The Syndicate

Jan wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Dare I say Jan scumslipped?

How so?

Scotty wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Oh look a guy who I voted for on day 1 got lynched and is bad and this time I didn't actually try making a case on him. New strategy.

Wassup Glorfindel with ignoring my comment? You scared there buddy?

Mr. Big Mac, what was the result of that test you took eh?

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016.

You seem civ.

What makes him seem remotely civ to you?

Glorfindel wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Oh look a guy who I voted for on day 1 got lynched and is bad and this time I didn't actually try making a case on him. New strategy.

Wassup Glorfindel with ignoring my comment? You scared there buddy?

Pardon, my friend?

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Oh look a guy who I voted for on day 1 got lynched and is bad and this time I didn't actually try making a case on him. New strategy.

Wassup Glorfindel with ignoring my comment? You scared there buddy?

Mr. Big Mac, what was the result of that test you took eh?

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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.

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.

Dunny wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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?

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

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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

who cares about people

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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?

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).

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm , and I'll be busy but considering I'll be working at my computer constantly (still), I'm sure I'll be here plenty often. See you folks tomorrow!

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, that's it for me. See you all tomorrow. It'll be a busy day for me though, but I'll be sure to contribute, being the addict I am. I hope to hear more from all of you, but especially most of you who haven't been saying too much yet.

MovingPictures07 wrote:As for me, I have to go now, and the next 48 hours or so I'll be pretty busy. I wanted to make sure to sneak in some Night posting while I could before the period ended (1) in case I die tonight, or otherwise (2) due to the next 48-hour period. I'll contribute what I can. I think we should widen the discussion of players. I'd like to perform some ISO analyses, but they're a bit meaningless this early and without a mafia flip, and I'm short on time until near the end of Day 2. So we'll see. Someone else feel free to do them if you're so inclined (JJJ, I'm looking at you primarily).

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP Wilgy!

I've been pretty busy with PhD stuff, and now Draconus's Attack on Titan game has started so my mafia attention is already split between the two games. I'm going to re-examine the lower part of my rainbow list today.

To everyone: Whom are you considering for a vote today (tentatively) and why?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm still really busy, and this poll time is inconvenient since I'll be out. I'm alright with the nutella vote, but my feelings haven't really changed regarding my suspicions, and I'd rather vote off one of those red reads. So I'm going to vote for agleaminranks. I'll be back either late tonight after the deadline or sometime tomorrow.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Working on the assumption that a 'Prefect' is a position of some significant authority and influence, can anyone explain to me why Golden only has one vote? I mean SERIOUSLY? He was (is?) The Syndicate's representative at the Mafia Championships. He won a s#*^load of awards on this site this year (including The Syndicate MVP). He has demonstrated an ability for intelligent analysis and shown that he has the courage of his convictions (from my experience of him in Arkham Mafia). On top of all that, he's just a really nice guy... If anyone out there is still undecided, I'll be voting for him and for the reasons stated, I think you should too.

This is a mafia game, not a job interview. We are judging whether people are civ or bad.

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.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?

In the immediate presence I don't think we should worry much about this when making our selections, but it might become more important as the game progresses and we develop a better understanding of players' potential dueling strength.

The two "baddie" factions appear to be the Yellow Turbans and the Nanman. Their dueling prowess is as follows:

Yellow Turbans:
1 leader - d6
2 strategists - d4
(all secrets)

Nanman:
1 leader - d6
4 warriors - d8

Purely from a dueling perspective, the Nanman appear significantly more potent. We'll need to keep that in mind as we proceed. Indeed, it might even be worth considering combining a town read with a baddie read in our voting pattern to try to arrange a winnable duel. That might even amount to people volunteering themselves to enter a duel if there is a consensus suspect present. I hope enough people are able to withhold their votes long enough for those discussions to develop.

The Yellow Turbans don't have the strength in their dice, but all three of them have *secrets* which I am sure are meant to make up the difference somehow.

Glorfindel wrote:

Simon wrote:I want S~V~S to be second in command.

And I will be leader.

