The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.

3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.

4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.

5. Where you stand on Quin and why.

6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.

7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.

You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.

Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.

1. notsawyer - Vanilla town read to me. The back and forth stuff with Epi didn't gain him any favor. He has a bad habit of sinking his teeth in like a pitbull and not letting go, but he's been advocating lynching baddies and showing good initiative.

2. Marmot - Despite the fact that he has way more posts than me, I never really seem to notice them. That could something about the content of his posts, but it could also say something about my attention span. i'll have to search his posts in topic and give them a quick read.

3. Floyd - 7 posts by day 4 and he controls the vote. He's going to kill me today, and when I flip civ he's going to have to face some questions he won't be around to answer. Seems a bit shifty to me, but not enough to where I would vote for him.

4. Dfaraday - He tried to talk some sense into me vis a vis Epi:

Dfaraday wrote: Clearly enough people agreed with him to not lynch Jack right away, so this feels like you're trying to shift the blame onto Epi.

It just took me a long drive to start thinking about it. The only other things I know about him are that he randomized a vote for me on day 1 and he almost got lynched on day 1 or 2.

5. Quin - Called me out from the get-go for being myself and then sunk into the shadows for a while after he lost that argument, only to reemerge when it was clear I would be up for lynch. Definitely sets off alarm bells. If you go back to Parks and Rec mafia and look at Leslie Knope's posts, I made a lot of posts like the one Quin went after in this game. I also got lynched on day 4 and flipped civ. Quin is definitely on my list.

6. llama - Not feeling too great about this one either. In my limited experience, I've found that the second person to jump on something is usually more likely to be the bad one, and llama did that when Quin called me out. Llama has also not been contributing very much and hasn't provided anything new to the hunt. Slightly worse than Quin imo.

7. LC - I called him out before and he ignored it, which is never a good sign, but he seems to be patient and non-opportunistic. I think he knows more than he lets on, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Leaning civ on him.

8. Epi - I've warmed a bit to Epi, but not enough to say civ read. I went on the attack recently because I was convinced I was right about Epi, but looking back I just got tunnel vision. Some of my points still stand and I don't believe the Eloh argument. Just because you haven't done something before doesn't mean you won't do it now.

9. Wilgy - Was my primary suspect before the whole thing with Epi. Still not sure on him. He wasn't hesitant to correct me on his involvement with the lynching of SVS, but he also tried to correct me on the argument about whether or not to lynch Jack and when I went back to look at the posts, he was wrong--but it was really just splitting hairs. Mostly neutral on him with a slight baddie lean.

10. Mac - My top suspect. Day 1 he voted for me without explanation right when the vote was going to end, despite having voiced suspicion for Jack. Then when Jack was revealed, Mac tried to get himself a known-civ status until people shut that down. If he was so good that he tone-read Jack on day 1, why didn't he vote that way? I think he was mafia throwing out an accusation against another person so that when that person flipped bad he could go back and say he called it on day 1. Mac will be getting my vote today.

If I missed anyone, please let me know. And if there's anything I haven't addressed, let me know that too. I was hoping to do more here, but I have a paper and a bunch of reading that need done and I really don't have time to do digging.

My rainbow list:

Mac
Llama
Quin
Floyd
Epi
Wilgy
Dfaraday
Marmot
LC
notsawyer

Before I get started, I decided to illustrate how much (little) each of our votes count.

To start, I created the unit of measurement we'll call the "Floyd" unit.

7 Floyd posts over 7 Floyd posts gives one Floyd unit.

Dfaraday: .37 Floyds
Dr. Wilgy: .06 Floyds
Epignosis: .03 Floyds
LC: .06 Floyds
Mac: .09 Floyds
Marmot: .05 Floyds
Myself: .13 Floyds
Quin: .07 Floyds
llama: .07 Floyds

Total (excluding Floyd): .93 Floyds.

We couldn't lynch Floyd if all of us agreed to vote for him. Mac's vote against him is irrelevant.

Hey guys. I was pretty busy yesterday, so I apologize for not getting a chance to reply to everything. I had three votes when I checked in briefly yesterday and now I have four (two of those weighted heavily against me), so I want to do my best to help out before I'm lynched. It's gonna take me some time to gather all my responses together, so bear with me. I didn't ignore things yesterday, I just didn't have time to respond adequately and was checking in as a courtesy.

While I was on my long, boring commute home yesterday I was doing some thinking about how nobody has supported me in the case of notsawyer vs.Epi, so I'll be casting my tunnel vision aside while I gather my thoughts on everyone. Don't be surprised if I end up voting for someone else today.

I'm going to be out of the house until this evening. I'll catch back up and post my overall thoughts on everyone as soon as I get a chance.

One question I would like answered is: Have I really been forcing evidence to fit my conclusions, or has Epi's Fox-News-style misrepresentation of facts and events fooled too many of you?

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:I don't need to make anything fit, and I don't believe you.

I don't care that you don't believe me. If you are a civilian, your task is to figure out if you should believe me and try to frame my posts in the context of being from a civilian. You've given no time to that and made up your mind despite the real evidence working against your suspicion.

What evidence?

I don't need to make anything fit, and I don't believe you.

