The Syndicate

1) My plan accounted for variation. I expected any one of the 4 slankers to receive 1-5 votes each, with free will of choice between the 4.

2) I do not like the idea of choosing players outside of the 4 slankers.
The entire point of choosing the 4 slankers was:

A) Randomness. ±1/4 (4/16) players are mafia. The bottom 4 players fulfill the 'randomness' aspect a bit. The 4 players chosen, if picked, will be skewed off of that random probability one way or another. The input for choosing the subsequent list of 4 players could result in 4 towns if Wolves dictated it to be so (basically it's an unnecessary risk).
B) Estimated guess - Those who were lurk slankin hardcore start of day had no intetion to contribute. Wolves have no need to contribute. Town must contribute to solve the game. Therefore lurkers = more likely than no wolves.
c) Estimated Guess Part 2 - Every big wolf team seems to have a mix between actives and slankers. This way we can target those slanking wolves. There isn't an exact science to it, but more often than not, there is at least one slakning wolf
d) FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TOWN! - If we lynch a wolf AWESOME. If we lynch a Town, we can VCA that shit and now we have a decent POE. More importantly, we will have lit fire under the slankers butt to actually PLAY.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Spoiler: show
Marco wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:Okay, now I have a total of 11 posts. I am no longer in the bottom four.

...And yet I am just as likely to be bad as I was before I started posting.

Frog can deny it all he wants, but the methods he's using to base his vote are absolutely advocating a policy lynch.

a2thezebra wrote:If you're fine with a policy lynch, okay, whatever, but advocating a policy lynch while denying that it's a policy lynch is highly suspicious to me. Especially when that policy lynch is based on going after the lurkers. I have seen baddies use lurker policy lynches time and time again to pick off the civilian lower posters while cruising their way to endgame by being very opinionated and very vocal, and almost every time I've seen that they have always advocated lynching lurkers while shying away from the term "policy lynch" as much as possible.

I appreciate the effort and analysis Frog, but my personal opinion on that tactic - if it is genuine - is fuck that noise.

a2thezebra wrote:Not to mention that I've gone after lower posters as a baddie while being extremely loud and obnoxious myself. I've totally used the myth that lower posters are more likely to be baddies than higher posters to my advantage, almost every single time I've been bad in this game. Even after people got used to that being my meta both here and on RYM, it would still work.

"Zebra can't be a baddie even though she did this suspicious thing and that suspicious thing...she's posting so much! I say we lynch one of the lurkers!"

-A few hours later-

"Ah shit, RIP So-and-so. I was so convinced, too. Well, what other lurker could we lynch tomorrow?"

The lesson is never learned.
I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?

This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.

Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.

To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.

Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.

While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.

Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"

I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:

1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.
Marco, regarding this post on zebra and lurkers, I have the following (succinct) thoughts:

Regarding your first paragraph and the questions contained within: Yes, yes, and yes.

zebra's MO is "passionate" and "theatrical", so I think that's what you're picking up. You even note that zebra isn't against pressuring them, just policy lynches, something I've seen her say multiple times, but something I'm in agreement with, at least at this stage in the game.

If you want to engage more with respect to this conversation, let me know, but I don't feel like I had anything more to say between this post and the others I've made on the topic today.

Vig shot! BOOM! JK - Vig shotting the lurkers obv. But really, I think we're supposed to pretend to dislike each other. Literally everything you have typed I disagree with. There is not one post that I can say "ok, I can see how he can see things that way". We are at diametric opposite spectrums of the playing field.

Long Con wrote:I guess it's not, roleclaiming and info dumping are legal, just seems like a way to try and bypass letting people play the roles themselves, instead automating the info directly to the thread.

lmfao - it's in the spirit of the game. Everyone is playing their roles. TPRS check and announce, vanillas cover for them, everyone is playing optimally. Don't get butthurt. :-P

Marco wrote:
Frog wrote:Just checking in quickly - from what I understand we have until Sunday night (great because I've been busy all day)

I don't see people jumping for joy at my plan - I hope at least someone explained this much:

I'm not saying EVERY slanker is a mafia - I'm saying within a mafia team there is usually at LEAST one slanker.

Therefore if we round up the slankers, we can assume at least 1 of the slankers IS mafia.

As for VCA (vote count analysis) - we KNOW (basically) that we are voting amongst town and wolves. THAT is our VCA. Whoever pushes hard against this plan so far is either clearly mafia, derping, or just a different state of mind that is denial.

Hottakes! Who has been pushing hardest against me and my plan since I've left?
Clearly someone has since I don't see a bunch of vovtes on the slankers.

I am much disappointed, but now I'm more certain I've struck gold.
There's nothing wrong with pushing lurkers but your plan involves making the Top 8 posters vote indiscriminately among the lowest 4 posters. That basically eliminates any way we can read their intentions since they're being "forced" to vote in a way that equalizes the votes among the lowest 4 posters.

This just isn't true though.

Assuming there is one wolf in the town group of 8 top posters.

That one wolf would naturally vote for the non-wolf in the bottom 4 slankers.

That is an extreme example, but you're missing the point entirely with VCA.

If we have a group of 4 players, at least one of them is a wolf.
If we choose town and wolves to vote amongst the 4, then the VCA comes from the wolves purposefully saving their own wolf bro! There is the VCA! They aren't forced to vote for their wolf bro, in fact they can SAVE their wolf bro. How is this lost on you?

VCA comes from voting amongst choices. Usually it's difficult because you can usually deduce when you were voting amongst TvT, but then you must decide if you were voting amongst w/w, or v/w, or any comibnation.

