The Syndicate

Elohcin wrote:Okay, yes reading over the roles again, this does make sense. There are 17 players and there are 17 roles including The Process, so I assume the role is being controlled by a person. Sounds like an interesting role with a lot of power.

Yes. The Process has to serve as the 17th role in the game and with 17 people signed up, it seems safe to assume it's a human being behind it. I have no idea what its terms refer to or how it might function though, and I'm not certain how anyone could -- unless there's meaningful thematic information that could lend clues.

DrumBeats wrote:

sig wrote:Thanks nutella that is good to know. Epi made a Bioware game awhile back right? Didn't certain players have kill chances in that game. Maybe that is what the kill() thing means?

What?! I missed a Bioware game?

Keep reading.

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

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Anybody want to trade votes tomorrow to loophole this self-voting thing? /s

What is the proposed gain with this suggestion?

It was entirely a joke. Hence the /s (sarcasm)

MovingPictures07 wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:

sig wrote:Thanks nutella that is good to know. Epi made a Bioware game awhile back right? Didn't certain players have kill chances in that game. Maybe that is what the kill() thing means?

What?! I missed a Bioware game?

Keep reading.

I did

MovingPictures07 wrote:Consider my "vote" rescinded.

reywaS, come out to play!

There was a moment in the early goings of the scrimmage game in which you pressed another player and then quickly abandoned it. I remember it was something that Silverwolf picked up on [accurately] in that game. This example shows you establishing a pressure scenario for Boardwalk and then leaving it behind rather quickly -- I would assert this is represents a parallel. What pleased you about the content he provided?

Also, in regards to the process, I'm wondering if we have to eliminate every element of the process to destroy it. Hence why Cell is an option to lynch.

DrumBeats wrote:Also, in regards to the process, I'm wondering if we have to eliminate every element of the process to destroy it. Hence why Cell is an option to lynch.

That would seem to be an impossible task. That'd require quite a few lynches and they'd all take the place of a player lynch, seriously decreasing the number of opportunities to lynch baddies.

I would imagine "Cell" is in the tally for a reason and that it should be considered "lynchable", but I struggle to imagine wanting to do that in the place of lynching an actual person. Playing with unknown game mechanics instead of pursuing baddies strikes me as a great way to fall behind. It's even worse without vote changes, because any decision to lynch "Cell" or anything else like it cannot come in a single group motion but would have to happen gradually over the course of a day as people show up and vote. That's a very tall order.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Also, in regards to the process, I'm wondering if we have to eliminate every element of the process to destroy it. Hence why Cell is an option to lynch.

That would seem to be an impossible task. That'd require quite a few lynches and they'd all take the place of a player lynch, seriously decreasing the number of opportunities to lynch baddies.

Maybe a combo of lynches and scum kills/vigilante kills.

How about we make a deal with scum here, since we both need the Process dead.

If scum kills a process element tonight, we will as a town lynch one tomorrow.

AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:Was this revealed before? Or did it pop up after Night 0?

Farrah Yon-Dale
Switch ( )- Others might fear The Process, but you have something for that. Switch one element of The Process each Night, and you will have control over it the next Day.

Very good eye. I like your attention to detail, there's a good chance I wouldn't have seen that update at all.

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Also, in regards to the process, I'm wondering if we have to eliminate every element of the process to destroy it. Hence why Cell is an option to lynch.

That would seem to be an impossible task. That'd require quite a few lynches and they'd all take the place of a player lynch, seriously decreasing the number of opportunities to lynch baddies.

Maybe a combo of lynches and scum kills/vigilante kills.

How about we make a deal with scum here, since we both need the Process dead.

If scum kills a process element tonight, we will as a town lynch one tomorrow.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just try to lynch the player with the role? We have no idea how the game will progress from this starting point and what information or circumstances we might encounter to facilitate that hunt. It's a four man scum team, and this kind of significant Process-oriented focus is the opposite of how to pursue their elimination. Pending ability strength variables, I think town starts this game behind the eight ball in the numbers as it is.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Also, in regards to the process, I'm wondering if we have to eliminate every element of the process to destroy it. Hence why Cell is an option to lynch.