Epignosis wrote:You didn't catch anything. You're acting like I attempted to grab a bunch of credit for lynching Scotty with the underlined statement. Then you blame me and Wilgy for people agreeing with my suspicion of S~V~S. If lynching Jack was so important to you, you should have done a better job than me in making a case for that and getting people to agree with you. And I didn't get S~V~S lynched. Over a half a dozen people did. Are they all bad?

What's the narrative going to be when you lynch me and see that I'm not bad?

I did a better job than you in that argument. You just have more influence over other players than I do, and I don't believe you're going to flip civ if we lynch you.

DFaraday wrote:Jack wouldn't have poisoned discussion if everyone just ignored him. I find Epi's argument that we could identify teammates of Jack understandable, and am not sure why that makes him bad. Clearly enough people agreed with him to not lynch Jack right away, so this feels like you're trying to shift the blame onto Epi.

I'm voting Julian Castro because he used to be our mayor.

I don't believe that that alone makes Epi bad. I think Epi's inconsistencies, as well as the argument that it can't possibly be Epi because Eloh and Epi's reaction to my suspicion of him are what further solidify my suspicion of him.

Long Con wrote:Also, I voted Elizabeth Warren, because Hillary Points.

Me too! I love Hillary points!

Epignosis wrote:"Good catch." "Another good catch."

Please. If you are a civilian, you would be defending the shit out of me, except, well, you don't know that Eloh is my wife and I wouldn't kill her Night 1. Jack didn't know that. People keep acting like I'm the kind of person that would kill her to fuck with everyone. Am I? People also think I have this huge reputation where I would throw my teammates under the bus at every turn, but I have only done that one intentionally, and only twice because of circumstance. If you think you've caught me because I forgot something or because I don't say what you want to hear, guess what?

"You a damn fool." -Boo

Do you honestly believe that there wouldn't be at least one person on an entire baddie team who would know that you and Eloh are married?

I don't think we've caught you because you "forgot" things a couple times. I know we've caught you because of the way you've been controlling the narrative the entire time. You got Scotty. Bravo. But then when we were handed a baddie on a silver platter, you and Wilgy convinced everyone not to lynch him against all reason. You let a baddie live so that he can further influence and poison the voting and the discussion. Then you got SVS lynched, who was civ. Now you think I'm bad because I've had the audacity to name you as one of my top suspects--despite the fact that all of your efforts have been centered around lynching two people who weren't mafia and not lynching the guy who was.

Epignosis wrote:No it doesn't. You don't get a bonus Day phase because you lynch Jack. You merely postpone actually having to do work. Lynching Jack Day 2 would also not preclude lynching S~V~S Day 3.

You're either not getting this or you're refusing to. I'm not saying that a whole new day is created. I'm saying that generally we would have more to go off of on day 3 than we would on day 2, and a smaller pool of civilians as well. Thus lowering the chance for mislynch.

Marmot wrote:Given that you said this, then absolutely yes!

Good catch.

Epignosis wrote:Oh wait, I did have a reason. I was just taking my vote off DrWilgy to give him some room so he wouldn't end up feeling like he had to vote Jack. You were just a bystander. I do not know if you are an innocent one.

Pedaling backwards doesn't slow you down.

Marmot wrote:How did you forget Quin was in this game, you had a lengthy back-and-forth with him about whether or not you would murder FZ, and also called him a civilian.

Another good catch.

Epignosis wrote:I feel like there is zero rational thought taking place in this thread right now. Zero.

Like when SVS was lynched over Jack?

thellama73 wrote:I quite like that you're moving you vote a lot. If nothing else, it has increased discussion. Sawyer is bad and just looking for flimsy things to pin on you.

I find it interesting how you consistently throw my name out as a suspect or a baddie but never have any arguments to make as to why you think that way.

Marmot wrote:I do find this post from notsawyer suspicious.

notsawyer540 wrote:Things are really heating up in here.

Despite notsawyer being suspicious of Epignosis, this is the only thing had to say after I posted my case and while I've been accusing you.

I'd expect him to have more input on this whole thing if he was sincere.

I had a friend show up unannounced at the end of my workout. I checked the thread quickly while I was waiting for the shower to warm up and didn't have time to make a long post because I didn't want to be a bad host. He's smoking with my roommate right now, so I'm taking advantage of the time.

Quin wrote:I don't really care that Epi forgot about me. I'm not surprised because I haven't been around in this game as much as I usually am. I'd rather pay attention to this gross post centered around overconfidence and bad logic.

Spoiler: show

notsawyer540 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Rip Eloh.

Everyone lets refrain from voting from Jack immediately.

Is this what you're talking about? If so, there is a difference between it and this:

DrWilgy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Given that data, I think it is reasonable to assume the entire mafia is powerless beyond a kill.

I don't mind lynching Jackie O, but I would only do so as a last resort. Lynching exposed mafia only keeps his teammates out of discussion and pressure.

This.

Scotty basically hog tied and handed us a hostage.

You go from essentially saying, "let's take our time and discuss things" to "I agree with Epi. We should keep him around."

You see the inconsistency? You waited until someone else floated the idea of keeping him around and jumped right on board. Then a civ got lynched. My facts aren't and weren't wrong.

