about most of the high profile players and would lynch a no-show if it went towards saving someone I feel good about, but I'd rather lynch someone who is acting suspicious than lynch someone who's not playing at all[/quote]
Im not discrediting all that has been posted thus far. But my modus operandi is matching people's suspicions, voting records, and lynch results. I am bad at finding a guilty party day 1, but will reference things from early on after we get more info.

Ultimately, I'll have to make a vote based on suspicion, but this is just how I do my day 1's.

Dom wrote:...but you think someone is suspicious.
And you'd rather vote for someone with no posts, and therefore no evidence?
That's not a difference in philosophy, that's a contradiction.

Yes, because that is a safer bet in short term AND long term to help civs.
If I don't have concrete info, and I can't no-lynch, what's the next step? No-poster. I still fail to see the contradictions but apparently many of you do. So be it.

DFaraday wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.

I think you've raised some good points. As a typically low poster myself, I'm wary of anyone who uses "not talking" as a reason to vote someone. In my experience, a player who has teammates is more likely to contribute, so I don't see the logic here in going after low posters. Any ping at all is better than no ping (which is what you have when they literally haven't said anything).

I will be at work all day tomorrow, so I can't check in again before the poll closes. I'll go ahead and *vote Scotty*

Are you kidding me, DFaraday? I've explained my logic for no/low posters. You are often a low poster, and I don't hold that against you. I really don't. "Not talking" is not necessarily a reason in and of itself to suspect someone, but it can be suspicious nonetheless. It's the tone and quality of posts that I look at. Not posting much? That's fine, but at least have something substantive to say in so many words.

"a player who has teammates is more likely to contribute" Umm, ok, that is a strategy that can be used, I guess. But that isn't canon, no sir. I've seen plleeeeenty of low-posters that have turned out to be scum, wallflowering their way silently to endgame.

"Any ping at all is better than no ping (which is what you have when they literally haven't said anything)." Again, our philosophies differ here again. After 20 pages of bantering, you decide to come out of your cocoon and cast a vote on me because you think I am lumping anyone that doesn't post much as target practice? Really? I mean Jeez, I already said I'm voting for a no-poster, not a low poster. If I think that one of the low posters deserve my vote if and when lovedelic decides to play, I'll cross that bridge.

MacDougall wrote:I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.

This is something I do every game, regardless of my alignment. I do firmly believe in giving people who want to play the option to play and don't see why this is controversial to you. You seem like the aggressive type, from the games I've observed of you, so I'm not holding it against you, but I do think that your accusation that this is some sort of "carrion cry" is blown way out of proportion.

You don't agree with my principals. That's fine. I'm an odd bird, and I usually get shit on day 1 for being such. But I do not think I am contradicting myself here.
sig asked which of the low posters I found most suspicious, and I decided to get to that when I get to that, naming Equiv- who I don't know and is apparently new- as a policy no-lynch. He has a few posts and has made an effort. Fine.
There's only one no-poster and that is lovedelic. As an addendum to my previous comment, the fact that I have played with him before doesn't matter, but it helps my conscience. Let's say I haven't played with him before and he is new here. I'd still vote for him. I want to give new players a chance, but I have a hard time talking to a ghost.


As for my "needs concrete info" comment, my philosophy is that day 1 is a crapshoot. I am a more statistical voter- I tend to look at how people vote and the outcome of such. It's no secret that's just how I play my day 1. Just so you know.
If that is a basis for lynching me, then your mind is already made up.

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Are you suspicious of Glorfindel SVS?

I am not sure, tbh. I was just intrigued by his reaction to having read the thread. There was alot of tunnel type stuff and some quite a bit of tension at some points going on, and he only noted one thing, and his opinion on that seemed a bit one dimensional.

His reply was very well crafted; and tbh, it felt kind of *crafted* to me, if you get my feeling~ designed to appease. I can't be anywhere near sure at this point; he is unfailingly polite and I don't know him well, so have no basis of comparison. SO my initial thought, intrigued, best fits my feelings at this time, I think.