That would seem to be an impossible task. That'd require quite a few lynches and they'd all take the place of a player lynch, seriously decreasing the number of opportunities to lynch baddies.

Maybe a combo of lynches and scum kills/vigilante kills.

How about we make a deal with scum here, since we both need the Process dead.

If scum kills a process element tonight, we will as a town lynch one tomorrow.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just try to lynch the player with the role? We have no idea how the game will progress from this starting point and what information or circumstances we might encounter to facilitate that hunt. It's a four man scum team, and this kind of significant Process-oriented focus is the opposite of how to pursue their elimination. Pending ability strength variables, I think town starts this game behind the eight ball in the numbers as it is.

Hence why we make it a deal with the scum. We do not get behind if scum shoots the process instead of us. However, if both factions allow the process to go unimpeded for the bulk of the game, I bet it will take both of us down in endgame easily. It seems to have a lot of roles. I think it is very reasonable to be proactive in getting rid of it early, as long as the scumteam proves their cooperation by shooting first. Only person who should be opposed to this arrangement is the process itself.

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Also, in regards to the process, I'm wondering if we have to eliminate every element of the process to destroy it. Hence why Cell is an option to lynch.

That would seem to be an impossible task. That'd require quite a few lynches and they'd all take the place of a player lynch, seriously decreasing the number of opportunities to lynch baddies.

Maybe a combo of lynches and scum kills/vigilante kills.

How about we make a deal with scum here, since we both need the Process dead.

If scum kills a process element tonight, we will as a town lynch one tomorrow.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just try to lynch the player with the role? We have no idea how the game will progress from this starting point and what information or circumstances we might encounter to facilitate that hunt. It's a four man scum team, and this kind of significant Process-oriented focus is the opposite of how to pursue their elimination. Pending ability strength variables, I think town starts this game behind the eight ball in the numbers as it is.

Hence why we make it a deal with the scum. We do not get behind if scum shoots the process instead of us. However, if both factions allow the process to go unimpeded for the bulk of the game, I bet it will take both of us down in endgame easily. It seems to have a lot of roles. I think it is very reasonable to be proactive in getting rid of it early, as long as the scumteam proves their cooperation by shooting first. Only person who should be opposed to this arrangement is the process itself.

It's a unique proposition to be sure to openly bargain with a baddie team, but the point you make is sound enough. I am inherently hesitant to any lynch that doesn't land squarely on an actual player given my interactive and hunting-oriented nature. It probably wouldn't be wise to entirely ignore the Process either though, I can't argue that. It'd be rather similar to what happened in Turf Wars -- the civilian teams focused too much just on finding the baddies and overlooked a mechanical disparity that ended up losing them both the game.

EBWOP

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It's a unique proposition to be sure to openly bargain with a baddie team, but the point you make is sound enough. I am inherently hesitant to pursue any lynch that doesn't land squarely on an actual player given my interactive and hunting-oriented nature. It probably wouldn't be wise to entirely ignore the Process either though, I can't argue that. It'd be rather similar to what happened in Turf Wars -- the civilian teams focused too much just on finding the baddies and overlooked a mechanical disparity that ended up losing them both the game.

I just finished watching Angel. I'm curious Illyria, is your name taken from the demon of the same name from that show?

Oops! I randomized and got Matt!

Sorry Matt!

Wait, wasn't the day supposed to end?

@Movingpictures:

I thought the process was a game related challenge that both mafia and civs were supposed to solve. I hadn´t counted the number of players and roles, so I was not under the impression that the process was a role in itself.

a2thezebra wrote:Wait, wasn't the day supposed to end?

Um what?

I'm gonna vote Zebra because if there's some kind of "Day ends early" shenanis, I'd like to try and counter that asap.

Wow Zeebs, really?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I bet the process gets to choose which ability he uses and maybe after he uses an ability, it is revealed?

Seems sensible.

What thoughts do you have, Elo, any? You seemed to dislike DrumBeats's declaration of swapping votes. Why?