What's so gross? I don't see any "bad logic" in there. Remember that time SVS got lynched instead of Jack when everyone knew Jack was bad? Where was your logic-o-meter then?

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Now that Phenon has ended I can say that my accusation of Sawyer for discrediting his own take on an argument is a tried and tested baddie tell. Follow me (tomorrow)

I'm already there.

Didn't see this coming. I hope sanity takes over and I don't become the next SVS. At least one of the two of you is a baddie, and Epi's reaction to what I've said, as well as Marmot's digging has led me to believe that it is Epi. I'll be voting for Epi should I live through the night.

Hopefully this secret mission works out well in our favor. Maybe a civvie win on day 4!

Things are really heating up in here.

Quote fail. That was supposed to be one post.

I put off my workout long enough for today. I'll be back in a bit.

DrWilgy wrote:Are these not the same? We are still going to lynch JoH, but we are taking our time. Never did I specify phase. Also if Epi and I are teammates, why would've I waited for my teammate to float an idea? I could've just stated it myself. I also don't see a scenario where I'd ever adamantly stand on a view with a teammate, but that's just me.

Are you sying it's my fault a civ got lynched?

Linki - how is it logical? How? What logic did you use to decide this.

I'm saying you played a part.

As far as how it's logical, I discussed this to death before. Lynching someone we know is bad sooner rather than later gives us more time to avoid making the kind of mistake that lynching SVS was. Not only would we have had an extra day to make a more rational decision, the mafia kill a civ every night, so the odds of a mislynch go down every day.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I don't know. I'm not counting.

I wish I had been. It's quite a few, and iirc it hasn't been the confirmed baddie at all.

So moving my vote around a lot means I'm bad. Got it.

notsawyer540 wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:Linkitis: I definitely believe it's in the realm of possibility. Epi helped us get Scotty (who wasn't even mafia) and then convinced a bunch of people to lynch SVS instead of a confirmed baddie.

Epignosis wrote:So the fact that I'm persuasive enough to get a bunch of people to vote for S~V~S makes me suspicious?

You're going to have to lynch someone who isn't Jack eventually. Doing so sooner was the preferred choice of many, irrespective of who got lynched.

Nothing wrong with being persuasive. I agreed with your assessment of Scotty on day one and helped lynch him. What I was talking about was the fact that you've helped lynch one indie role, one civ, and refuse to vote for someone you know is bad.

You're going to have to lynch Jack eventually. Doing so sooner is the more logical decision, irrespective of how many people you convince otherwise.

Deal with it mate. Jack has a team. My job is to find them. I don't accomplish that by going, "Okay, voting Jack."

Stick to your guns then. My job is to find and kill baddies, because that's how the game works. What's the preferred ending to a day for you: lynching a civ or lynching a baddie?

Linki: Lynching Jack was (and is) the smart choice. I'm sure SVS would agree with that.

Epignosis wrote:I don't know. I'm not counting.

I wish I had been. It's quite a few, and iirc it hasn't been the confirmed baddie at all.

notsawyer540 wrote:Linkitis: I definitely believe it's in the realm of possibility. Epi helped us get Scotty (who wasn't even mafia) and then convinced a bunch of people to lynch SVS instead of a confirmed baddie.

Epignosis wrote:So the fact that I'm persuasive enough to get a bunch of people to vote for S~V~S makes me suspicious?

You're going to have to lynch someone who isn't Jack eventually. Doing so sooner was the preferred choice of many, irrespective of who got lynched.

Nothing wrong with being persuasive. I agreed with your assessment of Scotty on day one and helped lynch him. What I was talking about was the fact that you've helped lynch one indie role, one civ, and refuse to vote for someone you know is bad.

You're going to have to lynch Jack eventually. Doing so sooner is the more logical decision, irrespective of how many people you convince otherwise.

DrWilgy wrote:Rip Eloh.

Everyone lets refrain from voting from Jack immediately.

Is this what you're talking about? If so, there is a difference between it and this:

DrWilgy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Given that data, I think it is reasonable to assume the entire mafia is powerless beyond a kill.

I don't mind lynching Jackie O, but I would only do so as a last resort. Lynching exposed mafia only keeps his teammates out of discussion and pressure.

This.

Scotty basically hog tied and handed us a hostage.

You go from essentially saying, "let's take our time and discuss things" to "I agree with Epi. We should keep him around."

You see the inconsistency? You waited until someone else floated the idea of keeping him around and jumped right on board. Then a civ got lynched. My facts aren't and weren't wrong.

DrWilgy wrote:Remember that time I pointed out your facts were wrong Sawyer and you responded with "dun dun duuuun" amd didn't engage me even though I gave you every opportunity to do so?

You said you were the first person to suggest not lynching a baddie? Am I remembering that correctly? I'll go back and see if that's true. Give me a minute.

Long Con wrote:An audacious move for a baddie to make.

Just like killing their significant other on the first day.

I'm very suspicious of Epi, but like I said, Wilgy seems a bit more scummy and it's a lot more plausible that he's bad.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Marmot wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I took my vote off of Wilgy and placed it on MM.

And I forgot Quin was even in this.

I'm busy.

Why'd you put your vote on me. You just asked everyone where they'd vote and why. What's your why?

