The Syndicate 2014 Game of Champions [ENDGAME]

[thellama73]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

That's only true if the group is chosen at random. You say "any given group of players" but an obvious counterexample is "the group of players who all have mafia roles." Gruops of players are not chosen at random, they are defined by their actions, which are chosen with full knowledge of their roles.

[Marmot]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

[bea]

I have.to.o/c.today. will try.to.check in when I can.

[Mongoose]

For the record SVS, my only goal with voting you the way I did was to instigate some real Day 1 discussion. I believe I was successful. I had no suspicion of you then, nor do I have any of you now.

Per my comment on Mongoose, I was not distracting. I just wanted to point out that Mongoose has been logging onto the Syndicate and posting in other places, though she never bothered to check in on Day 0 even for this game.

Oh, I didn't mean you were distracting, sug. Your point was perfectly valid since I was AWOL.

[Roxy]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Are these Maths a joke too?
I disagree with a good portion of this.
Tbf a lot of your posts make my nose twitch.

[Roxy]

I have.to.o/c.today. will try.to.check in when I can.

[S~V~S]

For the record SVS, my only goal with voting you the way I did was to instigate some real Day 1 discussion. I believe I was successful. I had no suspicion of you then, nor do I have any of you now.

Per my comment on Mongoose, I was not distracting. I just wanted to point out that Mongoose has been logging onto the Syndicate and posting in other places, though she never bothered to check in on Day 0 even for this game.

To whom are you planning on changing your vote?

I don't plan on voting you, but I am certainly unappreciative with your approach today. You've maintained that voting early is suspicious, but somehow forget to bring up my name in that discussion. Players are bound to draw connections there. I do not want your vote, but being ignored is worse.

You didn't actually answer this yet, did you? Who are you planning on moving your vote to?

[DFaraday]

I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.

I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.

[Tangrowth]

I have been keeping up only barely and have skimmed much of some I last posted but I have been driving all morning. I doubt I will get time before the vote ends. The people who have most caught my eye are MM and LC so I will vote one of them. I don't feel great about that vote but I'm not sure how I feel about DH and I don't really feel worse about boomslang or reywaS than I do anyone else right now - I don't get those suspicions.

I think I will vote LC because I feel like he would know Rey's style better and know that his defensiveness isn't really indicative of alignment

[reywaS]

Again I should say nothing I find overly suspicious at this moment in time, but I just thought the coincidence was funny. The same sort of scenario coming up in the game that I won to get to this game, now coming up in this game. Cosmically improbable, yet here we are.

As it stands I'm mulling over a vote for LC.

DH can you expand a little on why you are mulling over a vote for LC? What are you seeing?

I don't like his exchange with Rey. I'll let you go back and read it for yourself, but it just did not ring true to me. LC is a good enough player not to want to rush into things with such slapdash and paper-thin logic

Which logic exactly was paper-thin? I don't think it makes me not a good player to have cast that vote.

And re: reywaS' point about your S~V~S post... I didn't actually read the whole comparison word-for-word, because it was to block-of-texty, but I thought the gist of it was that you were drawing a deliberate connection to suggest that S~V~S was a baddie. I think you're playing a cavalier kind of game, this isn't the first time this game you've had to do several posts of explanation how you're not really accusing anyone with your "observations".

Is that what I did?

[DharmaHelper]

Again I should say nothing I find overly suspicious at this moment in time, but I just thought the coincidence was funny. The same sort of scenario coming up in the game that I won to get to this game, now coming up in this game. Cosmically improbable, yet here we are.

As it stands I'm mulling over a vote for LC.

DH can you expand a little on why you are mulling over a vote for LC? What are you seeing?

I don't like his exchange with Rey. I'll let you go back and read it for yourself, but it just did not ring true to me. LC is a good enough player not to want to rush into things with such slapdash and paper-thin logic

Which logic exactly was paper-thin? I don't think it makes me not a good player to have cast that vote.