Do you have an opinion?

You did call his reply well-couched, which I took as a misspelling of well-coached. What did you mean by that?

Just a very carefully worded, nicely positioned reply, but it is a more precise meaning; I like big words as much as the next person. In an earlier post i used the word "lambasted". Perhaps I am over compensating formy atrocious typing, lol.

Although let me ask you, and Dom as well, really, since he thought I was saying that fora totally different reason; if I HAD been saying that (and I was not, to be clear) what would that have meant to you? Since that was the main point you took away from that discussion.

I just would have disagreed that he received help with the post because of the time.

Scotty wrote:

Dom wrote:

Scotty wrote:Well last time I received info about something in an Epi game, it uselessly turned out to just be Rico futzing with my head...so I'm going to patently ignore it for the time being.

Now all I have are the voices in my head. And they're telling me that

a) zebra's comment about text walls spoke to me. I used to always post in walls, and seeing said walls in action during this 20-something-page day 0-1, Im now transitioning to a more liquid finish.
b) There's still some people that haven't checked in. That's unsettling to me more than the inane barking throughout the thread.

#1. Which players' absence are unsettling to you? Do you think they're bad hiding in a chat room? Do you think they don't know the game's started?

#2. You, in a later post, asked Glorfindel to share their thoughts on who might be bad, but I don't see you offering the same specific opinions. Can you?

#1: as of now, only lovedelic hasn't posted. 4 people have 1 post. No one in particular is unsettling individually, but my stance has always been to vote for no/low posters day 1 if no big suspicions jump out to me. I think that we've had 72 hours in which to check in at least, and to not even comment is a bad omen I feel. If you want, I can provide my philosophy on why I vote no/low posters.

#2: nothing is particularly jumping out to me. I have an eye on Glorfindel though. I made my post about the niceties of gameplay and Glorf's post fits in this case. SVS suspicion of him for offering a careful and guarded reply seems a little too eager to please. Is that indicative of badness? Maybe not. The other times I remember playing with Glorf he has been rather polite and stilted no matter his alignment. I am rather wary of the sentiment though.

As for MP, he hasn't posted anything since I started suspecting him, and my gut read still stands that I think he is at least not doggie

So.... do you wanna vote MP or not?



Mac, why did you say Scotty was shifty? Highly interested here.

No I won't vote on a gut read. I like more concrete info.

I am also very curious about how I am shifty.

MacDougall wrote: Hmmm you're shifty.

In what context am I shifty?

sprityo wrote:When is Scotty not shifty? Lmao

MacDougall wrote:But lovedelic is also new.

The biggest distinction here is that lovedelic has not yet exhibited the desire to play, where at least Equiv has. Though barely.

Also lovedelic is not new to Mafia. I played a game with him on RYM. I don't know Equiv's deal.

Glad some people are giving the low post thing thought. But let me be clear- I will be voting for no-posters before low posters. That would be lovedelic right now unless he posts before EoD.

sig wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

sig wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

sig wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

Why?

Because in my experience that has never benefited the civ cause. Not once.

Do you think it is more common for the mafia to push for lynching low posters or to defend low posters?

It depends on the situation. You could have some mafia wanting to defend a low poster that they know is civ if everyone's going after them, and you can have some mafia wanting to lynch low posters if no one's going after them so that they can't really be blamed for the low posters flipping civ since there wasn't that much content to misinterpret. In a game like this with multiple factions and a ton of indys there's no telling, but in any case I don't think a low poster lynch will be beneficial. I think we want to go those who are talking more so that if we get a mafia there, we'll have lots of content to look for connections and create a domino effect for dead baddies. A low poster lynch, even if it's not a mislynch, only helps us with numbers slightly and always leaves us at square one for the scumhunt.

Okay I agree with you here, if a low poster has said something slightly suspicious then sure I'd be down for lynching them, but if they haven't it is a waste imo. If the player is completely inactive and never post they will either be mod killed or replaced so say lynching none posters is a waste.