My vote isn't on you. It's on notsawyer for the horrible theory about me he just posted.

You asked for people to post their ideas not relating to Jack and I answered. Seems a bit petty and insincere to vote against someone because they voiced suspicion against you. Not really a civ move imo.

My perspective of your theory is entirely sincere.

How many people have you voted for today?

Linkitis: I definitely believe it's in the realm of possibility. Epi helped us get Scotty (who wasn't even mafia) and then convinced a bunch of people to lynch SVS instead of a confirmed baddie.

Epignosis wrote:

Marmot wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I took my vote off of Wilgy and placed it on MM.

And I forgot Quin was even in this.

I'm busy.

Why'd you put your vote on me. You just asked everyone where they'd vote and why. What's your why?

My vote isn't on you. It's on notsawyer for the horrible theory about me he just posted.

You asked for people to post their ideas not relating to Jack and I answered. Seems a bit petty and insincere to vote against someone because they voiced suspicion against you. Not really a civ move imo.

Just caught back up.

I'm going to leave my vote on Jack. However, if I were to vote for someone else today it would be Wilgy because of the way he supported Epi's argument for keeping Jack alive but added little to no substance to the debate. It seemed to me like he was taking advantage of the debate to try to keep Jack alive longer. My second suspect is Epi. At first I thought either Wilgy or Epi was bad, but now I think it's possible that it's both after their back and forth about Eloh and whether or not her death on night one confirms Epi as civ. This struck me as an attempt to distance themselves from each other after they both convinced everyone not to kill Jack--in the hopes that if we lynched Wilgy and he flipped bad, we wouldn't look twice at Epi. If I had to name two people I thought were working together, it would be them.

My other suspects are Mac and LC, in that order. I've already discussed my Mac suspicions to death. LC, on the other hand, has been pretty lackadaisical about his voting and hasn't really added much to the conversation as far as baddie hunting goes. His first two votes were for llama without elaboration or explanation, and now he appears to be piggy-backing of what other people say.

Voting Jack. Let's get rid of this guy.

DrWilgy wrote:Technically, I spoke about not voting Jack first.

Dun dun dunnnnnn!

thellama73 wrote:Thank you, that's much easier to follow. Although we know SVS was lynched without you telling us. It was in the Host Post.

Gee I must have missed that.

thellama73 wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Sawyer, what was the point of flooding the thread with 12 huge quotes with minimal commentary? Do you really expect anyone to get anything out of that, or are you just trying to look like you are trying?

I was pretty pissed about SVS getting lynched and pretty tipsy before I logged in. Now that I've read why SVS was lynched, I get it. I would've considered voting for her on day 3. However, it does not make any sense that it happened on day 2.

Also, your questions here are quite misleading and your accusatory tone is quite suspicious. Instead of discussing any of the actual content, you criticize me in general. Is it annoying that I quoted all of that without trimming it down? Yes. Do I need to explain everything when it's safe to assume everyone here can read? No.

How is my question misleading? What is it leading people to think? And if being accusatory is suspicious, than anyone playing the game is suspicious. The point of Mafia is to accuse people. So put that eye back in its socket.

I genuinely don't understand what point you were trying to make with all those quotes. Can you explain it to me in less than 20,000 words?

Epi actively promoted not lynching a known baddie and Wilgy jumped right on the opportunity to support that idea without hesitation. Then SVS was lynched instead of the guy we know is bad. Looks suspicious to me.

Voted for his wife because Hillary points are awesome.

MacDougall wrote:While I think SVS is Mafia and ordinarily would vote for her I KNOW Jack is and voting for him today seems a better idea to me. Cool we managed to find a great day 3 lynch candidate already but how can we truly justify lynching SVS before Jack?

MacDougall wrote:How is that suspicious? Also answer my question. You aren't even a civ read of mine so I'm super interested in how you can justify your wagon creation here as well as this arrogant single smiley post response to a very fair question. The vote is too close now to not lynch Jack.

MacDougall wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Lynching the known badder today does nothing for us though. We shoulda lynched DF instead.

It does nothing? Except remove a bad guy and prevent the chance of mislynching a civ for another full night and day phase. You know like the ideal outcome of a day.

I just finished my catch-up and I thought Mac had flip-flopped here, but then I realized it was actually Wilgy who was jumping on board the "let's not lynch the bad guy" train. If you scroll up to the post where I had the wall of quotes, you'll see ones from Wilgy in there. In my alcohol-soaked fervor I mistakenly thought those were Mac even though they were Wilgy.

I still find Mac suspicious for the other reasons I mentioned, but he has earned some points in my book for actually wanting to lynch a baddie.

thellama73 wrote:Sawyer, what was the point of flooding the thread with 12 huge quotes with minimal commentary? Do you really expect anyone to get anything out of that, or are you just trying to look like you are trying?

I was pretty pissed about SVS getting lynched and pretty tipsy before I logged in. Now that I've read why SVS was lynched, I get it. I would've considered voting for her on day 3. However, it does not make any sense that it happened on day 2.

Also, your questions here are quite misleading and your accusatory tone is quite suspicious. Instead of discussing any of the actual content, you criticize me in general. Is it annoying that I quoted all of that without trimming it down? Yes. Do I need to explain everything when it's safe to assume everyone here can read? No.

