The Syndicate

Matt F wrote:

Enrique wrote:I don't have much to say about Luke and Matt, but they were both BC voters, which as we all know turned out to be a terrible idea. Matt thought "someone in the Luke voters is bad," which is fair enough, but then he conveniently picked BC out of those. Luke seems to be barely keeping up with the thread, while Matt has definitely been around and should know what's up. I'd like to hear more from both.

No, the vote wasn't convenient. I would've rather put my vote on Floyd, because Floyd is Luke's friend irl and knows more then anyone how new Luke is, but again, at the time only Bcornett had votes out of the three who voted him. What's more, after Boomslang's original sus of Luke, I pointed out how new Luke was, and he continued getting votes from both bcornett and Floyd.

Right now, I agree that FZ seemed to defend both Luke and Wilgy, so I won't be voting either today, however...

DrWilgy wrote:From a game in a half history with Floyd, it seems that he's not a frequent poster. I wouldn't put Floyd on my scumdar because of his behavior so far, but I don't want to have a LYLO situation with civ floyd at this moment. So if his contributions don't increase by the time we come close to LYLO and I'm not dead set on a better option, I would pluck him regardless of alignment.

Really?

Anyway, Floyd, why did you vote for Luke? In the post voting for him, you said "You really have to read the whole thread before posting"...so did you think he was bad or was it just a place vote which you never got around to changing?

Btw, if Zebra is posting in all caps, then she's probably good. :P

How is FZ defending anyone relevant?

And yes, really.

That is what I thought. Hmm... Questions for later.

MM, did you change from guest status to revealed?

Nvm... My joke was lost in translation.

Good jop MM and Zebra, we have floyd convinced. Endgame here we come!! bwahahahahahaha!

From a game in a half history with Floyd, it seems that he's not a frequent poster. I wouldn't put Floyd on my scumdar because of his behavior so far, but I don't want to have a LYLO situation with civ floyd at this moment. So if his contributions don't increase by the time we come close to LYLO and I'm not dead set on a better option, I would pluck him regardless of alignment.

Floyd, what makes you absolutely sure that Me, MM, and Zebra aren't on the same team?

Choutas wrote:I don't really know what to think of the Wilgy/Zebra/Marmot convos. The Marmot plays exactly like he did in TH, I lean town on him for that. Wilgy's first post that MM quoted doesn't look good. Does he always posts like that in all games? Zebra mirrors well what I saw from him in TH. He's a good player though I'm sure he's capable of doing that as scum so I''ll have to watch for the slight details that might give that away.
I'm voting for Wilgy until a better case forms.

What about it doesn't look good Choutas? Why not form a case yourself?

Also... Modesty isn't my strong suit. Maybe it's just false self inflation to prevent the depression from cosuming me, but meh, idk.

Continuing reading now...

Okie dokie! time to sleep. I may check the thread on my phone in a bit. Good night everyone! Talk t'ya in the morning

a2thezebra wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?

Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.

You did.

I didn't see any helpful discussion that would come from it. I felt that if I responded to it at the time that it would only distract from more helpful discussion. If anything that means my not responding to your case is evidence that I do consider discussion a priority. You don't have to agree or even believe me for that matter, but it is what it is all the same.

Compared to what discussion that we already have? do tell? what is more helpful that we have already discussed that we can be distracted from?

a2thezebra wrote:No DrWilgy, this is caring enough to respond to it.

DrWilgy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

bea wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Matt F wrote:Boomslang, Luke is pretty new to Mafia just so you know. He's played a few games but I think he's still getting the grasp of it.

Fair enough, and I'll take that under consideration. Still, even if he's new, he's had the same chance to study the thread and its arguments as the rest of us. The vote did come after all of that naysaying, so to ignore it is still making a statement.

he's so new...are you sure he read the thread and digested it like he should have??

And I"m going to correct matt too. He's not played "a few games'" he's played one. Epi's speed game- in which he's prolly going to be lynched.

He's as new and green as they come near as I can tell boom.