I don't think it productive at all. It's not any better than self voting. I believe he even said it would be a way of finding a loophole. I am tired of the self voters b/c I find it a lack of participation and even more so, a hindrance to one's team whether they are civ or mafia. And I told Epi (half way through the game I just hosted) that I wish I'd have made it a rule that you cannot self vote. He liked the idea

That's understandable; it's why I created the "no self voting" rule to begin with, and I'm glad to see it catch on.

Do you really think that viewpoint has any reflection of DrumBeats's alignment, however? What is the mafia motivation for him proposing that?

Another idea I came up with that was already created, I see. I am not sure about his alignment. It could just be a civ acting like a wild monkey again (which happens all too often in the beginning of games, sadly). I hate it b/c I feel it gives Mafia an advantage and then sends us civs scrambling to try to win towards the end of the game. I think if we stay focused, we can nip this thing in the bud and have a successful win. Rocky and Bullwinkle was a hell of a circus in the beginning and a struggle to win in the end. We ought not act like animals and suggest stupid things like switching votes to avoid a rule we want to break. SO, I told DB I would keep my eye on him. I said this not b/c I definitely think he's mafia but b/c I think he needs to shape up and stop joking around (if that's what he's doing). Like I said, YES, we need to have fun. But we still need to keep our heads screwed on.

AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Do you really think that viewpoint has any reflection of DrumBeats's alignment, however? What is the mafia motivation for him proposing that?

That's a good question. Personally, I don't see any 'good' motivation for suggesting vote trading than other than to skate through a few votes without making a real decision. So in that respect, it seems somewhat sinister to me. However, perhaps DB is just wanting to exploit loopholes because he/she can?

Explain to me what you mean here. You seem to indicate this is in contrast to your previous assessment (that the motivation is somewhat sinister); does this mean that you think exploiting loopholes conveys a town mindset?[/quote]


Not at all. What I meant by that was, while I think it is more likely a 'mafia' type move, there are other possible motivations one might have for suggesting it. So I think it COULD be either.[/quote]

Or perhaps he has NO reason at all. I don't claim to be an expert, but again, after just coming off from hosting (sorry if I bore you with this phrase) I feel like people do and say weird shit that means nothing and that they have no reason for saying/doing. I feel like Mafia is less about figuring out who is mafia and instead just a crapshoot. It COULD be about figuring out who's if players would use their abilities with their intelligence instead of just flapping off at the mouth about this and that. For instance, if you know certain people in the game are good, list them as people you trust, don't list just one of those and then 2 others as your top trusts. USE the facts you learn from your power. Be sensible.

Okay, I am off my soapbox now.

nutella wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I'm not sure what this means though... protect an "element" from all Night actions. Does this mean that these are like semi-independent "parts" of The Process, rather than role abilities?

Oh, I could have explained the process better as well. Basically they're a bunch of robots, and each type of robot does a different thing. Cheerleaders put a protective shield in front of another robot as you're trying to kill them, so that makes sense with the ability revealed. I agree that probably the Process role gets to choose between these abilities. I don't remember what all of them do but they're probably on that wiki.

This is good info. I think I will visit that page and then try to keep track.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Also, in regards to the process, I'm wondering if we have to eliminate every element of the process to destroy it. Hence why Cell is an option to lynch.

That would seem to be an impossible task. That'd require quite a few lynches and they'd all take the place of a player lynch, seriously decreasing the number of opportunities to lynch baddies.

@DB - This is interesting. And if that element is eliminated, he/she cannot use that element. And once all elements are eliminated, the role will cease to exist. What does everyone else think about this? Good theory, DB.

@JJJ - But we will have the opportunity to lynch him by lynching the person behind the role. So...we have the regular opportunity to lynch him AND the opportunity to take away one of his powers in a lynch as well.

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just try to lynch the player with the role? We have no idea how the game will progress from this starting point and what information or circumstances we might encounter to facilitate that hunt. It's a four man scum team, and this kind of significant Process-oriented focus is the opposite of how to pursue their elimination. Pending ability strength variables, I think town starts this game behind the eight ball in the numbers as it is.

Hence why we make it a deal with the scum. We do not get behind if scum shoots the process instead of us. However, if both factions allow the process to go unimpeded for the bulk of the game, I bet it will take both of us down in endgame easily. It seems to have a lot of roles. I think it is very reasonable to be proactive in getting rid of it early, as long as the scumteam proves their cooperation by shooting first. Only person who should be opposed to this arrangement is the process itself.