RIP SVS.

I'm only on page 13, so idk why SVS was killed yet, but I want to post this here so I can close some tabs and have it all in one place. I'm about two bottles of wine deep, so forgive me if I make any typos or mistakes.

Epignosis wrote:As I said, she's a low poster by reputation. She had thirteen here.

As for Wilgy's vote, I'm not voting for Jack today either.

Epignosis wrote:Jackie O is vanilla.

I was comfortable keeping him around, saying that I would rather lynch the mafia member with an ability.

However, I looked back and saw that none of us (the RED vs. BLUE mafia) had any ability at all, and there was a third party, and Trump had an ability.

Given that data, I think it is reasonable to assume the entire mafia is powerless beyond a kill.

I don't mind lynching Jackie O, but I would only do so as a last resort. Lynching exposed mafia only keeps his teammates out of discussion and pressure.

DrWilgy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Given that data, I think it is reasonable to assume the entire mafia is powerless beyond a kill.

I don't mind lynching Jackie O, but I would only do so as a last resort. Lynching exposed mafia only keeps his teammates out of discussion and pressure.

This.

Scotty basically hog tied and handed us a hostage.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but going after someone else could get an innocent person killed and set us back one lynch. If we get Jack now and go after someone else on day 3, that gives us a whole extra day's worth of information to base our decision off of. Leaving Jack alive just gives the baddies more of an advantage.

What information does it give civilians and what advantage does it give mafia?

Having an extra day of posts and discussion makes it more likely that mafia will slip up and it gives us more time and more evidence to make a good decision. People randomize their votes on day 1 because there's very little information to go off of. Wouldn't it make sense to lynch someone we know is bad today and make a more informed decision tomorrow than we would if we went after someone else today? Even if we're only slightly more informed?

What information do you gain by lynching someone you know is bad today?

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:What information do you gain by lynching someone you know is bad today?

We would have an extra day and night to make an informed decision based off of the posts and interactions that take place in that time. I just think we're more likely to make a mistake the earlier it is in the game. We got pretty lucky day 1, and I don't think we should push it. The logic just doesn't add up to me.

Do you think it'll be easier to catch other baddies by leaving him alive? If so, how?

How would you have an extra Day and Night? You're going to have the same number of Days and Nights whether you lynch Jack now or lynch him later. Does the number of mafia change depending upon when you lynch them? No. It doesn't.

There are (probably) three Mafia. You know one of them. You lynch him. He's out. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3. How does that make you more informed than the alternative below?

You know one of the mafia. You keep him around. Someone else is lynched, good or bad. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:How would you have an extra Day and Night? You're going to have the same number of Days and Nights whether you lynch Jack now or lynch him later. Does the number of mafia change depending upon when you lynch them? No. It doesn't.

There are (probably) three Mafia. You know one of them. You lynch him. He's out. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3. How does that make you more informed than the alternative below?

You know one of the mafia. You keep him around. Someone else is lynched, good or bad. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3.

More time = more posts. More posts = more information. More information = better decision. Right? Am I missing something?

I know I'm not as experienced as a lot of other players, but in this case my logic just makes more sense to me.

Your time doesn't change because you lynch Jack. You still get Day 3, do you not? People will make fewer posts during Day 2 if Jack is automatic lynch.

If you lynch Jack now, you get Day 3 and nobody talked about anything else Day 2.

If you leave Jack alone now, you get Day 3 and you force everybody else to talk about other people instead of Jack Day 2.

See?

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Your time doesn't change because you lynch Jack. You still get Day 3, do you not? People will make fewer posts during Day 2 if Jack is automatic lynch.

If you lynch Jack now, you get Day 3 and nobody talked about anything else Day 2.

If you leave Jack alone now, you get Day 3 and you force everybody else to talk about other people instead of Jack Day 2.

See?

I see what you're saying, but we're having a discussion now. And other people will weigh in on the things we say and we can weigh in on the things that they say, etc. I guess it's just a matter of strategy, but advocating not lynching a bad guy definitely seems odd to me.

Listen:

The objective to Mafia is to find out who is bad. Lynching them is the easy part.

Granted, if this were some scenario where there were secrets involved and vote manipulations, I'd be all for lynching the bad guy and being done with it.

In this particular scenario, there is one team, probably with three powerless people, and no independent to muddy things. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is already dead. His vote is useless because nobody is going to follow him. His voice is useless because it's just white noise now.

Use Day 2 to find his team. Lynch them. If you're wrong, so what? You would have been wrong Day 3 instead.

DrWilgy wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Listen:

The objective to Mafia is to find out who is bad. Lynching them is the easy part.

Granted, if this were some scenario where there were secrets involved and vote manipulations, I'd be all for lynching the bad guy and being done with it.

In this particular scenario, there is one team, probably with three powerless people, and no independent to muddy things. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is already dead. His vote is useless because nobody is going to follow him. His voice is useless because it's just white noise now.

Use Day 2 to find his team. Lynch them. If you're wrong, so what? You would have been wrong Day 3 instead.

But you don't KNOW that you would be wrong on day 3 instead. It's a numbers game, and unless the mafia kill gets blocked or interrupted in some way tonight there will be a smaller chance of lynching a civ tomorrow because there will be one less civ.