That's the thing. There's no scum motivation for ignoring the arguments against a No Lynch. If he didn't read the thread, he didn't read the thread. It ain't a big deal. And if he's bad and he did read the thread, what could he possibly have to gain by trying to sway the town in favor of a No Lynch when clearly no one would support him? I'm more suspicious of those that are looking at his No Lynch post as an opportunity.

And Wilgy, Choutas' No Lynch vote is unexplained. And he's no stranger to the game. That's something to raise an eyebrow to indeed...that is until he changed it to Tranq. I think it was just a placeholder since his initial vote was rendered moot and he had no other pings at the time. I believe you're response and that you weren't trying to start a wagon so I'll switch my vote to the most opportunistic of the Luke voters, bcornett. I don't buy bcornett's reasoning at all.

bcornett24

So here's the thing about Zebra, how can a civilian "believe" something in this kind of gamestate?

What does this even mean? Even in the earliest stages of the game you either believe someone is genuine or you believe they are not. It's literally impossible for a civilian not to believe something in a Mafia game unless they obtain the information that allows them to leap from belief to knowledge.

DrWilgy wrote:"Choutas' No Lynch vote being unexplained" feels as if he's trying to buddy up on me, while distancing from Choutas while not committing to it. Why not implore Choutas?

What do you mean implore Choutas? I called him out and displayed my reasoning for not being convinced that what he did was scum-motivated, did you want me to put it in larger font or something?

HEY CHOUTAS WHAT'S UP WITH YOUR TEMPORARY NO LYNCH VOTE OH WAIT IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE GIVEN THAT YOU PRETTY CLEARLY WEREN'T INTENDING TO END THE DAY WITH IT AND COULDN'T THINK OF ANYONE ELSE TO VOTE FOR OK BYE

DrWilgy wrote:Also, he had gone in on me seeing me as opportunistic.

Indeed. Wait, I thought I was trying to buddy up on you? You can't lose sight of a deceitful narrative mid-case Wilgy every scum knows that!

DrWilgy wrote:Don't the concept of thinking I was opportunistic and then "believing" in me contradict one another?

Here's an idea. Maybe, as a civilian, I don't know for sure whether you are town or scum, so if I happen to change my opinion of you (and back again) it's part of a natural development of my scumhunting process that I apply to every other player in the game as well? For example, I currently have a scum read of both you and MM. But given that I don't see the sparring between you two on this page as staged, I'm more certain that I'm wrong about at least one of you then I am on my reads of either of you individually. So now my process is deciding which one of you (if not both) I am mistaken about. Hence me believing that you are being truthful with some posts but not others. Performances can be convincing, you know.

DrWilgy wrote:Also looking at the votes from earlier to now:
[img]nope[/img]
[img]me%20no%20spam%20in%20quotes[/img]
All 3 of my suspected mafia list were spread out, quite safely, if I had to be a judge, and now one of them had moved over to the second highest wagon, that probably won't take off at the rate that it's going. Is it so they look good not being on a possible civvy mislynch? maybe.

Well unfortunately this particular argument has now been proven not to apply to me, being on the bcornett wagon and all.

you seem to be rather worked up, but the larger font is nice.

First of all, nothing is impossible, secondly it is most definitely true that civs have a harder time coming to something they believe in, not a belief. beliefs are everywhere and they exist frequently, but to take a belief and believe in it are completely different things, er.. noun vs adjective per say. I have a hard time BELIEVING that civs can come to a solid belief, so that when you stated "I believe" based on what little I had said it bothered me. Why not draw out more information to solidify your belief before coming to a state of believing?

By imploring Choutas, you would have him explain the meanings behind his actions, not make a statement. It's one thing to actively question ones actions, but another to make a statement. After mentioning Choutas once, you didn't bring it up agian, why?

Yes, the opportunism came first, then I felt a sense of you wanting me to board the S.S. Buddyship. You can't lose sight of a deceitful chronology mid-case Zebra every scum knows that!

Yes, but it is naturally hard for people to change their opinions, especially with what little information we had. It's not the fact that you changed opinion that bugs me, it's the fact that you went into the state of believing from a state of suspicion.

Why bring this up in that case? you felt strongly enough about ignoring CFD. What do you think about the other two I put you with on my list?

a2thezebra wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?

Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.

You did.

a2thezebra wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I admit to not be concerned with getting lynched based on the merit of your arguments.