I think this is crazy interesting. If we all decided to work together, civ and scum, and get rid of the process by voting his element each day, we could rid ourselves of him completely (or at least make him vanilla) so we don't have to deal with him at all really.

a2thezebra wrote:I just finished watching Angel. I'm curious Illyria, is your name taken from the demon of the same name from that show?

Oops! I randomized and got Matt!

a2thezebra wrote:Sorry Matt!

a2thezebra wrote:Wait, wasn't the day supposed to end?

This tells me a few things. #1) You didn't read page one with the rules/roles/etc. #2) You didn't click on view results and see that no one else had voted yet before placing your randomized vote. #3) You most likely didn't read the thread before voting b/c if you had you would see we are not at EoD just from seeing the discussions on hand. #4) You don't care about helping civs to win this game.

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Wait, wasn't the day supposed to end?

Um what?

I'm gonna vote Zebra because if there's some kind of "Day ends early" shenanis, I'd like to try and counter that asap.

Wow Zeebs, really?

This doesn't help either, Matt. Just b/c someone votes you doesn't mean you have to get them back by voting them. Get them back by making an educated decision about who could be mafia, and vote them.

(Sorry for the long post, but there was a lot that went on while I was sleeping )

shoot, I knew I would mess up the quotes there somehow.

(MP) - Explain to me what you mean here. You seem...

(AATB) - Not at all. What I meant by that was, while I think it...

(Elo) - Or perhaps he has NO reason at all. I don't...

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Anybody want to trade votes tomorrow to loophole this self-voting thing? /s

What is the proposed gain with this suggestion?

It was entirely a joke. Hence the /s (sarcasm)

Oh, so that's what the /s was for!

If you want to be sarcastic here, there are [ sarc ] tags, which make the text orange. Sarcastic orange!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Consider my "vote" rescinded.

reywaS, come out to play!

There was a moment in the early goings of the scrimmage game in which you pressed another player and then quickly abandoned it. I remember it was something that Silverwolf picked up on [accurately] in that game. This example shows you establishing a pressure scenario for Boardwalk and then leaving it behind rather quickly -- I would assert this is represents a parallel. What pleased you about the content he provided?

Not only did he come in and post, which satisfied me mostly, he contributed to the discussion:
I liked this post because I wanted unique content from him, which he hadn't yet provided. He provided it posthaste, and then he was on the same level as everyone else who has provided content so far. So I dropped my pressure. That's it.

What I want to know is:

1) What did you think of AATB's content?
2) What makes you think that my pressure and swift abandoning is a mafia tell? You imply it based on your wording above, where you say Silverwolf [accurately] called me out for it in the scrimmage game. I think that's nonsense. This is something I do. Why do you think there is a mafia motivation to this behavior?

Regarding the "Cell" discussion, I'm wondering if "Cell" is a separate account, with its own vote and/or posting ability. Perhaps that's what Cell's ability is, hence why we can lynch it. If that's the case, if we lynch it, I doubt a new Process element would take its place, since I would guess they're each unique.

a2thezebra wrote:Wait, wasn't the day supposed to end?

I'm confused at your confusion.

Nerolunar wrote:@Movingpictures:

I thought the process was a game related challenge that both mafia and civs were supposed to solve. I hadn´t counted the number of players and roles, so I was not under the impression that the process was a role in itself.

This explanation seems reasonable, thanks for clarifying Nero.

Elo, my eye twitched involuntarily at that post. :P

Elohcin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I bet the process gets to choose which ability he uses and maybe after he uses an ability, it is revealed?

Seems sensible.

What thoughts do you have, Elo, any? You seemed to dislike DrumBeats's declaration of swapping votes. Why?

I don't think it productive at all. It's not any better than self voting. I believe he even said it would be a way of finding a loophole. I am tired of the self voters b/c I find it a lack of participation and even more so, a hindrance to one's team whether they are civ or mafia. And I told Epi (half way through the game I just hosted) that I wish I'd have made it a rule that you cannot self vote. He liked the idea

That's understandable; it's why I created the "no self voting" rule to begin with, and I'm glad to see it catch on.