This makes it easier. This creates a w/?/?/?
AT LEAST one wolf will be in this group.
We can analyze the voting patterns of WHO is being saved.

Just checking in quickly - from what I understand we have until Sunday night (great because I've been busy all day)

I don't see people jumping for joy at my plan - I hope at least someone explained this much:

I'm not saying EVERY slanker is a mafia - I'm saying within a mafia team there is usually at LEAST one slanker.

Therefore if we round up the slankers, we can assume at least 1 of the slankers IS mafia.

As for VCA (vote count analysis) - we KNOW (basically) that we are voting amongst town and wolves. THAT is our VCA. Whoever pushes hard against this plan so far is either clearly mafia, derping, or just a different state of mind that is denial.

Hottakes! Who has been pushing hardest against me and my plan since I've left?
Clearly someone has since I don't see a bunch of vovtes on the slankers.

I am much disappointed, but now I'm more certain I've struck gold.

I think you misunderstand me.

This isn't so much a policy lynch, as an estimated guess based on NotTown! type actions (essentially no actions).

The process of elimination by limiting it to the 4 players who satisfy the POE requirements for today ensure via probability at MINIMUM (rationality gives it a bump), that at least 1 wolf will exist between those four.

The top 8 posters are all lean V's for me, the subsequent 4 top posters need to step up their game but they've shown up to the table, the bottom 4 posters MUST be pressured into the center of the conversation, and this is our opportunity to honestly our duty as town to not allow slanking wolves to do this.

So again, this is not a standard 'policy lynch'. I would suspect wolves would hate my ideo because of the high probability of a wolf kill, and a mechanical deduction of who wolves are by the end of today by following this plan.

Quick Plan:

These players

Spoiler: show

Will Split up into groups of 2 and vote these players, putting each of them at 2 votes:

Spoiler: show

These guys will have to make a cases for each of the slankers, and finish up the votes:

Spoiler: show

If this splits evenly, all 4 slankers should be put at 3 votes each.

For reference, with a hammer, the vote required to hammer is currently 9 votes.
Since there are 4 wolves, it would require 5 town to pile onto the incorrect pick, and all 4 wolves to snipe the incorrect pick, thereby explicitly revealing their team. What I'm saying is, if we choose these 4 players as wagons now, we are certainly safe within the realms of variation putting each of the 4 lurkers to 3+/- 2 votes (1-5 votes on each).

I think this is an optimal strategy since, as I've pointed, I believe wolves are least likely to be engaged in the game because it is not in their wincon, and wolves are lazy AF in games unfortunately. I believe at least one wolf must exist in that group of 4, although I believe more exist in that group of 4 personally. If we force wolves to vote amongst wolves and nonwolves, we put them in a situation that makes them mechanically vulnerable! This is optimal IMO.

I hope you all join me in my plan to make wagons on these 4 players and collect everyone's reads on these 4 players.

wish i could redit that into one post...

I'm assuming Soneji is getting replaced sooner than hopefully so it'd be kind of wasteful to blind lynch an empty slot. The other slankers at least had the opportunity to show up, but haven't done anything.

Again - Town has incentive to solve the game, Mafia does not. Unfortunately, wolves tend to slank and play the lurk to win card WAY too often, as lame as it is.

Frog wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Frog wrote:For now

Vote: Metalmarshmellow89
This vote is weak.
Why is it weak? What vote is strong in your opinion and why?

I would think any non voter is weak IMO. Where there exists no pressure on slankers, we're screwing up.

I believe you to be villager (either derp or lynch baiting me, w/e)

USERNAME POSTS
Golden 53
Marco 43
Sloonei 41
Frog 34
Dyslexicon 27
Silverwolf 25
sig 20
Zexy 20
JaggedJimmyJay 14
MovingPictures07 13
ika 11
Long Con 11
Inawordyes 10
DrWilgy 4
Metalmarsh89 4
a2thezebra 3
Psittaciform 2

Straight up, this is how I see today.

I'm pretty much only going to be voting for Dr Wigly, Metalmarsh, a2thezebra, or Psittaciform

[I was trying to lynch bait Zexy earlier, pretty sure Zexy randed Town, just wanted to see who would hop on that opening.]

My vote on Metalmarsh has to do with a complete non-game solvey style.

In case you actually need references to his quotes, tell me how right I am and then vote with me.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 8&sr=posts

Lol, I saw a "dom" on the who posted list and removed it, assuming it was a mod. Just realied JJJ is the host for the game and is outposting half of the players. Shameful.

Sloonei wrote:and that's as far as i'm going to get tonight. I have to be up in 6 hours to head back to work, so I won't be back until mid-afternoon tomorrow. Sorry folks.

night dudesickle

Sloonei wrote:
Frog wrote:For now

Vote: Metalmarshmellow89
This vote is weak.

Why is it weak? What vote is strong in your opinion and why?

I would think any non voter is weak IMO. Where there exists no pressure on slankers, we're screwing up.

I believe you to be villager (either derp or lynch baiting me, w/e)

USERNAME POSTS
Golden 53
Marco 43
Sloonei 41
Frog 34
Dyslexicon 27
Silverwolf 25
sig 20
Zexy 20
JaggedJimmyJay 14
MovingPictures07 13
ika 11
Long Con 11
Inawordyes 10
DrWilgy 4
Metalmarsh89 4
a2thezebra 3
Psittaciform 2

Straight up, this is how I see today.

I'm pretty much only going to be voting for Dr Wigly, Metalmarsh, a2thezebra, or Psittaciform

[I was trying to lynch bait Zexy earlier, pretty sure Zexy randed Town, just wanted to see who would hop on that opening.]