What would the mafia prefer: Being down one player or having a full team where only one of them is known? I think mafia would prefer having that extra player even if they are outed, because the odds are on their side.

When I'm remotely scared that we are at a lynch or lose situation then we can kill jack. Easy.

@Epi, I would like for you to go through Quin next if possible. I saw you mention him earlier and I'm curious if you read his interactions with Jack as teammate indicative or not.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Listen:

The objective to Mafia is to find out who is bad. Lynching them is the easy part.

Granted, if this were some scenario where there were secrets involved and vote manipulations, I'd be all for lynching the bad guy and being done with it.

In this particular scenario, there is one team, probably with three powerless people, and no independent to muddy things. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is already dead. His vote is useless because nobody is going to follow him. His voice is useless because it's just white noise now.

Use Day 2 to find his team. Lynch them. If you're wrong, so what? You would have been wrong Day 3 instead.

But you don't KNOW that you would be wrong on day 3 instead. It's a numbers game, and unless the mafia kill gets blocked or interrupted in some way tonight there will be a smaller chance of lynching a civ tomorrow because there will be one less civ.

What would the mafia prefer: Being down one player or having a full team where only one of them is known? I think mafia would prefer having that extra player even if they are outed, because the odds are on their side.

And you would be wrong.

Stop worry about the outed mafia. Pretend he doesn't exist.

Now play.

Epignosis wrote:Stop worry. Jesus.

Epignosis wrote:Let me try that again: Stop worrying about the outed member of the mafia. Who are his teammates and why? Go after them.

MacDougall wrote:If we leave Jack alive we need to have unanimous lynch candidates or he can literally pop up and hammer people he knows to be civ. So basically if we are reaching end of day and have no unanimous candidate, we have to lynch him.

Otherwise yeah ignore him for the rest of the day and if we can find a unanimous candidate ignore everything he does as wifom.

Misplaced condescension aside, I find it hard to believe that Epi would be so daring on day 2 as to so obviously play into the mafia's hand against any semblance of logic and ACTUALLY be mafia. I'm not ruling Epi out, as it could be an extremely daring WIFOM.

The way I see Epi so far: He (or she?) made a good (or lucky?) call on day 1 that certainly had me convinced. We lynched what was essentially the serial killer player. But that doesn't make Epi good. As far as we know, Epi was looking for another other than his or her team to lynch. If Scotty's not on Epi's team, then what the fuck does Epi care if Scotty's killed?

On to Mac. Mac was suspicious of Jack before Jack was revealed to be Ted Cruz. Mac sure as hell made sure that was known after that revelation was made. He made attempts to portray himself as a "known civ" until people called him out. Mac, why'd you back off from that? Then when the day 1 vote comes around, he votes the same way as Quin, Llama, and Dfaraday (who ya'll were ABOUT to lynch last time I checked). That vote was for me. Mac voted without any explanation, and seemingly as a joke; as if it didn't matter who got lynched. Then Epi starts arguing with me about the inane idea of keeping Jack alive so we can figure out who the other bad guys are when we KNOW we can get rid of one and Mac jumps right the fuck on board with that idea.

I'm not sure what to think about Epi. Maybe Epi's guilty as shit; maybe not. But Mac hasn't hesitated to take advantage of opportunity.

Hey everyone. I'm a couple pages behind, but I just wanted to check in and let ya'll know I've been writing for one of my classes for the last 12 hours and I still have another midterm to study for before I drive to school tomorrow. I'll be home after the vote, so I'm leaving my vote on Jack because I know for sure he's bad. I'll try to make time to catch up before I leave in the morning, but I can't make any promises.

Epignosis wrote:Listen:

The objective to Mafia is to find out who is bad. Lynching them is the easy part.

Granted, if this were some scenario where there were secrets involved and vote manipulations, I'd be all for lynching the bad guy and being done with it.

In this particular scenario, there is one team, probably with three powerless people, and no independent to muddy things. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is already dead. His vote is useless because nobody is going to follow him. His voice is useless because it's just white noise now.

Use Day 2 to find his team. Lynch them. If you're wrong, so what? You would have been wrong Day 3 instead.

But you don't KNOW that you would be wrong on day 3 instead. It's a numbers game, and unless the mafia kill gets blocked or interrupted in some way tonight there will be a smaller chance of lynching a civ tomorrow because there will be one less civ.

What would the mafia prefer: Being down one player or having a full team where only one of them is known? I think mafia would prefer having that extra player even if they are outed, because the odds are on their side.

Epignosis wrote:
Your time doesn't change because you lynch Jack. You still get Day 3, do you not? People will make fewer posts during Day 2 if Jack is automatic lynch.

If you lynch Jack now, you get Day 3 and nobody talked about anything else Day 2.

If you leave Jack alone now, you get Day 3 and you force everybody else to talk about other people instead of Jack Day 2.

See?

I see what you're saying, but we're having a discussion now. And other people will weigh in on the things we say and we can weigh in on the things that they say, etc. I guess it's just a matter of strategy, but advocating not lynching a bad guy definitely seems odd to me.

"I think it'll LEAD to a more informative...