I seem to remember Scotty pushing this in past games regardless of alignment?

@Scotty if you could choose which low poster got lynched today which one would it be and why?

Equivocant is the only person I won't vote for day 1, because I think he's new here and I ain't gonna crack an egg before it's ripe.

Everyone else is fair game. Will look closer at them if lovedelic doesn't show.

sprityo wrote:A good detective shouldn't ignore even the smallest of clues

Thanks for answering my question posed to you with a riddle or something.

So if you received the same message, what do you make of it, o Sherlock Holmes?

juliets wrote:

Scotty wrote:

juliets wrote:Scotty, I would like to know about your philosophy about voting low posters if you don't mind. Also, what does "doggie" mean in mafia language? I"ve never heard that word before in mafia so maybe it's just not common on any of the sites I've played at.

First of all, that should have been civvie. Lol damn phone autocorrect

Secondly, I go over this every game:
No-posting/low posters in early game tends to continue as the game goes on. Some people prefer not to clutter the thread early on if they have nothing to say. This isn't about quarreling with those people. IMO it is a liability for civs if someone is not participating. As can be seen time and time again on this site, and why a strong majority of games are won by Mafia, no/low posters are a great asset for baddies to keep around.
If they are civ, they weren't helping our cause anyway. That's obviously not ideal, and i would want baddies dead instead, but on day 1 specifically, there is not voting patterns to analyze, and everyone has adapted their own persona in the thread that don't scream Mafia to me. I don't know how people can GTH identify Mafia on day 1 from the bantering. It's a skill I'm still trying to get good at.
But I will most likely vote for someone not showing up to play. You want to be here, then be here. Don't not be here.

I used to default to low/no posters on day 1 but they kept coming up civ. The other thing that keeps me from doing it is they may low post but vote a civ vote which would mean they were helping the cause. Thanks for sharing your reasons, this comes up as an issue often on this sight so I wanted your insight.

when it comes to low posters, I look at the tone and gravity of their posts. If you are low posting, and there are no low posters, it falls into the realm of either a) timing issues or b) wallflowering. If you've posted even once, it's a sign that you are here, which is great. But low posting has a way of not revealing much about a player except for tone reads. And unless they're actively contributing things in their brief posts, I'm gonna all over them.

sprityo wrote:I can agree 100% with Scotty on that.

I've got nothing I can shed any light except per say my visit to the asylum (which im surprised no one else who visited had mentioned it yet) this is assuming we all recipes the same message.

Preview edit: yes we all in fact received the same message.

Your visit to the asylum....what's the end of that sentence?

Anyway I didn't find the message relevant to this game yet, since it talked about Harley Quinn's calling cards. She's not even in the game.

juliets wrote:Scotty, I would like to know about your philosophy about voting low posters if you don't mind. Also, what does "doggie" mean in mafia language? I"ve never heard that word before in mafia so maybe it's just not common on any of the sites I've played at.

First of all, that should have been civvie. Lol damn phone autocorrect

Secondly, I go over this every game:
No-posting/low posters in early game tends to continue as the game goes on. Some people prefer not to clutter the thread early on if they have nothing to say. This isn't about quarreling with those people. IMO it is a liability for civs if someone is not participating. As can be seen time and time again on this site, and why a strong majority of games are won by Mafia, no/low posters are a great asset for baddies to keep around.
If they are civ, they weren't helping our cause anyway. That's obviously not ideal, and i would want baddies dead instead, but on day 1 specifically, there is not voting patterns to analyze, and everyone has adapted their own persona in the thread that don't scream Mafia to me. I don't know how people can GTH identify Mafia on day 1 from the bantering. It's a skill I'm still trying to get good at.
But I will most likely vote for someone not showing up to play. You want to be here, then be here. Don't not be here.

Dom wrote:

Scotty wrote:Well last time I received info about something in an Epi game, it uselessly turned out to just be Rico futzing with my head...so I'm going to patently ignore it for the time being.