And re: reywaS' point about your S~V~S post... I didn't actually read the whole comparison word-for-word, because it was to block-of-texty, but I thought the gist of it was that you were drawing a deliberate connection to suggest that S~V~S was a baddie. I think you're playing a cavalier kind of game, this isn't the first time this game you've had to do several posts of explanation how you're not really accusing anyone with your "observations".

Is that what I did?

I think he means thats what I did. Though a more accurate way of looking at it would be saying that I brought up a ping and was satisfied with the response to it.

[zeek]

I'm probably going to vote for one of the more active players today. No other reason except I doubt all the mafiosa will just sit back in the big game. More inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the quiet ones at this stage in the game.

[DharmaHelper]

I'm probably going to vote for one of the more active players today. No other reason except I doubt all the mafiosa will just sit back in the big game. More inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the quiet ones at this stage in the game.

Says one of the quiet ones.

[thellama73]

I'm probably going to vote for one of the more active players today. No other reason except I doubt all the mafiosa will just sit back in the big game. More inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the quiet ones at this stage in the game.

Says one of the quiet ones.

Zing!

[DharmaHelper]

Regardless of role, I think some people are just naturally more talkative/active and some people are the opposite.

[Marmot]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Are these Maths a joke too?
I disagree with a good portion of this.
Tbf a lot of your posts make my nose twitch.

No. I was logically proving that Boomslang's theory is inaccurate.

So you disagreee with llama and agree with Boomslang?

Linki: ture

[Marmot]

For the record SVS, my only goal with voting you the way I did was to instigate some real Day 1 discussion. I believe I was successful. I had no suspicion of you then, nor do I have any of you now.

Per my comment on Mongoose, I was not distracting. I just wanted to point out that Mongoose has been logging onto the Syndicate and posting in other places, though she never bothered to check in on Day 0 even for this game.

To whom are you planning on changing your vote?

I don't plan on voting you, but I am certainly unappreciative with your approach today. You've maintained that voting early is suspicious, but somehow forget to bring up my name in that discussion. Players are bound to draw connections there. I do not want your vote, but being ignored is worse.

You didn't actually answer this yet, did you? Who are you planning on moving your vote to?

I thought that just the fact that I hadn't moved my vote would be answer enough. I don't know yet.

But I can assure you that by the end of the day, my vote will not be on you.

[Long Con]

Early voting is suspicious. We can argue this back and forth all we want but at the end of the day, early voting is suspicious.

It's only suspicious to you if you decide to think it's suspicious. Early votes are suspicious. We all know late votes are suspicious. Voting for someone who already has a vote is suspicious. Staying quiet and voting for someone who's not around much is suspicious. It's really ugly that you would try to pin suspicion on me for the timing of my vote, and then make a sweeping statement like this to make it seem normal.

I know Rey. I know Rey is a gunslinger of a player. As SVS has said, I know Rey is particularly defensive. So when I made my observations, I figured he'd be a little defensive of them, which I was prepared for and accounted for in my ping. LC knows Rey, this shouldn't really come as so much of a shock to him that Rey acted the way he did towards my comments.

I don't know that Rey is more or less defensive than any other player on this site.

I also know LC, though a bit less. LC does not strike me as the sort of guy to not account for something like Rey's style, or the type of guy to vote so early for such a poor reason with so much left to discuss. That he jumped so ravenously onto his Rey vote with reasoning that wasn't even true (He thought Rey was reacting to a post that was not about him. It was.) It just gives me a bad case of the pings.

I don't care how I "strike you", you are completely making stuff up at this point. You don't know my playstyle at all if you think that I play by comparing people to past game behaviour. I pretty much always play the game I'm playing, except in extreme cases like Dom, who drove me insane with false accusations and misrepresented facts so much in a game that it's now burned into my brain to watch out for. Rey being superdefensive? S~V~S being the one to make a Federal Case out of things? Not so much. I'll believe it if it's generally accepted to be true, but it plays little to no part in how I find my suspicions.

Speaking of oddly defensive posts:

Again I should say nothing I find overly suspicious at this moment in time, but I just thought the coincidence was funny. The same sort of scenario coming up in the game that I won to get to this game, now coming up in this game. Cosmically improbable, yet here we are.

As it stands I'm mulling over a vote for LC.

