The Syndicate

Long Con wrote:Why did you kill me?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

espers wrote:so it seems this is over. don't really understand what happened in the endgame (haven't looked through) but congrats to the winners.

sorry i had to drop out, a bit of explanation:

Spoiler: show

i fell ill a couple days before with some kind of stomach bug so i wasn't feeling up for mafia or any kind of protracted effort in general, i told the scum cave and epi this but didn't post it in the thread b/c i thought it'd look like i was trying to get concessions out of pity or something. that thing i said about most of the activity seeming to happen when i was asleep was true too btw. also after that awful sloonei vote d1 i knew i was a goner, which didn't exactly help with motivation lol

No worries, espers! I hope to get to play with you on a game again here soon.

MovingPictures07 wrote:[Regarding espers, here's what I most recently had to say, for reference. As the Day has progressed, I've realized yet again that he's consistently failed to deliver. And despite otherwise meaningful and well-intended content, his D1 switch/vote strikes me as quite suspicious.

DharmaHelper wrote:

espers wrote:cookie's vote is one I can't make sense of in the least, press her hard on that.

don't understand elohcin's vote, throwaway votes at this point seem like a way to try to skirt by on wifom and avoid meaningful vote analysis

don't understand G-man's vote, why'd he feel the need to protect dharma?

why does dh think ddl should be left alive if he's moloch?

Because Moloch can kill the Mafia.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I was very disheartened when I saw that Nite Owl II (most likely), or Nite Owl I (less likely), or Moloch (????) used the ability to shrink the poll options to four today. IMO, it was an incredibly poor move, especially coming off of the lynch of a talkative mafia on D1, where analyzing all players today would have been optimal. I also do not think the four players selected were chosen well, and I think that all four very well could be civilians. Oh well.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I self-voted. I don't feel comfortable voting anyone else right now, and I have to place my vote now.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Catching up. Gonna reply to this along the way:

espers wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Silk Spectre wants to stay alive long enough to find the roles she is looking for. If I were her, I'd help whatever faction seemed to be losing at the moment. If town starts winning too hard, I could see her helping mafia.

The Comedian would benefit from looking very civ, since he has to be night killed. So he is likely the most pro-civ one. But he still has a separate wincon, and might change sides if town starts winning too hard.

Nite Owl has a wincon that looks very pro-civ. He will be helping us at start. But if his dad is still alive and he has a chance to help hammer a civ lynch to end the game, he will. Likewise, if he kills the guy he has to kill, but his wincon means he has to survive till the end of the game, he will want the game to end faster.

Rorschach is a serial killer. He will kill anyone in his list, regardless of the alignment. Whether that helps town or not will depend on our luck.

The others are a mystery.

not a fan of this exchange, particularly the last post. it feels like ddl is fluffing here; we don't have any info on the watchmen roles besides what's in the op and speculating on them isn't useful right now, imo.

espers wrote:

Ricochet wrote:espers's take on DDL reminds me that he wasn't appreciated for doing extensive player reads in Guess Who (but back then I think it was already Day 2 and Roxy, one of his critics, had already read him as scum during the previous night, so not a perfect analogy). Although he addressed only the four Watchmen that don't have secrets in their description, so I'm not sure what she found wrong in DDL speculating, either.

dedicating posts to talking about the setup without actually connecting anything to specific players' content is often just a way to blend in and look involved without stepping on any toes, ime. also has potential to distract others from looking for sus behaviour.

Here's the thing: i like to discuss strategy and roles. It's my thing. I love role madness games because of that, so I can strategize with abilities and roles. As soon as the game began I started looking at the Watchmen roles to figure out how they'd play and I just waiting for an opportuniry to post my conclusions.

I know that isn't particulary relevant to the hunting of baddies at this point of the game, but I don't see why every post I make should be relevant to that. It's not like it was the only thing I said in the game. Fluffing is okay as long as it isn't the only thing you do.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Here's the thing: i like to discuss strategy and roles. It's my thing. I love role madness games because of that, so I can strategize with abilities and roles. As soon as the game began I started looking at the Watchmen roles to figure out how they'd play and I just waiting for an opportuniry to post my conclusions.

I know that isn't particulary relevant to the hunting of baddies at this point of the game, but I don't see why every post I make should be relevant to that. It's not like it was the only thing I said in the game. Fluffing is okay as long as it isn't the only thing you do.

I agree with DDL's view here. I think espers perspective may be culture shock - he is used to closed setup. In an open setup, people aren't going to be claiming roles, and it is often useful to the civilians to discuss and analyse roles and how they might be used - it can help make sense of what is happening in the game.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:As for espers, he spent most of the phase suspecting me, as shown in the two posts from him I quoted above.

espers wrote:sorry if this is weird and out-of-game, but I've noticed Elohcin viewing the thread a few times, but she's keeping quiet. anything you'd like to say? who's your preferred lynch candidate right now?

actually, that can go for everyone. pretend the day ends at xx:40 instead of xx:00. who would you vote for?

i'd go for DDL.

linki: that's fair, it's not exactly a tight case. I still feel he's the most suspicious player so far, though.