Now all I have are the voices in my head. And they're telling me that

a) zebra's comment about text walls spoke to me. I used to always post in walls, and seeing said walls in action during this 20-something-page day 0-1, Im now transitioning to a more liquid finish.
b) There's still some people that haven't checked in. That's unsettling to me more than the inane barking throughout the thread.

#1. Which players' absence are unsettling to you? Do you think they're bad hiding in a chat room? Do you think they don't know the game's started?

#2. You, in a later post, asked Glorfindel to share their thoughts on who might be bad, but I don't see you offering the same specific opinions. Can you?

#1: as of now, only lovedelic hasn't posted. 4 people have 1 post. No one in particular is unsettling individually, but my stance has always been to vote for no/low posters day 1 if no big suspicions jump out to me. I think that we've had 72 hours in which to check in at least, and to not even comment is a bad omen I feel. If you want, I can provide my philosophy on why I vote no/low posters.

#2: nothing is particularly jumping out to me. I have an eye on Glorfindel though. I made my post about the niceties of gameplay and Glorf's post fits in this case. SVS suspicion of him for offering a careful and guarded reply seems a little too eager to please. Is that indicative of badness? Maybe not. The other times I remember playing with Glorf he has been rather polite and stilted no matter his alignment. I am rather wary of the sentiment though.

As for MP, he hasn't posted anything since I started suspecting him, and my gut read still stands that I think he is at least not doggie

Here's something that I have noticed, and am starting to trust least: when people are too nice in the early stages. Knocking on doors, handing out booklets of inner peace. I mean, it's nice to have that energy and environment over the opposite (for sure) but I see that more as indicative of not trying to cause waves. If you're a humpback whale in a kiddie pool, you're gonna make tidal waves, even if you try to turn over slowly.

But Scotty, what if I'm just a nice person looking to pat everyone on the back for doing such a good job and I'm actually civ?

Well cool on you. But I'm not buying it.

(I don't have specific people in mind with this thought process, but I'm getting it out there now before I pass out from this drunken stupor)

Glorfindel wrote:Well, 20 pages in and I'm not much the wiser. I don't know a lot of the players here (well, not well anyway) but from the time I have spent here, I'd draw one conclusion. I played with Zebra in Star Wars and I saw a really slick performance from a very confident operator who always seemed in control. In Pikmin, I saw Zebra as a very transparent Townie who was picked off early by the twin forces of evil and ignorance. This game, I'm getting Pikmin vibes from her again. She's playing demonstrably differently to how she did in Star Wars and while it's possible that she is simply using her extraordinary ability to pull the wool over my eyes, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply not getting bad vibes from her at this stage.

a2thezebra wrote:Like, I don't articulate myself very well very often. Fine. But I fucking try. I try to get people to understand and if anyone has a concern no matter how many or how much, I try to address them, even if I feel like it's something I've already addressed and explained as many times in as many different ways as I can conceive of. But when I feel like the same isn't being done for me, it kills my motivation to keep putting in this effort. Because where is it getting me?

I don't understand how someone can spend an hour and a half writing a post addressed to someone to explain their suspicion of them and not only have it not acknowledged but then that person has the nerve to demand that the person that put in that effort start answering their questions as if they haven't already done that, while constantly misrepresenting that person.

I know this is probably a stupid thing to say but you sound really frustrated here Zebra. I understand why and try not to worry - not everyone is oblivious to your efforts. Whilst it'd be a disaster if you were Mafia, I think you're a huge asset to us if you're not and I for one would like to give you the the chance to help us win this

Man, you bounced back from your down day yesterday:

Glorfindel wrote:I voted City Hall for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I've no idea at all what the hell I'm doing in this game and being the 'outsider' I always seem to be, it seems appropriate for me to select such a location. At 13 pages, this game has gotten so far away from me now... I just can't...

Glorfindel wrote:And I had such high hopes for this game... I'm sorry guys...

Glad to see you're back and encouraging others to fight the good fight!

So you see Zebra as good. Anyone here you see as bad-read yet?