My vote on Metalmarsh has to do with a complete non-game solvey style.

In case you actually need references to his quotes, tell me how right I am and then vote with me.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 8&sr=posts

lol... oh god this again. :-P

You two (Ika + Silverwolf) got lucky you were mechanically cleared in that last hydra game. It seems like almost every game you two are in, this play style doesn't bode well. ** This is their (Ika + Silver) standard town meta. :-/

I'm calling it a night. Cheers.

My logic was:
Why is Marco shielding Sloonei? Weird.
Why is Sloonei later shielding Marco? Also weird.
Why are neither of them V reading each other? Weird.

After pressuring Marco a while it felt TvT to me so I dropped it.

Silverwolf wrote:
Sloonei wrote:And to add on to that, I definitely think you're reading too far into the relationship you perceive between myself and Marco. I assure you it does not exist. He may well be scum who was trying to buddy me and/or throw some shade on sig, but that's not how I'm reading that one post of his, and beyond that I don't even know if there's anything else to your case.

I trust that you'll start looking in other directions once more people start posting things and I appreicate your output so far, but on this one issue you are not on the right track.

All of this is still @Frog

I am going to work now so this is the last you'll hear from me tonight.
I think preflip associatives like Frog is doing are pointless before a scum flip.

Almost caught up.

Lol. I had 1 pre-flip association that I described more as a head scratching relationship. They both claim to not town read each other which is also buzzard considering their convenient congruencies and answer questions for each other.

You're debasing my logic without actually looking into it. This is fallicious logic SW.

However- going to have to agree with you. Ore flip associations are usually lol. But let the ENTP in me lay out all of the tinfoils anyway!!!

Lol, IAWY - but I have no other gauge on you other than top posting!!!

:-O

Haha, it's all gravy, take it chill. I'll lead.

I'm never voting you D1 anyway so I guess that should extend offsite as well.

[Side note - of my four votes D1, I voted and pressured 3/4 of scum D1 in Princess. :-D]

Dyslexicon wrote:Frog, Can you explain your read shift on Zexy?

I really want a code for calling out players, it would be much easier to see. (On PerC we have mentions, so you literally get a notification on the site if someone mentions you). Can I color names purple?

I know Zexy's meta well enough. I want to see how she acts under implicit pressure. (D1 hammer is such a bummer)

Zexy knows my town meta and hasn't cleared me is setting off a mild siren.

Expect a thorough summary from me tomorrow before EOD.

For now

Vote: Metalmarshmellow89

Just for reference- we should all be interacting with each player ~5 posts for anything meaningful.
5x16 = 80
80x17 = 1360 posts D1 is a baseline

Kind of just want to make a slanker lynch pact, but we'll see how it shakes out tomorrow

/Rant

Town - more communication always wins the game.
More effective communication is even better.
Lurking does not further our win con

Scum - lurking to win is not a strategy
Not playing is not playing

Bottom Line- everyone throw yourselves in the ring with reckless abandon for the spirit of the game

Kind of drunk and calling it a night soon.

Surprised at how little interaction Dislexia is getting after those fierce posts. :-P
Spidey senses are a-tingling

@Golden

The way voting works is automated.
When someone is lynched, thread is closed, the lynched person flips, the lynched person cannot talk any longer. There is no twilight posting.

When someone dies at night, they cannot reveal their actions.

What I meant by last will, is a type of 'legacy post' I suppose. On some mods and sites, you can submit a final message that will be revealed with your flip. In this way, TPRs have no need to breadcrumb or soft their info. The champs do not allow last wills/ legacy posts/ twilight posts.

I'm no Llama, I'm a dolphin.

Fun dolphin facts-
We live to be 300 years old
We are quite skilled in the art of karaoke
We're suspicious of people calling us llamas

I rescind my vote on Marco. Dude fights the harder battle of innocence instead of looking for a scapegoat. Lean V read on Marco for now

UNVOTE

Silverwolf wrote:Holy shit, I had no idea this game started!!

I have to catch up but I do want to let everyone know ika is out of town, and may not be able to post for a bit.

Haha, nothing new wrt low post count Ika ;-)

Glad to see you've made it SW

Golden wrote:
Frog wrote:Sup! I randed Town so GG.

I'll read what you guys have posted so far, but insofar as tempo control to immediately move out of the RVS stage, I'm going to bring up a polarizing strategy related question:

I've JUST finished a C12 match on MU where many vanillagers were fake claiming TPRs, and fake counter claiming TPRs all over the place. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. Those that didn't work were because of a cognitive dissonance between players. With this in mind, if you are town reading a player, and they fake claim a power role, would you counter claim them?

Furthermore, with respect to claims, I'm planning on following this format every day:
If I'm X role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Y role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Z role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
The Syndicate is not very used to fake claims. It's done a bit at RYM where I've played a bit. I have a couple of questions about this post

1) Are you referring to the concept of knowing someone has fake claimed because you ARE that role, and so your counter-claim would be real? If so, I think my choice of whether or not to counter claim would be entirely circumstantial. I would be trying to figure out why they fake claimed.

2) I like your format, but are there risks of greater exposure through the use of 'if I'm x, if I'm y'. Why is this better than simply saying 'If I am a role that can target, I did this N1, N2, N3'?

I may have a few questions like this throughout the game as I do want to get a got grip on the tactics around power role claiming, including how I can best aid the town in using it whenever I'm vanilla townie.

Sure thing, I'll throw together a more complete post before EOD.