DH can you expand a little on why you are mulling over a vote for LC? What are you seeing?

I don't like his exchange with Rey. I'll let you go back and read it for yourself, but it just did not ring true to me. LC is a good enough player not to want to rush into things with such slapdash and paper-thin logic

Which logic exactly was paper-thin? I don't think it makes me not a good player to have cast that vote.

And re: reywaS' point about your S~V~S post... I didn't actually read the whole comparison word-for-word, because it was to block-of-texty, but I thought the gist of it was that you were drawing a deliberate connection to suggest that S~V~S was a baddie. I think you're playing a cavalier kind of game, this isn't the first time this game you've had to do several posts of explanation how you're not really accusing anyone with your "observations".

"You got a little defensive here in this one post" Is a wobbly, weak reason for such an early vote. I don't necessarily care if it is Day 1 or Day 8, a vote is a vote. And you can't honestly tell me it is a civvie thing to do or in the civvies best interest to vote that early for that reason.

Why not? Are you against generating discussion, and gauging reactions? You'd prefer if everyone voted low posters or random or for no reason?

This sort of tactic, answering a suspicion by asking clearly overblown and hyperbolic questions, is something I don't think any civvie would do, let alone LC as a civvie. It's obvious to anyone who reads the thread that I've been doing my fair share of discussion and encouraging discussion. On top of that, even going so far as to refer to low posters as categorically useless.

So, LC gets my vote.

You're the one using "tactics" here, DH, not me, and it should be obvious to anyone reading your posts. You're just full of adverbs, aren't you? "Ravenously", that's a good one. That's my favourite. You should know by now to tone down the excessive colour commentary in your posts. What you are trying to do is put lipstick on a pig. I'm not a baddie, my vote for Rey was because of a Day One ping, nothing more. You, however, have been doing your damnedest to be subtly mudslinging, only to back off entirely if someone acknowledges it. More than once, and that's saying a lot for Day One.

You either have no idea how I play (which is pretty doubtful, since we've been playing together for years) or you're deliberately misrepresenting my playstyle to get me lynched. Either way, none of your gameplay so far seems the least bit genuine, and you're trying to get me lynched with lies and misrepresentation.

You wanted me to place a vote with more evidence behind it than reywaS' defensiveness, so you got your wish.

[zeek]

I'm probably going to vote for one of the more active players today. No other reason except I doubt all the mafiosa will just sit back in the big game. More inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the quiet ones at this stage in the game.

Says one of the quiet ones.

I don't really feel like talking much due to the crippling pain I'm in :P

Regardless of role, I think some people are just naturally more talkative/active and some people are the opposite.

True, but they also make gameplay choices about how talkative they're going to be.

[Long Con]

I think I will vote LC because I feel like he would know Rey's style better and know that his defensiveness isn't really indicative of alignment

As I said to DH, that's not how I play. I don't know Rey's "style" to be more defensive than anyone else, and that's not how I garner my suspicions of people. I play the game I'm playing, and Rey's defensiveness seemed out of place to me.

[Marmot]

I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.

I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.

I was looking for a reaction from SVS. The question was not shifty, nor was I trying to set llama up.

[Marmot]

The only vote I have found suspicious thus far is Mongoose's, but this is Day 1, so some sympathy is required. I believe llama's "gambit" was not malicious, and he was merely trying to get Mongoose to play.

*Cue Mongoose deflection accusations.

[Boomslang]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

[Marmot]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

Who do you plan to vote? Your strategy must lead you to a certain, potentially educated PoA right?

[Turnip Head]

I won't be voting for MM or Rey, I found their early votes harmless and I believe MM when he says he did it to get a reaction. LC's vote by contrast I thought felt opportunistic and trying to make something out of nothing on Day 1. My vote might be headed there.

Much like Bea I have to be at work today. Normally I get chances to sneak some mafia'ing in at work but I likely won't be able to today so I'll probably be voting soon

[Turnip Head]

I also think mafia are more likely to try to be conformist while civvies are more likely to do whatever the fuck they want. There's obviously some notable exceptions but it's not like civvies are trying to act like civvies per se.