And why is you getting lynched based on the merit of my arguments your priority?

Who said it was my priority?

If you not getting lynched isn't your priority, and discussion isn't your priority, what is?

a2thezebra wrote:I admit to not be concerned with getting lynched based on the merit of your arguments.

And why is you getting lynched based on the merit of my arguments your priority?

Also listening to the 8bit This Must Be the Place while watching my avatar still gives me a big dumb smile, thank's MP!

linki - Don't die bea!

SO... you admit to not be concerned with discussion? because that's what you are telling me. You are saying that you are willing to let a post go, because of irrelevance? Nothing is irrelevant, somethings players would rather just brush aside or sweep under the rug. This just makes me think even more that this MM suspicion is still just a distraction.

Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?

Linki - Oh, they have, but I'm not giving up because of it. What do you expect me to do cry? I'm going to talk more, I'm going to encourage discussion, I'll do whatever I can to get those chances back.

Linki Linki - Because of how quick it was, also It bothered me that she didn't seem to be concerned with what I pointed out. Felt like a distraction, but that's my gut. I'll give it a moment to digest and see what I think again.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:DrWilgy, RadicalFuzz employed that exact same strategy in Talking Heads, stating that his behavior is bad, and that we should look at him because of that. It is most notable because he suggested a CFD one day, and afterwards pointed out how bad he looked for it. He was a civilian in that game.

Are you intentionally mimicking his behaviour? Do you have reason to defend me as a civilian?

Actually no. I wouldn't propose a CFD without proper belief behind the CFD. It was Day 1, no mafia btsc had happened yet. If we were to strike them with a strategy like that, it would've been most optimal when they had no way of discussing a reaction plan. Another point, is that Fuzz stated he should look bad for suggestion of a CFD because his CFD would've saved a baddie from lynch before my confirmation as bad, putting someone who was seen as maybe civ (at the time) under the lynching block vs a confirmed baddie.

I hope others begin to speak up soon.

Zebra are you suggesting that I am confident in not getting lynched? You are mistaken. The chances of me getting lynched seems to be increasing rapidly the more I discuss. That's kinda how the game works. Mafia generally want to halt civ evolution and adaptation, and that can be done most optimally through the killing of heavy speakers. If there's a chance to mislynch me for what I say, I have no doubt they won't take it. How is it bad for me to state that the game entered hard mode? Cop is our go to role. It devastates our chances of winning since he was hit.

Grabbin din din brb ~<3

And, why are you so concerned about MM, when I tried to lead a CFD on you before the day ended?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:FZ is a she.

Dammit, why am I so bad at that. I'm sorry FZ, forgive me and my ungentlemanly behavior.

Counting up FZ's interactions and he uses the following names or addresses the following:
Enrique: III
Bcornett: III
Boomslang: II
Luke: II
Zebra: I

Me: II

FZ. wrote:I won't be back until the end of the day, so I'm leaving my vote on bcornett. It's the best I have for day 1. I hope more people come and talk.

Yeah... Me too.

Voting for Zebra again.

This game just entered hard mode.

google what?

I think a CFD on Zebra would be pretty tactical currently. What does everyone else think?

a2thezebra wrote:

bea wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Matt F wrote:Boomslang, Luke is pretty new to Mafia just so you know. He's played a few games but I think he's still getting the grasp of it.

Fair enough, and I'll take that under consideration. Still, even if he's new, he's had the same chance to study the thread and its arguments as the rest of us. The vote did come after all of that naysaying, so to ignore it is still making a statement.

he's so new...are you sure he read the thread and digested it like he should have??

And I"m going to correct matt too. He's not played "a few games'" he's played one. Epi's speed game- in which he's prolly going to be lynched.

He's as new and green as they come near as I can tell boom.

That's the thing. There's no scum motivation for ignoring the arguments against a No Lynch. If he didn't read the thread, he didn't read the thread. It ain't a big deal. And if he's bad and he did read the thread, what could he possibly have to gain by trying to sway the town in favor of a No Lynch when clearly no one would support him? I'm more suspicious of those that are looking at his No Lynch post as an opportunity.