Quick answers for now

1) fake claiming from any perspective. Simply claiming one role that you are not.

I agree that it's circumstantial- Which is why I asked in my intro post what you would all do in these types of COMMON situations in these setups. Most important is being able to play off of other players, and if there is a cognitive dissonance (I.e. Fundamental disagreement in approach and/or strategy), then there are certain plays that will be restricted with such players. I'd consider players able to identify purposes for decoys and beyond to be Level 3+ players.

2) the risks claiming every role and seperate actions for each? There's hardly a risk. E,g,
If I'm tracker I tracked player A to no where
If I'm cop I found inno result on player B

One of the above may be WRONG, which serves to protect that player even if they ARE a power role.

There is only benefit doing this. Again, I'll go more in depth, but certainly the larger risk is going to the grave without a set of clear breadcrumbs, and PRs playing without cover sucks major.

Zexy wrote:I lean town on Psittaciform’s first post. Because meta. Only a lean, though.

What Frog’s done in the beginning is scummy (strategy talk + RVS hypocrisy), but votes piled up a bit too easily which made me paranoid, mostly about Marco. And Frog’s accusations of Marco are really good and he brings up towny points, although he overdoes it with TMI at some point. And there’s some tunneling going on here. I have more trouble accepting a Marco/Sloonei team than just Marco being mafia in the two.

Yet when it comes to Sloonei VS Frog, while Sloonei looks like he wins the argument easily, there is paranoia that kicks in as well. Sloonei’s cases are a bit too perfect. If he is so good, assuming he’s town, it means he could be good scum as well…

That’s it for now, will be back later.

Lol, nothing is scummy- I'm suggesting optimal strategy and pointing out things to keep eyes on. Literally none of my points have been refuted on a logical basis- all of my perspectives, warrants and basis for claims remain intact. Instead we see Sloonei and Marco discrediting my content based on fallacious logic, often times side stepping my points entirely.

It's quite sad to see your scum game Zexy

Ultimately you're shoving a false narrative that straddles every side. I don't like it.

Marco wrote:
Frog wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Marco wrote:As my suspicion of Frog was because of my own misinterpretation, UNVOTE
What did you misinterpret and how has he changed your mind?
I retread the thread and I see where your misunderstanding was. You assumed my hypo claiming strategy revolved around mafia's privileged knowledge with respect to the existing power roles on a specific vertical/horizontal - where the claims would revolve around the specific unknown set of actual power roles. I'm saying- every power role should be hypoclaimed precisely because the vertical/horizontal is unknown to everyone except for scum.
Yep, I got that the second time around. It first appeared to me that you were operating from a position of knowledge, or as you called it "TMI".

I'm assuming we're playing with most championship rules where:
A) no last wills
B) claiming (fake or otherwise) is allowed
C) I've never heard of a rule where players aren't allowed to answer for others

Comments wrt above:
A) because there are no last wills, we must divulge our information and actions with appropriate cover
B) I'd urge you, especially if you rand village in the championships, to hypoclaim. You can expect quite a lot of straight up fake claiming, especially from town for decoy purposes
C) my vote remains on you for a few reasons, most notably to inform players of the existing buddying and butting in between you two (Marco and Sloonei)
B) How do the numbers hold up in this case? Do you think fake-claims would be easy enough to discern for mafia? Doesn't look like it should be unless your fake-claims are really bad but what do you think?
C) How is it buddying Sloonei to tell Sig that he misinterpreted Sloonei because I'm interested in Sig's actual response?

Extra notes-
Sloonei- you're asking me WHY I'm bring up your introductory troll posts.
The answer is simple - clearly Marco hard town read you based on that prior to defending you going into the second page of posts.
So my question to you, Sloonei, is this:
Clearly you town read Marco based on amswering for him.
Clearly Marco town reads you based on answering questions for you.
Aren't you skeptical of HOW Marco could possibly V read you based on your intro troll posts?
To me, it doesn't add up AT ALL.
And I'm VERY skeptical of this reciprocal relationship.
I'd like everyone to look into this as well.

Caution-
Only half the players have checked in so far
We must be cautious of TvT (Town vs. Town) arguments
Scum has NO incentive to solve, be mindful of this
Did the following post of mine actually give you the impression that I hard town-read Sloonei? Because I definitely didn't town-read, let alone hard, Sloonei.

Marco wrote:
Spoiler: show
sig wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:Hi!
Hello.

Sloonei wrote:Sig came in and tried to drag as much content out of things as he could. I'd like that if it didn't feel like such an effort to distance oneself from the label of low participation or scumminess.
Let's VOTE SIG
You'd usually like it but, don't this time? That doesn't make much sense.Also it is weird seeing how this is the beginning of day 1 so how would I be labeled as low participation if I hadn't had made any posts after my first one?

So why is it scummy that I'm posting and trying to get some content, since from where I sit it looks like your trying to stifle discussion.
He wasn't calling you out for low participation.

I'm on my phone atm, excuse the huge nested quotes and disorganized response:

Wrt fake claiming, it's decent enough to decoy. It also makes for decent claim battles. Hypo claiming is superior to fake claiming

Wrt you V reading Sloonei, and vice-versa - you both are defending each other and answering the others questions for the other. Why would you do that for a null or wolf read? You MuST town read each other, or be buddying each other for pockets, or power wolfing like a pack.

Golden wrote:147 posts before I even wake up lol. I imagine this is only a taster of what the actual thing will be like.

Catch up time

It depends game to game amongst players.

We just ran a 17er on MU for reference of post count to expect.

I guess ~1500 posts D1 should be expected.