Do you really think that viewpoint has any reflection of DrumBeats's alignment, however? What is the mafia motivation for him proposing that?

Another idea I came up with that was already created, I see. I am not sure about his alignment. It could just be a civ acting like a wild monkey again (which happens all too often in the beginning of games, sadly). I hate it b/c I feel it gives Mafia an advantage and then sends us civs scrambling to try to win towards the end of the game. I think if we stay focused, we can nip this thing in the bud and have a successful win. Rocky and Bullwinkle was a hell of a circus in the beginning and a struggle to win in the end. We ought not act like animals and suggest stupid things like switching votes to avoid a rule we want to break. SO, I told DB I would keep my eye on him. I said this not b/c I definitely think he's mafia but b/c I think he needs to shape up and stop joking around (if that's what he's doing). Like I said, YES, we need to have fun. But we still need to keep our heads screwed on.

Okay, thanks for explaining. I wasn't sure what "keeping an eye on" meant with respect to your view of his alignment.

Elohcin wrote:

AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Do you really think that viewpoint has any reflection of DrumBeats's alignment, however? What is the mafia motivation for him proposing that?

That's a good question. Personally, I don't see any 'good' motivation for suggesting vote trading than other than to skate through a few votes without making a real decision. So in that respect, it seems somewhat sinister to me. However, perhaps DB is just wanting to exploit loopholes because he/she can?

Explain to me what you mean here. You seem to indicate this is in contrast to your previous assessment (that the motivation is somewhat sinister); does this mean that you think exploiting loopholes conveys a town mindset?

Not at all. What I meant by that was, while I think it is more likely a 'mafia' type move, there are other possible motivations one might have for suggesting it. So I think it COULD be either.

Or perhaps he has NO reason at all. I don't claim to be an expert, but again, after just coming off from hosting (sorry if I bore you with this phrase) I feel like people do and say weird shit that means nothing and that they have no reason for saying/doing. I feel like Mafia is less about figuring out who is mafia and instead just a crapshoot. It COULD be about figuring out who's if players would use their abilities with their intelligence instead of just flapping off at the mouth about this and that. For instance, if you know certain people in the game are good, list them as people you trust, don't list just one of those and then 2 others as your top trusts. USE the facts you learn from your power. Be sensible.

Okay, I am off my soapbox now.

I strongly disagree with the underlined. Yes, there is an element of luck, but if this were the case, then an effective strategy would be for all votes to be randomized every Day period and to never analyze any behavior. I've seen collaborative town teams before dismantle mafia for behavior in thread. Based on what you said here and your response to me, I do agree that it'd be nice to see more collaborative behavior in games around here; that's a problem I've had for quite some time now, and that's that civilians too often act as if they're LMS.

Do you have anyone you trust yet?

zebra and Matt, please explain why any of the rest of us should believe you're town and why you voted so far ahead of the deadline with essentially baseless reasoning.

Now we're all left in a position where we have to determine the motivation behind zebras's actions, and she has made herself a potential hot button mislynch if she is town, or is blatantly acting in an anti-town fashion if she is mafia.

If your intention was reaction baiting, I think there could have been other ways to accomplish this rather than cast a meaningless vote in a game with nonchangeable votes.

Lastly, for the idea that DrumBeats proposed regarding working "with the mafia" to eliminate The Process, I don't think worrying about this at this stage is healthy, since:
1) I don't know how we are supposed to effectively hunt for The Process at this time.
2) You can never "trust" the mafia enough to work with them on something.

Nonetheless, it does seem both factions have a mutual benefit in ridding the game of The Process, so I think inadvertently the mafia will be working with us on that matter. I don't think any specific attempt to work with them would be at all fruitful, unless we reach a certain point later in the game where we can somehow try to pinpoint The Process based on actual hunting procedures, and at that time we can re-open this discussion. But that's just my opinion.