Later, he even says he is probably going to vote me, and that I'm his most suspicious player.

espers wrote:voted sloonei

Sloonei wrote:In response to MP's points toward me (my laptop is old and terrible and doing this thing where it takes a half hour just to start up, and I don't feel like waiting for that just so I can format a post more easily, so this is a messy phoned-in attempt at a post), I have so far only played with a G-man that is completely light and playful in all his posts (due to those reasons I mentioned earlier), so when I came in to the thread on Day 0 and saw him being perhaps the most active person in leading the discussion, regardless of how serious he says it was at the time, it was a very noticeable change in style for him. It is too minor a point to earn him a townie label just yet, but it was the strongest read I got in any direction after 3 pages of activity. "Sincere" was probably not the right word. "Active" or "aggressive"' would have been more accurate. I will hold off on commenting on the actual content of his posts until there's more of it.

Also I never expressed my suspicion of you while you were in BoB, I only mentioned it after Epi had subbed in for you. I can't find any of the posts (i made a lot of them in that game), but my point was essentially that I felt like your response to the fake truce banter on Day 0 felt a bit too preemptively defensive. Your behavior here reminded me vaguely of that.

didn't buy mp's original suspicion but this defence feels overwrought. not a strong case but I've gotta be decisive. i'm not feeling good about nijuu as I said before.

Then suddenly, with one minute left in the phase, he votes Sloonei. He quotes a post from Sloonei, parrots what other people said about Sloonei's defense being overthought, and casts a vote that did not actually change anything in the lynch, since Sloonei was already in the lead.

What is worse, is that he had never said anything about suspecting Sloonei before that. In fact, he had defended him:

espers wrote:that said I don't agree with the adverb/smiley arguments against sloonei, seems like a style thing more than anything.

So what's up with the change of heart? If you had voted based on what you were saying, you should have voted for me, not Sloonei. I wasn't active at all on day 1 (due to my own RL issues), and I didn't even reply your accusations against me, so what made you stop wanting to vote me?

G-Man wrote:Also, espers, what say you about the discrepancy between you and MM about getting something/nothing after the Day 0 vote?

espers wrote:voted sloonei

Sloonei wrote:In response to MP's points toward me (my laptop is old and terrible and doing this thing where it takes a half hour just to start up, and I don't feel like waiting for that just so I can format a post more easily, so this is a messy phoned-in attempt at a post), I have so far only played with a G-man that is completely light and playful in all his posts (due to those reasons I mentioned earlier), so when I came in to the thread on Day 0 and saw him being perhaps the most active person in leading the discussion, regardless of how serious he says it was at the time, it was a very noticeable change in style for him. It is too minor a point to earn him a townie label just yet, but it was the strongest read I got in any direction after 3 pages of activity. "Sincere" was probably not the right word. "Active" or "aggressive"' would have been more accurate. I will hold off on commenting on the actual content of his posts until there's more of it.

Also I never expressed my suspicion of you while you were in BoB, I only mentioned it after Epi had subbed in for you. I can't find any of the posts (i made a lot of them in that game), but my point was essentially that I felt like your response to the fake truce banter on Day 0 felt a bit too preemptively defensive. Your behavior here reminded me vaguely of that.

didn't buy mp's original suspicion but this defence feels overwrought. not a strong case but I've gotta be decisive. i'm not feeling good about nijuu as I said before.

Sloonei wrote:In response to MP's points toward me (my laptop is old and terrible and doing this thing where it takes a half hour just to start up, and I don't feel like waiting for that just so I can format a post more easily, so this is a messy phoned-in attempt at a post), I have so far only played with a G-man that is completely light and playful in all his posts (due to those reasons I mentioned earlier), so when I came in to the thread on Day 0 and saw him being perhaps the most active person in leading the discussion, regardless of how serious he says it was at the time, it was a very noticeable change in style for him. It is too minor a point to earn him a townie label just yet, but it was the strongest read I got in any direction after 3 pages of activity. "Sincere" was probably not the right word. "Active" or "aggressive"' would have been more accurate. I will hold off on commenting on the actual content of his posts until there's more of it.

Also I never expressed my suspicion of you while you were in BoB, I only mentioned it after Epi had subbed in for you. I can't find any of the posts (i made a lot of them in that game), but my point was essentially that I felt like your response to the fake truce banter on Day 0 felt a bit too preemptively defensive. Your behavior here reminded me vaguely of that.

Ricochet wrote:espers's take on DDL reminds me that he wasn't appreciated for doing extensive player reads in Guess Who (but back then I think it was already Day 2 and Roxy, one of his critics, had already read him as scum during the previous night, so not a perfect analogy). Although he addressed only the four Watchmen that don't have secrets in their description, so I'm not sure what she found wrong in DDL speculating, either.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Especially with some of you:
- Cookie, espers, and Scotty, whom I've never played with before
- LoRab, whom I haven't played with in WAY too long
- Russ and DH, whom I haven't played with in too long
- DDL, who has come from NF again to play with us
- Sloonei and espers, who have come all the way from RYM to join us

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

I think you can add Silk Spectre and The Comedian to the civvie side of the equation. Neither of their win conditions suggest any harm to the civvies. Regardless, we're always more likely to lynch civvie than a baddie whether we use randomization or our best effort to deduce the identity of a baddie. Using strict probability, the odds are always stacked against us.