Sloonei wrote:
Marco wrote:As my suspicion of Frog was because of my own misinterpretation, UNVOTE
What did you misinterpret and how has he changed your mind?

I retread the thread and I see where your misunderstanding was. You assumed my hypo claiming strategy revolved around mafia's privileged knowledge with respect to the existing power roles on a specific vertical/horizontal - where the claims would revolve around the specific unknown set of actual power roles. I'm saying- every power role should be hypoclaimed precisely because the vertical/horizontal is unknown to everyone except for scum.

I'm assuming we're playing with most championship rules where:
A) no last wills
B) claiming (fake or otherwise) is allowed
C) I've never heard of a rule where players aren't allowed to answer for others

Comments wrt above:
A) because there are no last wills, we must divulge our information and actions with appropriate cover
B) I'd urge you, especially if you rand village in the championships, to hypoclaim. You can expect quite a lot of straight up fake claiming, especially from town for decoy purposes
C) my vote remains on you for a few reasons, most notably to inform players of the existing buddying and butting in between you two (Marco and Sloonei)

Extra notes-
Sloonei- you're asking me WHY I'm bring up your introductory troll posts.
The answer is simple - clearly Marco hard town read you based on that prior to defending you going into the second page of posts.
So my question to you, Sloonei, is this:
Clearly you town read Marco based on amswering for him.
Clearly Marco town reads you based on answering questions for you.
Aren't you skeptical of HOW Marco could possibly V read you based on your intro troll posts?
To me, it doesn't add up AT ALL.
And I'm VERY skeptical of this reciprocal relationship.
I'd like everyone to look into this as well.

Caution-
Only half the players have checked in so far
We must be cautious of TvT (Town vs. Town) arguments
Scum has NO incentive to solve, be mindful of this

Sloonei wrote:
Marco wrote:As my suspicion of Frog was because of my own misinterpretation, UNVOTE
What did you misinterpret and how has he changed your mind?

I just wrote a huge post and it's gone. FML

I'll return in a few hours. Going for a few drinks now.

Marco wrote:Ignore my last post.

Frog wrote:
Spoiler: show
Marco wrote:
sig wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:Hi!
Hello.

Sloonei wrote:Sig came in and tried to drag as much content out of things as he could. I'd like that if it didn't feel like such an effort to distance oneself from the label of low participation or scumminess.
Let's VOTE SIG
You'd usually like it but, don't this time? That doesn't make much sense.Also it is weird seeing how this is the beginning of day 1 so how would I be labeled as low participation if I hadn't had made any posts after my first one?

So why is it scummy that I'm posting and trying to get some content, since from where I sit it looks like your trying to stifle discussion.
He wasn't calling you out for low participation.
For reference, this is Marco randomly defending Sloonei from Sig.

Why would any player have incentive to defend another player, especially in the early stages where players are seeking reactions? Marco essentially forced Sig to not get the reactions from Marco, and shielded Marco from having to react.

From a Town perspective - It's possible Marco was shielding his town read, Sloonei, from abuse. Judging how Marco proceeded to vote me after I voted Sloonei, I would say assuming Marco!Town, Marco clearly has discovered a way to hard Town read Sloonei from a few troll RVS posts, a miracle to say the least.

From a Not Town Perspective - Marco!Town was acting not town by disallowing everyone in the game from seeing actual content argument between sig and marco, whereby we would be able to actively gauge v/w, v/v type of interactions. Instead Marco!Town was not town and cut these interactions shorts, and denied Marco's reaction

From a Scum Perspective - Marco!Scum comes from an informed perspective. Either he knows Sloonei is town and is trying to pocket him, or Marco is defending a wolf bro.

Of these scenarios, and because of Marco's previous TMI (Too Much Information) posts that suggest he's coming from an informed perspective, I'm much more inclined to deduce and FOS (Finger of Suspicion) Marco at this point OVER Sloonei.

There is a variation in which Sloonei is in fact Town - judging by Sloonei's aggressive behavior and general interactivity across the board, I'd like to bump Sloonei up from lean scum to cautious null.

I will also bump down Marco into a hard wolf read.

[flash=3]Vote: Marco[/flash]
It is not defending when I clarified Sig's obvious misinterpretation. And I corrected Sig because I was interested in the actual answer to the question Sloonei asked. This had nothing to do with Sloonei. How is it that you brought nothing of this up until after I voted for you and called you out?

As for the hypo-claiming clarification, that's my bad. I didn't understand your proposed strategy clearly.

I had already noticed fishy behavior between you and Sloonei in particular. I decided not to bring it up to see how you two would act and vote. Sure enough, like sharks you seem to be buddying Marco hardcore.

I'm going to disagree with you entirely in your defence of your actions. You have no engaged with me in the advantages and disadvantages of jumping into discussion that did not include YOU. I've gone over the benefits and setbacks depending on perspectives, and it is clearly anti-town.

By jumping into Sig and Sloonei's conversation, you have cut Sloonei out of the picture, thereby IMPLICITLY defending Sloonei, AND almost EXPLICITLY defending Sloonei by pressuring the player (Sig) who was pressuring Slooeni.

Again, it's very simple if you want to have a real honest discussion based on logic and actual content. I can't imagine why it's so hard for you to simply acknowledge my questions and answer my logical content. I have to deduce you are scum, which is really no fun since the game JUST started. Meh, I'll take the easy lynch if you're going to be no fun.

Sloonei wrote:
Frog wrote:
Marco wrote:
sig wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:Hi!
Hello.