[Long Con]

I won't be voting for MM or Rey, I found their early votes harmless and I believe MM when he says he did it to get a reaction. LC's vote by contrast I thought felt opportunistic and trying to make something out of nothing on Day 1. My vote might be headed there.

Much like Bea I have to be at work today. Normally I get chances to sneak some mafia'ing in at work but I likely won't be able to today so I'll probably be voting soon

I wasn't "making something out of nothing". I thought Rey's post was a lot more defensive than the situation called for, and that was suspicious to me. If you want to vote for someone who is making something out of nothing, then Dharmahelper is the one you should be going for. Not to mention he's mudslinging to see if he can get something to stick, then backing off when questioned about it.

It's funny that some people think they can read so much into one vote, and yet they completely close their eyes to a player that has several undeniable instances of suspicious activity already under their belt.

Linki: Well, that gives me some hope that your vote won't go my way.

[S~V~S]

TH, what kind of reaction do you think MM was looking for?

[DharmaHelper]

I won't be voting for MM or Rey, I found their early votes harmless and I believe MM when he says he did it to get a reaction. LC's vote by contrast I thought felt opportunistic and trying to make something out of nothing on Day 1. My vote might be headed there.

Much like Bea I have to be at work today. Normally I get chances to sneak some mafia'ing in at work but I likely won't be able to today so I'll probably be voting soon

I wasn't "making something out of nothing". I thought Rey's post was a lot more defensive than the situation called for, and that was suspicious to me. If you want to vote for someone who is making something out of nothing, then Dharmahelper is the one you should be going for. Not to mention he's mudslinging to see if he can get something to stick, then backing off when questioned about it.

It's funny that some people think they can read so much into one vote, and yet they completely close their eyes to a player that has several undeniable instances of suspicious activity already under their belt.

Linki: Well, that gives me some hope that your vote won't go my way.

This is the type of response that makes me think I'm right about you being bad.

[DharmaHelper]

Did Spacedaisy's vote for me vanish or did she not cast it?

[insertnamehere]

Excellent, game on. The Day 0 poll really doesn't give us much to go on compared to previous games, but those who failed to check in are certainly the outliers here.

Does being an outlier make them bad?

My reasoning is that, if the majority of players are civvies, then the majority/average action taken is most likely to be civvie. It's not perfect, but it's playing the odds.

So, the majority of players are civvies, right? And the majority of the people playing this game are men, right? So, therefore, all women are evil and we must lynch all of them.

But really, this is a pretty stupid thing to say. It makes me a little bit nervous about Boomslang, and sounds like a pre-emptive defense for when someone accuses him of being too "blendy" and not coming up with original ideas.

Another player who's caught my eye is DH. He's been fucking hilarious this game, and is almost a parody of how some people play mafia. I'm pretty sure this is intentional, but it reminds me a lot of my very special performance in the first Champions game. It's enough to get both an eye-brow raise and a salute from me.

*facepalm* Yes, INH, that's exactly what I'm saying. Justifying sexism from mathematical reasons... I'm disappointed you took my argument off the slippery slope right off the bat.

I think you missed INH's point. He was using reductio ad absurdum to reveal the flaws in your argument (which was indeed flawed) not accusing you of sexism.

That's exactly what I meant, and the fact that Boomslang immediately started freaking out and insulting what I said as opposed to actually responding to it makes him a fairly easy Day 1 vote for me.

It's not exactly a federal case by any means, but it's strong enough for me to throw a vote his way.

[insertnamehere]

*votes Boomslang*

(Do we still do this?)

[Long Con]

I won't be voting for MM or Rey, I found their early votes harmless and I believe MM when he says he did it to get a reaction. LC's vote by contrast I thought felt opportunistic and trying to make something out of nothing on Day 1. My vote might be headed there.

Much like Bea I have to be at work today. Normally I get chances to sneak some mafia'ing in at work but I likely won't be able to today so I'll probably be voting soon

I wasn't "making something out of nothing". I thought Rey's post was a lot more defensive than the situation called for, and that was suspicious to me. If you want to vote for someone who is making something out of nothing, then Dharmahelper is the one you should be going for. Not to mention he's mudslinging to see if he can get something to stick, then backing off when questioned about it.