And Wilgy, Choutas' No Lynch vote is unexplained. And he's no stranger to the game. That's something to raise an eyebrow to indeed...that is until he changed it to Tranq. I think it was just a placeholder since his initial vote was rendered moot and he had no other pings at the time. I believe you're response and that you weren't trying to start a wagon so I'll switch my vote to the most opportunistic of the Luke voters, bcornett. I don't buy bcornett's reasoning at all.

bcornett24

So here's the thing about Zebra, how can a civilian "believe" something in this kind of gamestate? "Choutas' No Lynch vote being unexplained" feels as if he's trying to buddy up on me, while distancing from Choutas while not committing to it. Why not implore Choutas?

Also, he had gone in on me seeing me as opportunistic. Don't the concept of thinking I was opportunistic and then "believing" in me contradict one another?

Also looking at the votes from earlier to now:


All 3 of my suspected mafia list were spread out, quite safely, if I had to be a judge, and now one of them had moved over to the second highest wagon, that probably won't take off at the rate that it's going. Is it so they look good not being on a possible civvy mislynch? maybe.

Voting for Zebra currently.

Liki @boomslang - Asking how easy it is to lynch someone isn't defending them silly. I just think it's easy. I also think bcornett is an easy lynch.

linki linki @bcornett - I just don't agree with it. I suppose personal preference goes into this one. I'll review it though, and see if my opinion changes in afew min.

Mafia prediction day 1: Zebra, Boomslang, and Choutas

bcornett24 wrote: @ DrWilgy

DrWilgy wrote:When did I say I was trying to get a wagon going? It was just unfortunate that you already had a vote when you described no lynch as awesome, that's all. Plus we did get something good out of it, luke's questionable vote, that I would like to hear about in detail from him.

DrWilgy wrote:Ah! New game! Ok.

MM and Matt, since we don't have btsc yet, I'll ask something here. Which civ are we going to try to get a lynch wagon on today?

You started one on me by just asking me a question which I wasn't around to answer from work, though I do not think this was intentional. Ironically though, Matt F is actually on it... If somebody were to look back and take this with any seriousness, Matt has made you look really bad here.

DrWilgy wrote:Hmm... I also don't like Luke's vote... Meh, staying on Choutas for now.

Do you agree with what I said above about Luke's vote?

DrWilgy wrote:Ok, I'm a dummy, so...

Bcornett, what answer did/do you expect out of Enrique?

A response of any sort, but was apparently I was ignored. If there is one thing that I consistently do through all games, I like to reaction hunt.

Bcornett, you are making it hard to not want to vote for you I never tried to start a wagon, even more, so I never even looked in your direction so far. The first quote here from me was addressing Enrique, not you. Is it less ironic now that Matt wants to lynch you?

Not really... I see your vote for luke as your own decision (which I suppose is irrelevant due to no mafia btsc yet), but not a very good one if you are town.

would you mind referencing other forms of reaction hunting in other games you have been in?

Tranq wrote:

Boomslang wrote:why the Choutas vote other than simple revenge?

I asked who to vote for and DrWilgy responded.

Two Pets in one Sound.

Out of all that I named why Chou?

Since when am I defending Tranq?

Ok then... What do you think about the people on your wagon?

Shame everyone showed up while I was at dinner, we may have had more time to discuss. Let's have these 2 hours count.

Tranq, do you consider yourself an easy lynch? What qualifies as an easy lynch?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Doctor! What would you like me to explain?

You're good Marmott friend.

To everyone, do you feel that lynching Tranq would be considered easy or hard? Placing a vote on a non-playing player seems pretty easy to me.

How does the masses feel about Boomslang at this point?

Ooh ooh! Also Choutas, I want in Choutas's head as well.

Boomslang wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:What? what am I plating off? I was being predatory, that's not a question, my goal, avoid no lynch, ezpz bb.

I'm really confused by this post in particular. Seems like you're throwing off a lot of short phrases, a breathless defense of yourself. Possibly a little more worried than you should be.

I responded that way due to not fully understanding his statement. The term plating, I only realized now may have been the word playing, and that threw me for a loop :P I also, don't think I was defending myself, more so explaining what I'm doing. If I were defending myself, it would be more like "your suspicion of me is wrong because I'm trying to avoid a no lynch." Instead, I don't see his suspicion as wrong, just rather not well made.