Sloonei wrote:Sig came in and tried to drag as much content out of things as he could. I'd like that if it didn't feel like such an effort to distance oneself from the label of low participation or scumminess.
Let's VOTE SIG
You'd usually like it but, don't this time? That doesn't make much sense.Also it is weird seeing how this is the beginning of day 1 so how would I be labeled as low participation if I hadn't had made any posts after my first one?

So why is it scummy that I'm posting and trying to get some content, since from where I sit it looks like your trying to stifle discussion.
He wasn't calling you out for low participation.
For reference, this is Marco randomly defending Sloonei from Sig.

Why would any player have incentive to defend another player, especially in the early stages where players are seeking reactions? Marco essentially forced Sig to not get the reactions from Marco, and shielded Marco from having to react.

From a Town perspective - It's possible Marco was shielding his town read, Sloonei, from abuse. Judging how Marco proceeded to vote me after I voted Sloonei, I would say assuming Marco!Town, Marco clearly has discovered a way to hard Town read Sloonei from a few troll RVS posts, a miracle to say the least.

From a Not Town Perspective - Marco!Town was acting not town by disallowing everyone in the game from seeing actual content argument between sig and marco, whereby we would be able to actively gauge v/w, v/v type of interactions. Instead Marco!Town was not town and cut these interactions shorts, and denied Marco's reaction

From a Scum Perspective - Marco!Scum comes from an informed perspective. Either he knows Sloonei is town and is trying to pocket him, or Marco is defending a wolf bro.

Of these scenarios, and because of Marco's previous TMI (Too Much Information) posts that suggest he's coming from an informed perspective, I'm much more inclined to deduce and FOS (Finger of Suspicion) Marco at this point OVER Sloonei.

There is a variation in which Sloonei is in fact Town - judging by Sloonei's aggressive behavior and general interactivity across the board, I'd like to bump Sloonei up from lean scum to cautious null.

I will also bump down Marco into a hard wolf read.

[flash=3]Vote: Marco[/flash]
A town player can defend another player for what they perceive as incorrect or invalid lines of suspicion. I do not agree with your analysis, but I've not looked closely at Marco.

Also what do you mean when you call my posts "troll" posts? I made a confused face when I read that.

My friend Marco, if you want to be taken seriously, at least make an argument. You've read my analysis from various perspectives that involve claims, warrants, and basis. Your response is: I disagree because reasons. But you don't list reasons. LOL. You haven't even engaged which parts you disagree with with respect to my analysis. It really just seems like you're randomly defending Marco, but cautiously backing off in case you get linked. I think you know I'm onto something, I've just posted TWO of Marcos slips.

1) TMI - he KNOWS that I don't have knowledge of the entire setup - aka, he's presuming me a Town, and yet he's voting me, lol.
2) Defending you after you make THESE trolls posts that I've ALREADY brought to your attention, and told you to please refrain from self-lynch baiting. I even explain WHY self-lynch baiting is horrible for Town. If you choose not to interact with me in actual content based discussion I can only concluded the worst for you.

Sloonei wrote:Hey, I hear we're playing a mafia game in here?

Long Con wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Hey, I hear we're playing a mafia game in here?
Yeah man! You in? You Mafia?

Sloonei wrote:Yea to both, King Con.

Here you open by claiming to be mafia - since you're like "I DON'T TROLL FROG!!"

... really?

Sloonei wrote:
Frog wrote:
Marco wrote:@Frog, you came in encouraging a strategy involving hypo-claiming. How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?
Marco, you're a scum who isn't seeking an answer. Zexy has already explained the strategies that are commonly used on Mafia Universe (shared by several communities).

You have TMIed my friend, Marco, too many times already. I'll bring up your other TMI posts, but let me start here. "How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?"

First, I'll answer your question for the sake of town:
Mafia is informed which vertical or horizontal setup we're on because of their team powerroles. Whereas even if you are a Town PR, you do not know the setup. My plan is to claim every town power role every day in one post, because im assuming there are no last wills, and for posterity sake we must say what we did. I already explained it quite logically:
If I'm Tracker I did this N1 N2
If I'm Doctor I did this N1 N2
etc. etc.
That way if any town PR flips, their information can be easily found, AND town villagers provide the most amount of cover for actual town PRs.

It's a standard method because it's objectively the most successful way to play this setup.

As for your slip - You already know I don't know the setup, as you implicitly slipped:
"How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?"
How much experience do you have with this setup? I've never played it before, and I'm not used to fake role claiming strategies like this.

I've played countless semi-open setups. The key aspect with THIS setup is that:
1) Mafia are informed of the entire vertical or horizontal that we're playing on, and Town does not

Similar to ANY setup, Town Power Roles must leak our their information, and Vanillas must decoy and protect.

If ONLY the power roles were to claim their information everyday, we'd end up with quite a lot of dead power roles very quickly.

The meethod of going about this is very simple. Everyone claims every role with various feedbacks etc.

If there are no conflicting feedbacks, then we proceed with information based lynch.

If there is a counter claim, then we reevaluate and use post analysis and mech analysis, etc. as though it's an actual game and not simply a gamed strategy. (Honestly, there is no possible 'gamed strategy' in this semi-open setup)

Marco wrote:
sig wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:Hi!
Hello.

Sloonei wrote:Sig came in and tried to drag as much content out of things as he could. I'd like that if it didn't feel like such an effort to distance oneself from the label of low participation or scumminess.
Let's VOTE SIG
You'd usually like it but, don't this time? That doesn't make much sense.Also it is weird seeing how this is the beginning of day 1 so how would I be labeled as low participation if I hadn't had made any posts after my first one?