Quin wrote:Would I be correct in saying that you care more about the 'safe' choice, as opposed to the 'informative' choice?

I care equally about both. I think it's smarter to make the safe choice on day 2 than it is on day 3, and I think it'll to a more informative choice on day 3 than it would the other way around.

thellama73 wrote:The question is, is our chance of making a mistake and lynching a civilian accidentally greater on Day 2 or on Day 3? I tend to think it's better on Day 2, because we have fewer posts to analyze and, assuming there is a night kill, a greater pool of civilians to choose from.

This. I thought I was crazy for a few minutes there.

Epignosis wrote:How would you have an extra Day and Night? You're going to have the same number of Days and Nights whether you lynch Jack now or lynch him later. Does the number of mafia change depending upon when you lynch them? No. It doesn't.

There are (probably) three Mafia. You know one of them. You lynch him. He's out. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3. How does that make you more informed than the alternative below?

You know one of the mafia. You keep him around. Someone else is lynched, good or bad. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3.

More time = more posts. More posts = more information. More information = better decision. Right? Am I missing something?

I know I'm not as experienced as a lot of other players, but in this case my logic just makes more sense to me.

Epignosis wrote:What information do you gain by lynching someone you know is bad today?

We would have an extra day and night to make an informed decision based off of the posts and interactions that take place in that time. I just think we're more likely to make a mistake the earlier it is in the game. We got pretty lucky day 1, and I don't think we should push it. The logic just doesn't add up to me.

Do you think it'll be easier to catch other baddies by leaving him alive? If so, how?

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but going after someone else could get an innocent person killed and set us back one lynch. If we get Jack now and go after someone else on day 3, that gives us a whole extra day's worth of information to base our decision off of. Leaving Jack alive just gives the baddies more of an advantage.

What information does it give civilians and what advantage does it give mafia?

Having an extra day of posts and discussion makes it more likely that mafia will slip up and it gives us more time and more evidence to make a good decision. People randomize their votes on day 1 because there's very little information to go off of. Wouldn't it make sense to lynch someone we know is bad today and make a more informed decision tomorrow than we would if we went after someone else today? Even if we're only slightly more informed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but going after someone else could get an innocent person killed and set us back one lynch. If we get Jack now and go after someone else on day 3, that gives us a whole extra day's worth of information to base our decision off of. Leaving Jack alive just gives the baddies more of an advantage.

Eloh didn't come across as a low poster to me. I'll have to go back and look at all her posts.

Not sure if you're just messing around, Wigly, but why would you place a vote on Quin when Jack is outed?

Quin wrote:What do you think about things that are not me? Or even me in a different context.

As I previously mentioned, our exchange rubbed me the wrong way, and I think that there was an attempted bus on me (to save Jack) before Scotty got lynched. It would make sense that at least one of the four people who voted for me are bad. Llama agreed with you about me, Dfaraday claimed to have randomized me, and Mac (unless I missed his explanation) appeared to have voted for me just for shits and giggles when it didn't matter any more.

Dfaraday has only 3 posts, last I checked. He voted at random, saying he had no idea who to vote for.

Mac voted for me in the 11th hour when it was irrelevant. Then he was all proud when Jack was outed, because he "called it."

Regardless of whether or not I'm correct about it being an attempted bus, I would like for someone to explain to me why both of those votes don't look shady as shit.

I suppose we're at an impasse.

I'm going to assume you meant to say "were," because otherwise you'd be agreeing with me. If that's the case, it brings us back to the misunderstanding bit. You simply didn't understand what I was saying. Perhaps I could've worded it better, but that hangover I mentioned was really fucking with my focus.

Or are you just mad at me for being a redhead?

I see what you're saying now, but I don't see how that screams "guilty." I was being straightforward. I didn't find you suspicious at the time I posted that AND I haven't played much with you or most of the other people on this forum. Those aren't mutually exclusive statements, and there's no inconsistency. To me you're throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Quin wrote:I think you're ignoring what my beef actually is. It's not just me that holds the opinion I do, so it's not for no reason.

I've addressed it multiple times now. I don't see what you're talking about. From my perspective you misunderstood what I wrote, either unintentionally or otherwise. I sure as shit wouldn't keep bringing it up if I had made any sort of mistake. Did I violate some sort of unwritten rule of mafia etiquette that I'm not aware of?

RIP Eloh. Judging by what SVS said, it would've been nice to have you around late-game.

I'm gonna go ahead and vote for Jack now, but I'll still participate in the discussion. As far as Quin is concerned, I already mentioned that I found it super shady the way he attacked me for no reason. After the way the voting went down, it seems pretty obvious from my perspective that I was the intended victim of a bus. I don't know how many of the people who voted for me are mafia, but I'd be willing to bet it was at least one.

MacDougall wrote:That is one dangerous indy role. Thanks Scotty though for vindicating me.

MacDougall wrote:Let's talk more about how I tone read a Mafia player on day 1 again.

Yeah, but you took your vote off of him and placed it on me, so I don't see that as vindication. And I see these two followup posts as an attempt to become a "confirmed civ."