Silk Spectre wants to stay alive long enough to find the roles she is looking for. If I were her, I'd help whatever faction seemed to be losing at the moment. If town starts winning too hard, I could see her helping mafia.

The Comedian would benefit from looking very civ, since he has to be night killed. So he is likely the most pro-civ one. But he still has a separate wincon, and might change sides if town starts winning too hard.

Nite Owl has a wincon that looks very pro-civ. He will be helping us at start. But if his dad is still alive and he has a chance to help hammer a civ lynch to end the game, he will. Likewise, if he kills the guy he has to kill, but his wincon means he has to survive till the end of the game, he will want the game to end faster.

Rorschach is a serial killer. He will kill anyone in his list, regardless of the alignment. Whether that helps town or not will depend on our luck.

The others are a mystery.

Cookie wrote:After catching up on the thread, I have a few small things to say:

1) I'm new to this site so don't think I am a good candidate for policy voting (please), for those of you who support it.
2) I've never heard policy voting but I think it's good to identify that problem within mafia games. I've always hated it and having to explain that, in terms of probability, we are more likely to lynch a townie. That being said, I do not support it in any way.
3) I don't think G-Man is suspicious. Having said that, I barely remember who posted what because everyone is new to me. It's easier if I knew people and can put a personality to the post, so when I get to know everyone a bit more, I will be able to scumhunt more efficiently.
4) How do I vote not to lynch someone? On the site I use, we vote "no lynch." Is there an alternative name for it here or do I just not vote?

nijuukyugou wrote:I'm just gonna talk. It's gonna get a little stream-of-conscious-y, so I hope y'all don't mind.

G-Man wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Personally, I have a "policy no-lynch". Which is, I avoid lynching on d1 people I know are really good at the game, unless I have a strong reason to.

I like this policy.

I don't. Good players won't usually give you a good reason to vote them on Day 1. If they did, they probably wouldn't be on you 'good players' list. Giving a pass to "good players" is bad. While I realize that you're are not saying that you wouldn't put pressure on or look closely at a "good player" Day 1, you are in a way creating a class of people who are worthy of a free pass. You better believe they take advantage of that charity every time they can.

In writing, there's a phrase: "murder your darlings." Don't be afraid to apply that here. Heaven knows the baddies do it all the time.

Agree with this. Don't ever give mafia a reason to act like or be something - they'll use it to their advantage every time.

DharmaHelper wrote:Also, I ain't doing no rainbow list. Fuck that noise.

MovingPictures07 wrote:For anyone that has ANY reads whatsoever, that hasn't voiced them yet, I am literally dying to hear them. I'm incredibly intrigued.

Oh dear. You might want to get to a doctor

Since G-Man is prominent in the conversation, I'll include my two cents. I'm torn about him. I agree that he seemed to take the comments in jest about "policy lynching" him Day 1 (P.S., I hadn't heard the term "policy lynch" until this game, but I understand the concept now), which could point to defensiveness. But then again, I empathize with the feeling of being bombarded, in jest or not - it can get rather irritating regardless of alignment, so I'd probably react negatively eventually. But now that I'm re-reading him again, he doesn't sound as irritated in his posts that I previously thought, so I agree with a lot of the points he's been making about mafia in general. He hasn't made any accusations (just an idea to lynch Golden for shits and giggles), but that's pretty normal for Day 1. I think. So, in conclusion, I'm less torn and more...observant and wary, really, since his name is being brought up.

I've always found the concept of using too many adverbs as a sign of baddiness intriguing. Smileys I understand. I like llama's line of thinking, especially for a Day 1 vote. While Days 1 are some people's favorite hunting days, I hate them with a passion, so sometimes you gotta go with whatever you can without a vote record - silence/hiding, evasiveness, or someone profusely and excessively using adverbs and smileys to a great extent I crack myself up

I'm done now. I'll be back after a day trip to Asheville to discuss and vote and stuff.

timmer wrote:I voted for myself. Spent all day cleaning, getting ready, friends due any minute. I will get into the game when I can!

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:for instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

IF they say something obviously fishy that can lead to a reasonable lynch.

But on D1, that's incredibly rare, and most votes as based on BS.

And if I am to cast a BS vote, knowing full well I'm probably taking down an innocent civilian, I'd rather have that likely civilian be someone who has a lower chance of helping town winning the game.

It's not about giving good players a free pass. It's about not playing russian roulette with players who are more likely to be good assets. Once we get to D2, when actual data is available and better cases can be made, nobody is getting a free pass.

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

Ricochet wrote:Gender check on espers (btw did you name yourself after the folk band? I love them)

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.