So why is it scummy that I'm posting and trying to get some content, since from where I sit it looks like your trying to stifle discussion.
He wasn't calling you out for low participation.

For reference, this is Marco randomly defending Sloonei from Sig.

Why would any player have incentive to defend another player, especially in the early stages where players are seeking reactions? Marco essentially forced Sig to not get the reactions from Marco, and shielded Marco from having to react.

From a Town perspective - It's possible Marco was shielding his town read, Sloonei, from abuse. Judging how Marco proceeded to vote me after I voted Sloonei, I would say assuming Marco!Town, Marco clearly has discovered a way to hard Town read Sloonei from a few troll RVS posts, a miracle to say the least.

From a Not Town Perspective - Marco!Town was acting not town by disallowing everyone in the game from seeing actual content argument between sig and marco, whereby we would be able to actively gauge v/w, v/v type of interactions. Instead Marco!Town was not town and cut these interactions shorts, and denied Marco's reaction

From a Scum Perspective - Marco!Scum comes from an informed perspective. Either he knows Sloonei is town and is trying to pocket him, or Marco is defending a wolf bro.

Of these scenarios, and because of Marco's previous TMI (Too Much Information) posts that suggest he's coming from an informed perspective, I'm much more inclined to deduce and FOS (Finger of Suspicion) Marco at this point OVER Sloonei.

There is a variation in which Sloonei is in fact Town - judging by Sloonei's aggressive behavior and general interactivity across the board, I'd like to bump Sloonei up from lean scum to cautious null.

I will also bump down Marco into a hard wolf read.

[flash=3]Vote: Marco[/flash]

Marco wrote:@Frog, you came in encouraging a strategy involving hypo-claiming. How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?

Marco, you're a scum who isn't seeking an answer. Zexy has already explained the strategies that are commonly used on Mafia Universe (shared by several communities).

You have TMIed my friend, Marco, too many times already. I'll bring up your other TMI posts, but let me start here. "How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?"

First, I'll answer your question for the sake of town:
Mafia is informed which vertical or horizontal setup we're on because of their team powerroles. Whereas even if you are a Town PR, you do not know the setup. My plan is to claim every town power role every day in one post, because im assuming there are no last wills, and for posterity sake we must say what we did. I already explained it quite logically:
If I'm Tracker I did this N1 N2
If I'm Doctor I did this N1 N2
etc. etc.
That way if any town PR flips, their information can be easily found, AND town villagers provide the most amount of cover for actual town PRs.

It's a standard method because it's objectively the most successful way to play this setup.

As for your slip - You already know I don't know the setup, as you implicitly slipped:
"How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?"

Zexy wrote:So, sig: what is TS? What do you think of Sloonei’s push on you? You defended, but what does that mean in regards to his alignment?

I disagree on the fake claiming part because in MU there actually a power role cover system where everybody claims all the roles so that the real ones get to “naturally” throw their real results in without standing out too much. And others fakeclaim to draw NKs.

Zexy is towny as flip.

Zexy + Sig = Town

Marco + Sloonei = scum teamish - On page 2 Marco randomly defends Sloonei. Lol. Obv slip is obvious.

Sloonei wrote:
Zexy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:You are right. A lot more is going to happen. But that more has not happened yet, so for now I have to work with what I have. What do you think of sig and I? Your last post didn't really give a stance either way.
If anything, the fact you are trying to read someone on this little could be scum trying to slowly and steadily justify a scumread on a townie.
I don't have too much of a stance yet, my posts are also there so you two react to them and they can help me read you through that. You are more defensive than sig which is also slightly scummy of you to do.
Marco wrote:Alas. That's the way she goes.
She?

While I'd like to see more from Dyslexicon, posts like that are kinda regular in PerC so it's cool for now

Also, Sloonei, Frog's question is good and all. Explaining basic stuff about power role cover is useful.
So I shouldn't be attempting to read anyone? Got it.

And I'd like to hear Frog's response to me before I pass any further judgment on him.

LMFAO - your perspective is top down, cocky as a mofo. You haven't asked me any questions up until this point in the thread when you had posted this. What am I "responding" to?

Make a claim with a warrant and a basis, then we can talk.

E.g. You are not in favor of me claiming town, the warrant for this belief is ???, the basis for this belief is ???

I'll put it to you this way, and you can keep this in your tool box.
Analyze players from the perspective of Town, Scum, and Not-Town (which are 3 quite distinct categories).
I'll say this much - any serious players who claim to have randed Town, more likely than not, have randed Town - and I'm not talking about the 50%+ (since Town accounts for 50%). I'm talking about the last 50 games I've played in, I can only recall twice when a scum has opened claiming to be town. That is the basis. The warrant for this argument that those who claim town are in fact town is that scum are self conscious and don't want to speak incorrectly. Claiming town is like flapping your snake in the wind - that kind of a brazen and bold attitude that would be counter conscious-scum attitude early D1.

Sloonei wrote:
Frog wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Hey, I hear we're playing a mafia game in here?
Yeah man! You in? You Mafia?

Sloonei wrote:Yea to both, King Con.
Please don't self lynch bait

Imagine the setup further down the line and there is no way to prove your alignment (aka vanilla-esque game). By opening with a self-lynch bait and no way to 'clear' yourself, if you end up in F3 scenario, you're going to be untrustworthy from the beginning.

1. You are either lying about your alignment - untrustworthy
or
2. You are mafia - untrustworthy

It's a lose-lose type of situation.

I'm just going to ask you straight up:
1) Were you kidding about being in the mafia?
2) Tell me you're town.
What do you think of all my other posts?