Well last time I received info about something in an Epi game, it uselessly turned out to just be Rico futzing with my head...so I'm going to patently ignore it for the time being.

Now all I have are the voices in my head. And they're telling me that

a) zebra's comment about text walls spoke to me. I used to always post in walls, and seeing said walls in action during this 20-something-page day 0-1, Im now transitioning to a more liquid finish.
b) There's still some people that haven't checked in. That's unsettling to me more than the inane barking throughout the thread.

wtf is this Day 0? I've been popping in and out trying to catch up one page at a time over the past 24 hours and it's been nonstop content. I'm in DFaraday's boat and am quite overwhelmed in not being part of the discussion since I've been too busy the past day. Good thing I invented that time machine last week. OH wait, that was a dream i had. nevermind.

Most of the semantics with which group to gun for early on and the meaning of the poll seems to have evened out, and frankly I feel like I've been stuck in a roundabout in New Jersey where only I understand the correct traffic yielding rules and in turn have been here for 5 hours on the inside track.

Stuff's gonna happen, we're gonna lynch some people, baddies will hopefully get killed, and independents might also be killed. It's important to identify specific independent roles, like Wilgy, who is

most definitely a doctor.

but unless it's directly interfering with the town's win goal, I'm out for mafia blood, boys.

Nerolunar wrote: Mac: My only clear civ read. Seems genuinely interested in finding the culprits.

I would be careful to jump on civ reads from a player's investment in catching baddies. There are 2 baddie teams on top of like 4 other clusters of win conditional castes. Of course both baddie teams should be actively pursuing other baddie teams as well. That being said, I am not getting a baddie read from Mac right now either.

Golden/Enrique dont look bad to me right now.

I think MP is not looking not civvie. And before you ask why, I don't know. gut? Sorry.

I am still looking to vote for no/low-posters for day 1, like usual. Because it's still too early for me to accuse.

DrWilgy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm gonna be sad if I'm the only one going to Mooney's

I'd go with you if votes were changeable.

Why did you originally choose the police station?

Enrique wrote:you can just answer dommmm

I swear I'm just trying to play. I've been very irritable lately, but that's not what's happening here, I am legitimately trying to get a point across and that's not gonna happen if nobody lays anything down.

I have just a high card. This is a hand I don't really want to lay down.

For those of you that voted to go to the Police Station: any reason? Are you guys just wanting to sit around eating donuts in the break room, or PLANT EXPLOSIVES IN THE INFASTRUCTURE?

'Fraid those are the only reasons I can see.

Oops, that inset quote from Dom should not be there. SVS said that. damn phone editing.

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote: I mean we need to keep them in mind, especially if they individually impact our individual win condition, but getting the baddies is paramount, IMO.

Actually, having just hosted the Champs game, I think our goal should be to NOT lynch the other civs, then lynch baddies>lynch Indies.

If the baddie win rate is any indication on this site, I think that is always the best option.

I mean, look, one of the escapees can literally resurrect people. That's unnatural, and frankly I don't want to live in a world where dark magic reigns.


As for the baddies following us around, as @Enrique suggested, I've done some thinking and would actually put money on the fact that not only are we individually investigating locations, but any player is susceptible to the secret abilities of the other players that cohabitate that specific location. I'm a fanboi of the Bat like anybody, but I don't know if I would want to be stuck with him in the same room at night.

also, bats are terrifying. Ever since I watched that documentary on Rabes, which is carried almost wholly by bats, I feel like I was sprayed with Doctor Crane's feat gas at any mention of bats nearby.

On the flip side, bats have to go the bathroom upside down, and as I witnessed a few months ago at a zoo, they will sometimes pee on their own face. #gotem

Ahoy, fellow Gothamites!!

Turnip Head wrote:Or maybe we are choosing individually?

this one would surprise me not.

I think looking towards the scene of the breakout is not a bad idea. I will vote there.

Though by the end of the day, it may not be a bad idea for multiple people to choose one of each option, just in case...