All right, I am here and caught. Right off the bat, I feel good about overly-enthusiastic MP. Seems like typical civ behavior from him. I also doubt Drumbeats would have proposed the voteswap if he were bad, so my voting choices are already narrowing down. Come on, other people, give me some more to work with.

thellama73 wrote:All right, I am here and caught. Right off the bat, I feel good about overly-enthusiastic MP. Seems like typical civ behavior from him. I also doubt Drumbeats would have proposed the voteswap if he were bad, so my voting choices are already narrowing down. Come on, other people, give me some more to work with.

First off, you're right about me, so

Second, regarding the underlined/bolded, does your opinion of this change with the reveal that DrumBeats was being sarcastic (and tagged it with /s to indicate such)?

thellama73 wrote:All right, I am here and caught. Right off the bat, I feel good about overly-enthusiastic MP. Seems like typical civ behavior from him. I also doubt Drumbeats would have proposed the voteswap if he were bad, so my voting choices are already narrowing down. Come on, other people, give me some more to work with.

What? Enthusiastic MP is bad, bad MP that can't be enthusiastic gets replaced! Duh!

DrWilgy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:All right, I am here and caught. Right off the bat, I feel good about overly-enthusiastic MP. Seems like typical civ behavior from him. I also doubt Drumbeats would have proposed the voteswap if he were bad, so my voting choices are already narrowing down. Come on, other people, give me some more to work with.

What? Enthusiastic MP is bad, bad MP that can't be enthusiastic gets replaced! Duh!

I don't think my level of enthusiasm has anything to do with my alignment, but I'm not going to challenge someone town reading me in a game where I'm town.

Any thoughts on what has transpired thus far, Wilgy?

Elohcin wrote:This doesn't help either, Matt. Just b/c someone votes you doesn't mean you have to get them back by voting them. Get them back by making an educated decision about who could be mafia, and vote them.

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra and Matt, please explain why any of the rest of us should believe you're town and why you voted so far ahead of the deadline with essentially baseless reasoning.

Um whatevs.

It was like, 3:00 am last night and I was dead tired, Zeebs votes me and says "wait isn't day supposed to end????" and I read that and start trippin' cuz I'm wondering if there are some kind of "end the day early" shenanis going on, so yeah, I NO U'd the shit out of her "random" vote because I was trippin'.

In retrospect, if there was "end the day early" shenanis going on, and by Zeebs, then that would mean she's probably civ because usually civs hold that power, I believe.

But again, whatevs, I was tired, I was trippin', I voted dat Zebra.

Matt wrote:

Elohcin wrote:This doesn't help either, Matt. Just b/c someone votes you doesn't mean you have to get them back by voting them. Get them back by making an educated decision about who could be mafia, and vote them.

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra and Matt, please explain why any of the rest of us should believe you're town and why you voted so far ahead of the deadline with essentially baseless reasoning.

Um whatevs.

It was like, 3:00 am last night and I was dead tired, Zeebs votes me and says "wait isn't day supposed to end????" and I read that and start trippin' cuz I'm wondering if there are some kind of "end the day early" shenanis going on, so yeah, I NO U'd the shit out of her "random" vote because I was trippin'.

In retrospect, if there was "end the day early" shenanis going on, and by Zeebs, then that would mean she's probably civ because usually civs hold that power, I believe.

But again, whatevs, I was tired, I was trippin', I voted dat Zebra.

So do you think she's bad or not? I'm unclear on that.

I have no idea what I think about Zebra. I'm wondering wth she meant by "wait wasn't the day supposed to end??" and I'd like her to come back and explain herself.

Matt wrote:I have no idea what I think about Zebra. I'm wondering wth she meant by "wait wasn't the day supposed to end??" and I'd like her to come back and explain herself.

Oh, okay. Well, I agree. Do you have any thoughts on anyone else?

Yeah let's lynch the Bloops. She's the Process, right?

Matt wrote:Yeah let's lynch the Bloops. She's the Process, right?

What makes you think that?

Because it's obvi?

Matt wrote:Because it's obvi?

?????

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Matt wrote:Because it's obvi?

?????

I'd like to hear from Blooper regarding my accusation of her processing before we go further.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Lastly, for the idea that DrumBeats proposed regarding working "with the mafia" to eliminate The Process, I don't think worrying about this at this stage is healthy, since:
1) I don't know how we are supposed to effectively hunt for The Process at this time.
2) You can never "trust" the mafia enough to work with them on something.