Vote: Sloonei

It's very simple - tell me you're town in your own unique way

sig wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:Hi!
Hello.

Sloonei wrote:Sig came in and tried to drag as much content out of things as he could. I'd like that if it didn't feel like such an effort to distance oneself from the label of low participation or scumminess.
Let's VOTE SIG
You'd usually like it but, don't this time? That doesn't make much sense.Also it is weird seeing how this is the beginning of day 1 so how would I be labeled as low participation if I hadn't had made any posts after my first one?

So why is it scummy that I'm posting and trying to get some content, since from where I sit it looks like your trying to stifle discussion.

lmao - I sense a divide amongst players and I'm not entirely certain if it's alignment indicative or not. Trolls and Tryhards. I'm going to go ahead and say when I'm town I tryhard, I'm putting Sig as Villager lean.

Sloonei's aggressive behavior doesn't seem characteristic of a wolf unless he truly just does not give a flip in any of his games. Can anyone confirm Sloonei's meta as town vs. scum?

Sloonei wrote:
Frog wrote:
Spoiler: show
sig wrote:MM seems to be as jokey as normal, not an alignment indicator.

MP comes into the thread with his normal "I won't post much it doesn't mean I'm mafia unlesssss I decide to post alot, but I probably won't" thing. So expect lots of posts and activity from MP. :P

sig wrote:There isn't much to go on yet but, inaword had a towny entrance to the thread.

He is doing some RVS, but that is common on MU. I usually dislike doing this however, it isn't an alignment indicator.

sig wrote:However, having said this I'm not sure I like how MP is talking about the hammer function. It's a bad gut ping to me. Not enough to vote/lynch on, but I'll be keeping my eye on MP.
I was going to comment on these tidbits as well but figured it was common knowledge and too much information instead of analysis. However, since you've opened pandora's box:

1) I agree, so far there is very little that alignment indicative
2) I personally dislike RVS as well - I feel it's just an excuse for scum to rack up post count without content, but more importantly, it's not game solvey. However, it is widely prevalent. It is what it is. I have a theory with respect to this I will build upon later today.
3) I thought the discussion of the hammer function was useful to be honest, I didn't know about hammer existing D1. It was more like an informative heads up, which isn't indicative of alignment. Again, IIoA (Information Instead of Analysis) has been disproven as alignment indicative (Silverwolf and Ika know which MS article I'm referencing).
What do you define as RVS and why is it "not game solvey"?

RVS - is "Random Voting Stage" - it's the part of the beginning of the game where votes are almost entirely random, and the first 50-100 posts are jokes, gifs, and mostly devoid of content. I don't like that method of gameplay when my win con requires that I solve the game. Which is why I brought up a strategy discussion instead.

Long Con wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Hey, I hear we're playing a mafia game in here?
Yeah man! You in? You Mafia?

Sloonei wrote:Yea to both, King Con.

Please don't self lynch bait

Imagine the setup further down the line and there is no way to prove your alignment (aka vanilla-esque game). By opening with a self-lynch bait and no way to 'clear' yourself, if you end up in F3 scenario, you're going to be untrustworthy from the beginning.

1. You are either lying about your alignment - untrustworthy
or
2. You are mafia - untrustworthy

It's a lose-lose type of situation.

I'm just going to ask you straight up:
1) Were you kidding about being in the mafia?
2) Tell me you're town.

Spoiler: show

I was going to comment on these tidbits as well but figured it was common knowledge and too much information instead of analysis. However, since you've opened pandora's box:

1) I agree, so far there is very little that alignment indicative
2) I personally dislike RVS as well - I feel it's just an excuse for scum to rack up post count without content, but more importantly, it's not game solvey. However, it is widely prevalent. It is what it is. I have a theory with respect to this I will build upon later today.
3) I thought the discussion of the hammer function was useful to be honest, I didn't know about hammer existing D1. It was more like an informative heads up, which isn't indicative of alignment. Again, IIoA (Information Instead of Analysis) has been disproven as alignment indicative (Silverwolf and Ika know which MS article I'm referencing).

Inawordyes wrote:
Spoiler: show
Marco wrote:
Spoiler: show
Thanks. That's perfect.

Unvote
Ooh, okay. So I'm gonna go ahead and poke Frog since I know him from MU games. Heyo! How are you? WHY ARE YOU MAFIA?!?!? *cough* Ahem,I mean, "would it possible in any sort of context unique to both this world and any potential alternate realities that you could inform our inquiring minds just as to the current state of this fine game as perceived from your self and, potentially, a hint as to the true nature of where your alignments lie, to which you could also potentially be lying to us with a bold face and would need to understandably be punished?

VOTE FROG

1 - lmao, you verbose SOAB. Keep content short and sweet plox
2 - You never claimed to rand town (suspicious as fish)
3 - I don't usually like engaging in RVS silliness, but I'm doing pretty decent thanks for asking :-D About to head out to the bar next door. Congrats on F3 in the princess game btw, I'll give you a hint with respect to one of my secret identities:

Spoiler: show

Sup! I randed Town so GG.

I'll read what you guys have posted so far, but insofar as tempo control to immediately move out of the RVS stage, I'm going to bring up a polarizing strategy related question:

I've JUST finished a C12 match on MU where many vanillagers were fake claiming TPRs, and fake counter claiming TPRs all over the place. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. Those that didn't work were because of a cognitive dissonance between players. With this in mind, if you are town reading a player, and they fake claim a power role, would you counter claim them?

Furthermore, with respect to claims, I'm planning on following this format every day:
If I'm X role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Y role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Z role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.

Search found 194 matches