It's funny that some people think they can read so much into one vote, and yet they completely close their eyes to a player that has several undeniable instances of suspicious activity already under their belt.

Linki: Well, that gives me some hope that your vote won't go my way.

This is the type of response that makes me think I'm right about you being bad.

How convenient. Let me let you in on something for future games: forget everything you think you know about me, because every assumption you've made, every analysis of my behaviour, has been dead wrong. It's really annoying to have you up my ass for what your internal version of Long Con would do, because that guy is nothing like me.

[DharmaHelper]

I won't be voting for MM or Rey, I found their early votes harmless and I believe MM when he says he did it to get a reaction. LC's vote by contrast I thought felt opportunistic and trying to make something out of nothing on Day 1. My vote might be headed there.

Much like Bea I have to be at work today. Normally I get chances to sneak some mafia'ing in at work but I likely won't be able to today so I'll probably be voting soon

I wasn't "making something out of nothing". I thought Rey's post was a lot more defensive than the situation called for, and that was suspicious to me. If you want to vote for someone who is making something out of nothing, then Dharmahelper is the one you should be going for. Not to mention he's mudslinging to see if he can get something to stick, then backing off when questioned about it.

It's funny that some people think they can read so much into one vote, and yet they completely close their eyes to a player that has several undeniable instances of suspicious activity already under their belt.

Linki: Well, that gives me some hope that your vote won't go my way.

This is the type of response that makes me think I'm right about you being bad.

How convenient. Let me let you in on something for future games: forget everything you think you know about me, because every assumption you've made, every analysis of my behaviour, has been dead wrong. It's really annoying to have you up my ass for what your internal version of Long Con would do, because that guy is nothing like me.

Well, your campaign of "DH is wrong about me and therefore DH is bad and let me go ahead and try to (poorly and inacurately) discredit DH and get him lynched" didn't help things.

A civvie would, in my estimation, say "DH, you're quite misinformed about me, let me explain to you what I meant and what you got wrong." What you did was "DH IS BAD LOOK HOW BAD HE IS I AM GOOD GRR GRRR"

[Long Con]

I don't think you're bad because you're after me. I think you're bad because you're mudslinging and backing off.

[DharmaHelper]

I don't think you're bad because you're after me. I think you're bad because you're mudslinging and backing off.

I'm not backing off you though. And I dispute the mudslinging accusation, Mr. "Oh nice use of fancy adjectives DH."

[Long Con]

It's adverbs, and your theatrical "DH IS BAD LOOK HOW BAD HE IS I AM GOOD GRR GRRR" stunt is more of the same. You're to paint a picture around the facts when you choose to speak like that, or to say I "went after reywaS ravenously"... it's more of a 'listen to this!' show than an accurate presentation of facts. I wasn't going to say anything more about it, but you brought it up, so...

And the 'backing off' I speak of (as you well know, but are pretending not to) is from both times you have pointed out connections that implied someone was bad, and then denied that was your intention. Or to put it more colourfully (since I know you like it better that way), you stood by whistling, and when someone pressed you about it, you said, "Who, me? I never wanted anyone to think they were bad, gosh, I was just pointing out something I thought was funny! Ha ha!"

Yes, that happened.

[thellama73]

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

Not me. My vote for you was largely based on the Goldilocks approach.

[DFaraday]

I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.

I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.

I was looking for a reaction from SVS. The question was not shifty, nor was I trying to set llama up.

That may be, but as I don't have time to analyze this DH/LC stuff, I'll still vote you because it cricked my brow.

[DharmaHelper]

It's adverbs, and your theatrical "DH IS BAD LOOK HOW BAD HE IS I AM GOOD GRR GRRR" stunt is more of the same. You're to paint a picture around the facts when you choose to speak like that, or to say I "went after reywaS ravenously"... it's more of a 'listen to this!' show than an accurate presentation of facts. I wasn't going to say anything more about it, but you brought it up, so...