Nonetheless, it does seem both factions have a mutual benefit in ridding the game of The Process, so I think inadvertently the mafia will be working with us on that matter. I don't think any specific attempt to work with them would be at all fruitful, unless we reach a certain point later in the game where we can somehow try to pinpoint The Process based on actual hunting procedures, and at that time we can re-open this discussion. But that's just my opinion.

Trying to shut down talk of taking out the Process are we? Noted.

It is healthy and arguably necessary to discuss this early in the game. Both factions have a mutual benefit, we will know we can trust the mafia to work with us should they kill one of the process elements tonight. Then we equivalent exchange lynch one the next day. It benefits everyone besides the Process and does nothing to disrupt the town/scum ratio.

DrumBeats wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Lastly, for the idea that DrumBeats proposed regarding working "with the mafia" to eliminate The Process, I don't think worrying about this at this stage is healthy, since:
1) I don't know how we are supposed to effectively hunt for The Process at this time.
2) You can never "trust" the mafia enough to work with them on something.

Nonetheless, it does seem both factions have a mutual benefit in ridding the game of The Process, so I think inadvertently the mafia will be working with us on that matter. I don't think any specific attempt to work with them would be at all fruitful, unless we reach a certain point later in the game where we can somehow try to pinpoint The Process based on actual hunting procedures, and at that time we can re-open this discussion. But that's just my opinion.

Trying to shut down talk of taking out the Process are we? Noted.

It is healthy and arguably necessary to discuss this early in the game. Both factions have a mutual benefit, we will know we can trust the mafia to work with us should they kill one of the process elements tonight. Then we equivalent exchange lynch one the next day. It benefits everyone besides the Process and does nothing to disrupt the town/scum ratio.

Where did I shut down discussion? I added my input, thereby discussing it.

I respectfully disagree. How are we supposed to find out who The Process is?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:
Or perhaps he has NO reason at all. I don't claim to be an expert, but again, after just coming off from hosting (sorry if I bore you with this phrase) I feel like people do and say weird shit that means nothing and that they have no reason for saying/doing. I feel like Mafia is less about figuring out who is mafia and instead just a crapshoot. It COULD be about figuring out who's if players would use their abilities with their intelligence instead of just flapping off at the mouth about this and that. For instance, if you know certain people in the game are good, list them as people you trust, don't list just one of those and then 2 others as your top trusts. USE the facts you learn from your power. Be sensible.

Okay, I am off my soapbox now.

I strongly disagree with the underlined. Yes, there is an element of luck, but if this were the case, then an effective strategy would be for all votes to be randomized every Day period and to never analyze any behavior. I've seen collaborative town teams before dismantle mafia for behavior in thread. Based on what you said here and your response to me, I do agree that it'd be nice to see more collaborative behavior in games around here; that's a problem I've had for quite some time now, and that's that civilians too often act as if they're LMS.

Do you have anyone you trust yet?

I just mean that it COULD be more about strategy than it is if people would take it more seriously than they do. And, yeah, I think I trust you so far. I wish more people would talk so I can have the chance to trust more people.

As for The Process, Wiki says this: Cells are a form of The Process. When any type of The Process is destroyed (excepting of course Badcells), Cells are the natural result. They are immobile and do not attack, and are collectable by Red for unknown use. If they are not quickly attended to, they will either turn into Badcells or regenerate to their previous form. They are composed of four floating white metal pieces and a red orb. Cells do not have a Limiter page.

Anyone care to try and interpret what we should do with this info?

Matt wrote:Yeah let's lynch the Bloops. She's the Process, right?

GAH!!! THIS! This is the type of post that is driving me nuts these days. Either be helpful or hush. Matt, you are giving me gray hairs already this game.

And don't take this frustration as a defense of Niju, y'all. Cause I know that's what at least 2 of you are thinking.

Speaking of trust. Llama, you can in briefly. Are you caught up? What are your thoughts?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Any thoughts on what has transpired thus far, Wilgy?

RYUU GA WAGA TEKI WO KURAU!!!