The Syndicate

MacDougall wrote:I too am pinged by bwt. He posts short replies like a lazy scared mafioso. Not even referring to his self vote which is more or less null.

After reading further I am thinking of voting Dunny and Bass. Dunny's dropped lip reply to my last post didn't do much for me at all. Arguing that my continued suspicion is wrong simply because timr has passed. You go squish now. Bass wants to duel... and tbh he tone reads bad.

Not keen on lynching TH. Seems like a weak framejob. Probably concocted by Evil Marmot Wifombot.

Also we should lynch Darth Sloonei if y'all know what's good for you. Sloonei is always bad is so right it is a scientific law.

MacDougall wrote:I have an oddball theory.

Simon has gone quiet. He seemed to have a random beef with JJJ. If he is a Nanman and is low on partners he might lose interest and he might kill JJJ. I could see a lonely Simon mafia doing that.

FYI I am just digging throught the thread for some missing pearls at the moment. Nothing has been really jumping out at me. If nothing juicy comes out I am going to revote Russ and Dunny as nothing there has made me feel any better about either of them.

Russtifinko wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Bubbles and MM's votes smell the fishiest to me. I want to go back and investigate those.

Scotty my man, I'm sorry I ever doubted you. You are the hero we need. Please be my sensei.

So I was gonna say this wasn't true and Scotty could still be a Yellow Turban, but then I realized he would've likely lost his duel had he been. So I'm prepared to give Scotty some civ cred barring evidence to the contrary.

Who's to say I'm not on Wilgy's team? I mean, I'm not, but why exclude that as a possibility?

I appreciate the civ label because I am, but your defense of me is slightly hollow.

I could also be anything, and just rolled better than Wilgy, so this argument is not the best way to guard my alignment.

Oh, damn you're right! More good ideas from Scotty.

Now stop crushing my ideas, please.

Russtifinko wrote:Hey, I'm not dead! No thanks to a lot of you.

Good that we nailed a baddie yesterday, though, regardless. Glad I could help in that respect.

RIP S~V~S and JJJ.

You guys are posting a LOT....I might more or less random my votes this Day.

nutella wrote:

Jan wrote:

nutella wrote:

Jan wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Jan wrote:I would like to see one out of Metalmarsh89 and Turnip Head gone. I think I'm voting both.

Hey, Jan I was wondering if you had any rationale for your votes? Sorry if you did and I missed it...
By the way, it's awesome to be playing with you again old friend

They're the loudest out of everyone else. I was actually considering JJJ as well, but this message sent to the GM smells of a scumplay. Idk.

What do you mean? The message sent to the thread was from a civ role.

How do you know?

Someone hasn't read the roles. Epi literally posted the picture of the role with the message, so we know it was from that role.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Goin Russ + Timmer

Turnip Head wrote:

Dunny wrote:3) Mac, i just figure to be an aggressive player and thats all ive really caught on with him myself.

What makes you say that? His accusation toward you wasn't very aggressive. Did someone tell you he's an aggressive player?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dunny wrote:Im still kind of at a loss for who I wish to vote for, unless someone can correct me in my comment about DDL i will most likely put 1 vote there and 1 on Russ for JJJ compelling Day 1 case.

Could you try to tell me in your own words why you're willing to vote for Russ?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dunny wrote:Ive read over everything since ive been to sleep and i understand the votes against me, i can see how ive come across suspicious.
Honestly i dont know where I am going to vote as i have no suspicions on anyone right now.

I guess i will just wait a few more hours and see if anything else happens

I have some questions for you:

1. What have you done that has drawn suspicion upon you?

2. Why do you feel this is understandable?

3. How do you feel about the players who have cast suspicion upon you?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dunny wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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

No. Mac and I had a conversation, and he also acknowledged the validity of the assertion I made that you've been questioning. I'm not a fan of your "why me?" defenses.

Its not a defense at all, just trying to understand your way of thinking when multiple people have made the same statement yet you only acknowledge two as suspicious is all. Im sorry if my curiosity offends you

The thing that I would call "suspicious" is more the thoughtless discard of Boomslang's idea as if it's an obvious and undeniable truth that what he said is objectively wrong given what we know right now on Day 1. Not everyone has shown that attitude, and context is always important.

I would have suspected Quin too had I seen his post before he told me to see his post. I am not "offended", that's a bizarre word choice. I am voicing suspicion in a Mafia thread.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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

No. Mac and I had a conversation, and he also acknowledged the validity of the assertion I made that you've been questioning. I'm not a fan of your "why me?" defenses.

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:

Dunny wrote:Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?

No, it is the same type of response. The difference isn't in the response, but in that Quin took that response and mashed it against my face saying "what about me? Huh?". I appreciate that behavior even if I don't like the post.

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.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:Where do I place then, JJJ? You missed me.

Quin wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.

Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

I think your response to Boomslang fails to acknowledge the point he is making. I'd be less inclined to call you "suspicious" for it though since you're shoving it in my face right now.

Turnip Head wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Quin wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:What the HELL happened to Night 0?

I don't recall ever having a Night 0. Doesn't it always just go from Day 0 to Day 1?

The Story of Creation
1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, 2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. 3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light”—and light appeared. 4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, 5 and he named the light “Day” and the darkness “Night.” Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.

I think that's from a different book. This game is based on a Disney movie I think

Just in case you genuinely thought this, this game is based on Chinese history, disney have no part in it what so ever

Boomslang wrote:Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right.So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

Scotty wrote:

Dunny wrote:At this moment in time I'm willing to throw a vote Scotty way as the hilarity of his pitch has genuinely brightened up my bad day, still debating on where to put my second vote.

I know none of you really know me so I doubt anyone will vote for me, but if you don't that would be great. I don't handle responsibility too well haha

What if you had the responsibility to be a well natured civ? Could I count on you?