Welcome, Simon It's been a while - Star Wars, I believe? In any case, it awesome to have you back playing with us again. Now, speaking of S-V-S, It's been a day and a bit and there's been no sightings of her That's a shame - she always seems to have so much to say...

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

MovingPictures07 wrote:Okay, let's just get this all on the table so all of you are aware of my situation this game, though I'm sure many of you are it bears repeating. I will not get sucked into this game and my normal posting habits. I am undergoing without a doubt the busiest time of my entire life right now. But that doesn't mean I won't still contribute what I'm thinking. If you all find that suspicious, cool. I get it all the time, especially on Day 1. But I'm not going to sit here and get all stressed out and post 10,000 times because I cannot afford that in my life right now. This will be a welcome distraction for me. Not a stressful chore. Or at least as much as I can avoid it.

MacDougall wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hi Mac.

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

And MovingPictures is giving me the heebie jeebies with his page 7 list of green skittles like he has a real read on people enough to give green skittles and no red ones. Where are the red ones brah? Everybody knows it's easier to get pings earlier in the game than good vibes. What are you so freakin' positive that you have anti hunting power that I don't have? Get real.

Instead of criticizing me, Mac, and then bailing on the thread, if red reads are so easy to form, then why don't you provide some more reads of your own besides picking on the one person who's provided GTH content? Seriously, if you want to play ball, then let's fucking play ball. All you have thrown out is a read of only me giving you bad vibes because I've thrown out some civilian reads? I don't think so. Your justification that it's "easier" to come up with bad reads is unsubstantiated and something that's never been true for me; based on my experience, I would say I'm not the only one. Furthermore, you don't offer any substance whatsoever on why it gives you the "heebie jeebies", just that it does. So your elaboration would be appreciated.

Furthermore, what the fuck was this about? Just seems like unnecessary snark and aggression to me and a way to get me riled up. Did I miss a joke?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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.

I'll elaborate briefly upon my slight green reads before I leave for a while, as I was intending to do. I figured someone would just ask me for elaboration and that folks would try to fucking contribute to the discussion instead of jumping on my case, but I should have known better.

Boomslang can be a quiet guy in the thread. I like his activity and engagement so far, and his post here and here regarding the mechanics discussion demonstrated to me that he was willing to engage in the topic, was critically evaluating it, and was willing to throw out his more unconventional thoughts on the matter despite a potential backlash (Linki: seems JJJ and I are on a similar page here). My gut tells me, based on my experience with Boomslang for years RL and in mafia, that if he were bad he may have refrained from posting some of these posts.

DDL was the first player to point out something potentially manufactured/forced in this thread here. This post read genuine to me. I also appreciated the math post but I realize that is non-alignment indicative.

Jay is being Jay. That typically isn't quite enough for him to earn any read from me just yet, but I tried to get a feel for him and he responded in a way that at least for now seemed genuine and with his explanation that jived with me. I haven't seen anything else questionable or alarming about his contributions just yet.

I liked Quin's questioning here. It made me feel he was genuinely interested in developing a read on Turnip Head.

Turnip Head's contributions here, here, and here demonstrate critical thinking and questioning.

Now please note that I said all of these are SLIGHT town and they are all tentative. I wanted to get discussion going. If you disagree with any of my reads, it'd be nice if you could engage me and the thread in why you do and not just that you do.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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?

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?

Quin wrote:The guys MP is civ reading are in my opinion, pretty much just the most active people in the thread right now. I don't like it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hi Mac.

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

And MovingPictures is giving me the heebie jeebies with his page 7 list of green skittles like he has a real read on people enough to give green skittles and no red ones. Where are the red ones brah? Everybody knows it's easier to get pings earlier in the game than good vibes. What are you so freakin' positive that you have anti hunting power that I don't have? Get real.

I said they were GTHs. Don't hate on me for contributing.

And re: bolded/underlined, since when?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hi Mac.

DrWilgy wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:Jay, why did you vote for yourself?

Because he skipped the rules section on page one. Lol

The rules say that self-voting is permitted, but it doesn't seem like a very Jay thing to do to give himself a potential reward.

Little Jay has to get a grip!

Hi Dom. U bad again?