And the 'backing off' I speak of (as you well know, but are pretending not to) is from both times you have pointed out connections that implied someone was bad, and then denied that was your intention. Or to put it more colourfully (since I know you like it better that way), you stood by whistling, and when someone pressed you about it, you said, "Who, me? I never wanted anyone to think they were bad, gosh, I was just pointing out something I thought was funny! Ha ha!"

Yes, that happened.

Maybe I should have put emphasis on it this way:

(You can accuse me of backing off of Rey and SVS but) I am not backing off of *you*.

I've said multiple times That the Misfits quote was not meant to build any case. I've said it multiple times out of fear of this exact scenario, someone actively twisting what I said.

Is there a reason you're so against my colorful ad-whatevers and yet insist on such charged, colorful responses? In my experience, defenses built on hypocrisy are false and flimsy

[thellama73]

Maybe I'm just a sucker for people who can logic correctly, but I'm not getting baddie vibes from MM today.

[Boomslang]

*votes Boomslang*

(Do we still do this?)

I'm glad you took frustrated sarcasm for "freaking out." Thanks for assuming the best...

[Long Con]

It's adverbs, and your theatrical "DH IS BAD LOOK HOW BAD HE IS I AM GOOD GRR GRRR" stunt is more of the same. You're to paint a picture around the facts when you choose to speak like that, or to say I "went after reywaS ravenously"... it's more of a 'listen to this!' show than an accurate presentation of facts. I wasn't going to say anything more about it, but you brought it up, so...

And the 'backing off' I speak of (as you well know, but are pretending not to) is from both times you have pointed out connections that implied someone was bad, and then denied that was your intention. Or to put it more colourfully (since I know you like it better that way), you stood by whistling, and when someone pressed you about it, you said, "Who, me? I never wanted anyone to think they were bad, gosh, I was just pointing out something I thought was funny! Ha ha!"

Yes, that happened.

Maybe I should have put emphasis on it this way:

(You can accuse me of backing off of Rey and SVS but) I am not backing off of *you*.

Gotcha, my misread. Makes more sense than you pretending not to know what I was talking about.

I've said multiple times That the Misfits quote was not meant to build any case. I've said it multiple times out of fear of this exact scenario, someone actively twisting what I said.

Yes, you've said it multiple times after the fact. After the mudslinging didn't stick, it just came back at you, forcing you into this "multiple times" defense scenario you describe.

Is there a reason you're so against my colorful ad-whatevers and yet insist on such charged, colorful responses? In my experience, defenses built on hypocrisy are false and flimsy

It's not a defense, it's a commentary on your style of play and how it's intended to sway minds with "colourful ad-whatevers" over facts. It's very theatrical.

[Long Con]

*votes Boomslang*

(Do we still do this?)

I still tend to do it, but not religiously. I do like the classic bolded and asterisked third-person-actiony style of vote.

[DharmaHelper]

It's adverbs, and your theatrical "DH IS BAD LOOK HOW BAD HE IS I AM GOOD GRR GRRR" stunt is more of the same. You're to paint a picture around the facts when you choose to speak like that, or to say I "went after reywaS ravenously"... it's more of a 'listen to this!' show than an accurate presentation of facts. I wasn't going to say anything more about it, but you brought it up, so...

And the 'backing off' I speak of (as you well know, but are pretending not to) is from both times you have pointed out connections that implied someone was bad, and then denied that was your intention. Or to put it more colourfully (since I know you like it better that way), you stood by whistling, and when someone pressed you about it, you said, "Who, me? I never wanted anyone to think they were bad, gosh, I was just pointing out something I thought was funny! Ha ha!"

Yes, that happened.

At best, you can correctly assert that I brought forward the "Federal" thing as a legitimate ping. I did, and I'll admit that much. When it was explained to me that the phrase in question was more common than I thought, I let it go because I was satisfied with the responses I got, and there were other suspects to look at. At some point I remembered the Misfits game having a very similar exchange, and posted about it to reminisce about that game, given the spirit of this one being a championship game.