I spy a tranq!

Linki - I'm not sure, I would like to hear from MM, bcornett, floyd and luke at this point. Maybe vote them and force some explanations?

Boomslang wrote:As I said, my vote wasn't set in stone but merely there to spur some more discussion. Which I think it did quite nicely. Zebra summarizes the other side of the argument (that there's no good baddie reason to vote No Lynch after the thread discussion) very well, and I concur.

I'm growing a little more interested in DrWilgy. I feel like he's pumping up his post count with a lot of short comments and questions that could be condensed into single posts. This runs a little counter to what I saw in Recruitment; obviously this is a totally different game, but it's enough to increase my interest.

Tranq should really do a post soon, I think. With 13 people, flying under the radar should be a no-go. I'll change up the vote there to increase the urgency.

Linki: Not all of us are lean, mean posting machines, good Doctor.

See, but I was also tracker in recruitment, I'm pretty sure I'm not tracker this game. Other than my posting style this game compared to recruitment, has anything I have stated spiked your intrest?

Sounds good to me then, rest up Enrique.

I saw a boomslang... I wonder where it went.

Has what I said and or done changed your original views of me whatsoever or affected those own reasons in any way? If so were they for the good or better?

Why is your vote on me a better option than the others Enrique?

Man, where is everyone? My one day off from work, I try to be as active as possible, and EVERYONE IS AFK!!!

Oh, nvm

?

https://gyazo.com/e01d6fef6c453c8dcfc54d74858612ad (non altered gyazo link, if you really need it)

This spread of votes is pretty nice actually. I screencapd it for later and will upload when I can.

Matt and Bea are the only two who haven't voted yet. I would recommend they do so even if it's gth

Also...

Choutas wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Come on Choutas, let's get 9,000 posts in this game. You and me.

Haha half of my posts are shitposts anyway so why not?
We need to live the day of the marmot to accomplish that. 9000 is a daunting task.

DrWilgy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I initially voted for DrWilgy as a joke but I don't dig this:

DrWilgy wrote:Enrique gets my vote for now. I don't think "no lynch" has ever been a fantastic option for civilians in any game I've played.

As I said, I don't understand why you would vote for someone for showing interest in something they are unaccustomed to, whether it's pro-town or not. It seems opportunistic and too easy.

too easy indeed, if I wanted to put a vote on someone early and stick to it for purposes of mislynch I'd put alittle more effort into it, perhaps by playing off someone's opportunism?

Voting someone for showing interest in a mechanic they don't know about is fine when we have nothing else to go on, but I'll move my vote to Choutas for actually being on no lynch.

I mean... I'd rather have RVS than No Lynch, at least that way we get info. Even if I were to die via RVS, you may be able to pick out some baddies via vote patterns later on. The only times where I've seen a LYLO situation as civ (I say seen, because I was always dead at that point) were due to no lynching, so let's not do that.

Would y'all believe me if I said I was a Doctor? I don't think I've set my tempo yet... What do I do this game?

What is your fascination with me? You're into me or something? I'm still mad at your for getting me lynched last game.

Enrique you speak Spanish? I always wanted to accuse someone in Spanish.

Maybe...

Why Tranq Choutas?

Technically we weren't on the same team when I got you lynched last game, so I'm not going to apologize for that one.

For reference later on:
Luke11646
3
Boomslang (9), bcornett24 (10), TheFloyd73 (11) 18%

MM, have you marked any players as "not voting for?" yet?

Ok, I'm a dummy, so...

Bcornett, what answer did/do you expect out of Enrique?

FZ. wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Good observation, I missed the "why is it a bad idea to vote for you?"

Bcornett, what answer did/do you expect out of Zebra?

It wasn't aimed at zebra. it was aimed at Enrique.

one moment, going back and re-reading. I thought I had remembered the context.

Hmm... Looks like bcornett is out. I wonder if he at least read the thread.

Good observation, I missed the "why is it a bad idea to vote for you?"

Bcornett, what answer did/do you expect out of Zebra?