FZ. wrote:What a pleasant surprise. To be honest, I didn't think JackOH was bad. Not to take anything from Scotty's hunting skills, I don't think he would have wanted to take out a baddie, since that would mean he would have to be the last man standing, and that is probably harder than winning with the mafia, but who knows. I don't get why he was going after the person he wanted to take down with him anyway. Wouldn't that be a waste?

I have a screen cap from before I changed my time from Summer. So it's at least 50 minutes before the end of the day, but I believe it was earlier. I opened another window at some point to see the names of the players, and I did it much earlier. How do I post it?

Looking at the voting pattern, Quin voted for notsawyer after Jack had 2 votes. A good way to try and save your friend. Scotty didn't have votes at that point yet (unless I missed a switch of vote somewhere along the way). So I think that would be a good place to start. Baddies often like to vote early on a lynch wagon so they don't seem like they are bandwagoning. If his suspicions were genuine, DF is another good option to look into.

Epi, I have to disagree on Mac. It doesn't seem contrived to me, not to mention the fact that Jack was not at risk of getting lynched at the time Mac moved his vote from him to notsawyer, and keeping it there would have looked pretty good for him later on
I tend to agree on llama.His confusion between Jack and Sawyer felt genuine, and I actually found it hard to set the two apart at first.

Then, there's the list of those voting for Scotty. I believe the baddies probably spread their votes around, and since Jack put his vote there, the chances for another baddie there are lower. I don't think it's notsawyer because I think he was being used as a possible target. I now don't think it's Marmot either.
Not sure yet whether you could be bad, but I'm not seeing it for now, and Eloh feels good to me.

I think there is a baddie in one of the solo voters or someone who didn't vote

Good work. What do you think is the most important thing we should take from this?

Also, I would like to point out that DFaraday, who has only three posts so far, came in close to the vote and claimed that he "randomized" his vote for me. Does anyone know of any scheduling or personal issues that preclude him from participating more fully?

While I'm on the topic of scheduling, I have three classes today and my commute is about an hour, so I'll be out with no computer access until it's Daytime in-game.

NVM checked front page and apparently jack is still alive.

To help with the new poll:

So is Ted Cruz dead or do we have to lynch him day 2? It says "he is" in the post where it says "he was" for Assange. So I'm assuming he have to lynch Jack next.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What intricacies?

How well the players know one another's personalities and play-styles.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Seems like you're both saying you don't understand why Mac is voting for me AND you think he is voting me cause I'm suspicious because of culture clash/lack of skill/experience.

Which is it?

I'm not sure how you got that. I asked him for something substantial as opposed to just not liking the "cut of (your) jib." Do people on this site intentionally misinterpret what I say no matter how clear and direct I am?

Long Con wrote:Ok, so:


Jack


Not Sawyer

... damn, that didn't help.

So... am I not Sawyer or not Jack? Or Batman?

thellama73 wrote:Oh, wait a minute. Notsawyer is the one who apologized for not being entertaining. Same question to you, Notsawyer. Who do you suspect and why?

I was being sarcastic because I had addressed the accusations of being "wishy-washy" earlier in that same post. I'll try to remember to use sarcastic orange from now on.

MacDougall wrote:Lynch jackofhearts team and we will be sitting pretty.

As several people have already asked, what about him makes you say that? Can you give me or anyone else a solid reason to vote for him? It seems to me that he's just not as adept at playing this game on this forum, which is something I can relate to. There are a lot of intricacies and stuff a lot of you are aware of.

Epignosis wrote:I'm skeptical. First off, how does Scotty drive, text, and flip a coin?

Of the votes cast, I find yours, Scotty, to be the least genuine. I don't believe you flipped a coin (how could a coin have multiple sides- surely there were multiple people who qualified as low posters). I'm going to pull the exact quote:

"I actually flipped a coin among a few of you that had low posts and [Jack] came up [...]"

Explain to me how you "actually" (your word) flipped a coin to decide among a "few" (your word again) low posters.

I'm glad you caught that. I totally missed it in my efforts to catch up on the last couple pages.

As far as the vote goes, I'm going to place mine on Scotty until he can explain himself. I'll check back in before the poll closes to make my final decision, but the logic of flipping a coin between more than two options doesn't add up and I find it hard to believe that a civ with good intentions would be so flippant in their decision-making process. We're supposed to be trying to root out the bad guys--not lynch people at random.

That being said, I have not forgotten about Quin and llama's super shady attempt to discredit me. For now I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that it was just a genuine attempt to root out baddies.

Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I was saying that I didn't see an argument or any evidence as to why people thought you were bad, but qualifying it with the fact that I don't know many of the people here as well as the rest of you know each other. I've known LC for nearly a decade, which is my basis for the civ read I have on him. But I've also known him long enough to know he can't be trusted. He won the Star Wars mafia I hosted on Lostpedia as an Indy role, so I know what he's capable of.

That said, I definitely have my eye on you now for blowing what I said out of proportion. I'm just trying to be realistic, and your attempt to convince people that I was somehow discrediting my own opinion is SUPER shady in my book.

thellama73 wrote:Notsawyer's equivocating is the kind of posting I generally dislike.

"Well, but on the other hand, but maybe, I'm not too sure." Feels like trying to play all sides. I'll be you, Notsawyer.

I'm sorry it wasn't entertaining enough for you. At least I got people talking, and that's what we need to root out the bad guys.