I explained that before anyone mentioned anything contrary. Rey did so anyway, and I explained to him that it made no sense to bring that up as part of a case because SVS's vantage point in both situations were different, and therefore trying to tie baddie SVS as the attacker in Misfits to SVS the DEFENDER in this game, made no logical sense.

If I had been trying to build a case, I would have done so and done so in a way that took absolutely zero account for what anyone thought about it. I'm not the type of player to care at all if anyone agrees or disagrees with my suspicions. If I suspect someone, I'll make sure they know it.

[Boomslang]

Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.

According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.

Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.

So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.

Linki: What llama said.

Well, if you look at what everyone else is doing, they're picking at outliers: too early of a vote, too talkative, too aggressive, not posting enough. So... just saying.

Who do you plan to vote? Your strategy must lead you to a certain, potentially educated PoA right?

Right now, I feel like early voting is the outlier behavior of most concern. This being Day 1, we really need all the evidence we can get, and voting without as much as possible strikes me as irresponsible/stirring up trouble. So honestly, looking at you and reywaS pretty hard.

[Long Con]

If I had been trying to build a case, I would have done so and done so in a way that took absolutely zero account for what anyone thought about it. I'm not the type of player to care at all if anyone agrees or disagrees with my suspicions. If I suspect someone, I'll make sure they know it.

That's all cool, I believe you. That's how you build your cases, I think that's most likely an accurate description. I can't say for sure, because, like I said, I don't really have a good memory for what people did and how they did it in past games.

The way someone builds a case and the way someone mudslings are different things, though. I was accusing you of mudslinging.

I hear your defenses about it, and I'm not trying to argue them. Smart players, when mudslinging, will have a way out of it if it comes back on them.

I'll just break it down slightly so we can avoid any unnecessary back-and-forth. It all comes down to whether or not people believe that you were hoping to start some suspicion or not, when you brought up the Federal Case, or the Misfits reference.

You went from "Twice in one game seems funky to me" to "Nothing I was gonna put a vote behind anyway" on the Federal Case. The first statement is a suggestion of suspicion. The second is wiping your hands clean of it. That one's pretty direct, and as a smart player, you have the way out with "I didn't know that expression but now I do, so never mind".

The Misfits thing you introduced with "deja vu is a bitch", which doesn't give any clear indication of how you feel about connecting this game situation to the Misfits one. I was unclear when I read it what your intentions were, but I assumed you were drawing a connection between games to argue S~V~S' possible baddieness in this game. You came in right away and said it's not something you find "overly suspicious", which isn't quite the same as "I don't find this suspicious".

And it's not really something I would usually say, but since I'm sampling DH-style here and there: Mudslinging is not what's generally conceived of as Civvie behaviour.

[DharmaHelper]

You went from "Twice in one game seems funky to me" to "Nothing I was gonna put a vote behind anyway" on the Federal Case. The first statement is a suggestion of suspicion. The second is wiping your hands clean of it. That one's pretty direct, and as a smart player, you have the way out with "I didn't know that expression but now I do, so never mind".

Thats all well and good. I can get pinged by something, consider it funky, and still not have the confidence to put a vote behind it.

The Misfits thing you introduced with "deja vu is a bitch", which doesn't give any clear indication of how you feel about connecting this game situation to the Misfits one. I was unclear when I read it what your intentions were, but I assumed you were drawing a connection between games to argue S~V~S' possible baddieness in this game. You came in right away and said it's not something you find "overly suspicious", which isn't quite the same as "I don't find this suspicious".

I've explained several times the flaw in assuming I was going after SVS at all. It was unclear how I was trying to connect the two because, and stay with me on this one it gets a little "theatrical"... I wasn't.

[Snow Dog]

Well I still don't know who to vote, interesting LC/DH argument but I have seen two civs argue like this so often that i don't think I'll be voting for either.

I am not convinced of llama's reply to me earlier so my vote may go there.

[zeek]

Don't know who to vote for, don't have time to re-read. Drugs are making me have an early night... so, I'll go for Dharmahelper. I don't like this back and forth going on and DH feels less passionate about the argument. Dunno, it's all I've got.

"Cue criticisms for poor vote reasoning*

I'll be back in the morning