The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:Yay game!

I echo this sentiment.

I think I will revert to "Llama Classic" playstyle for this game and vote for someone who missed the first poll. Not very champion-like, you guys. Tsk tsk. The lucky people are:
Timmer
Mongoose
Lorab
and Hedgebaddie.

I wonder which one I will choose.

yes!

Dom wrote:yes!

I'm glad you agree.

I did not know who Michael Buffer was, so I Googled him and he is a pretty interesting guy. I am sorry to see him go.

S~V~S wrote:I did not know who Michael Buffer was, so I Googled him and he is a pretty interesting guy. I am sorry to see him go.

Fun fact: he invented the electric shoe buffer (for buffing electric shoes) and to this day it bears his name.

This is my homemade shoe buffer - it was free and I did not even have to ask my son has used it for years

Nice touch that the Undertaker took him away (and presumably under).

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.

Yay game! Probably gonna end up voting for someone who has failed to participate so far.

Yay game.

Voting SVS for no reason.

I will remain alert as to suspicious activity from those who are participating first, and then if I come up dry with that approach, look at non-participating players.

Linki: Well things are off to a roaring start.

Boomslang wrote: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?

Dom wrote:

Boomslang wrote: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?

Not bad, but certainly not useful. Non-participating players are the appendix of mafia games. Eventually that shit will burst and could do a lot of damage.

Dom wrote:

Boomslang wrote: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?

Nothing makes anyone bad except the role they are given.

voting metalmarsh for no reason

Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

*insert hilarious antics here*

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

EBWOP: Or enjoy your antics too much to want to vote for you*

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

Indeed.

I usually draw suspicion on day one for being out of tune. I think I am actually doing a fantastic job of staying on task thus far.

The question then becomes are you staying on task to avoid suspicion or staying on task in order to legitimately contribute?

DharmaHelper wrote:The question then becomes are you staying on task to avoid suspicion or staying on task in order to legitimately contribute?

Are you purposefully posing questions that llama will deem unanswerable?

Regardless, it is up to the reader to decide. Voting a (presumably) active player will more likely garner a reaction than voting a (presumably) inactive player.

Haha and I was just about to vote you for daring to vote S~V~S, who I just voted for Mod of the Year. I still might. Arrogant heel indeed....

What changed your mind?

Good to see my game up there!

I tend not to suspect people who early game shenanigans, but if they keep it up later on it can seem like a deflection tactic.

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

This was also my strat in Misfits and Monty, both civvie. tho the point of that was a sort of double negative. Get people to think that i'm so silly that there's no way that i'm mafia, but have suspicion show up so people think the shenanigans are a ploy, but to be so self aware of that previous point that it's clear i'm civvie.

It really depends the person, imo

Not fond of beginnings that allow everyone to act naturally and blend in. Can't say anyone has caught my attention so far.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yay game.

Voting SVS for no reason.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

Indeed.

I usually draw suspicion on day one for being out of tune. I think I am actually doing a fantastic job of staying on task thus far.

Explain how these two things go together. Voting for someone just to start discussion is on task how? Perhaps a way to immediately deflect suspicion off of the low poster talk from Llama? Since everyone knows I am the person Most Likely to Start a Federal Case out of taking a vote? Or trying to put the Person Most likely to Become Defensive for No Reason Immediately on the Defense?

Made wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

This was also my strat in Misfits and Monty, both civvie. tho the point of that was a sort of double negative. Get people to think that i'm so silly that there's no way that i'm mafia, but have suspicion show up so people think the shenanigans are a ploy, but to be so self aware of that previous point that it's clear i'm civvie.

It really depends the person, imo

And I don't think it helped you in either one. I used to do this alot too, I kinda had a name for it. I had a lot of fun in thread Day One and it often came back to bite me in the ass. It worked when i was bad, to an extent, but if it felts even slightly forced, people pick it up like blood in the water. In the case of Llama, he does always do it, and he does often get lynched for it. So the only reason I can see that Llama continues to employ a fail strategy is that he is tenacious. Eventually we will stop lynching him for it and he can then hide behind it. Or perhaps we are MORE tenacious and will keep lynching him for it until he stops doing it. Epi, for instance, had a name for doing zany self imposed role playing style antics in many games. He got lynched for it like all the time, and I have noticed that he seems to be doing it less than he used to.

I tend to ignore Llamas humor though ( ) and pay attention to his suspicions.

"Felts"?

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Can I assume since you responded with this 7 minutes after I voted for metalmarsh that this is directed at me? If it was directed at me, I must ask what makes it a humorous tactic? Why is it a humorous tactic as opposed to any legitimate attempt at playing the game?

Despite the intriguing turn the discussion has taken, I still don't have any particular pings yet.

Also, Daisy and I will be moving her down to San Antonio starting later today, so FYI I will likely only be able to access by phone for a few days.

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

This is an interesting point, since I've definitely seen both what you're saying and Llama is saying happen. Just depends on the circumstances, perhaps.

S~V~S wrote:
And I don't think it helped you in either one. I used to do this alot too, I kinda had a name for it. I had a lot of fun in thread Day One and it often came back to bite me in the ass. It worked when i was bad, to an extent, but if it felts even slightly forced, people pick it up like blood in the water. In the case of Llama, he does always do it, and he does often get lynched for it. So the only reason I can see that Llama continues to employ a fail strategy is that he is tenacious. Eventually we will stop lynching him for it and he can then hide behind it. Or perhaps we are MORE tenacious and will keep lynching him for it until he stops doing it. Epi, for instance, had a name for doing zany self imposed role playing style antics in many games. He got lynched for it like all the time, and I have noticed that he seems to be doing it less than he used to.

I tend to ignore Llamas humor though ( ) and pay attention to his suspicions.

There is a lot of truth here.

Also, regarding the host post and the results of D0, it'll be interesting to see what happens, but it appears Epig is taking an approach very similar to the one I took last year. This means I expect an event themed off of WWE will occur at some point during D1-N1.

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

I see both sides of this matter. However, I think llama's view tends to be the case most often. I will probably vote for someone who is less active.

Elohcin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

I see both sides of this matter. However, I think llama's view tends to be the case most often. I will probably vote for someone who is less active.

Why?

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yay game.

Voting SVS for no reason.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

Indeed.

I usually draw suspicion on day one for being out of tune. I think I am actually doing a fantastic job of staying on task thus far.

Explain how these two things go together.

Voting for lynches is part of mafia. Everyone is expected to do it, therefore it is a task each player must undertake.

S~V~S wrote:Voting for someone just to start discussion is on task how?

I believe you answered your own question in your question.

S~V~S wrote:Perhaps a way to immediately deflect suspicion off of the low poster talk from Llama? Since everyone knows I am the person Most Likely to Start a Federal Case out of taking a vote? Or trying to put the Person Most likely to Become Defensive for No Reason Immediately on the Defense?

I did not know these things about you, but all the more reason to vote you on Day 1 and make something happen.

S~V~S wrote:I tend to ignore Llamas humor though ( ) and pay attention to his suspicions.

So we should pay attention. If you are NK'd it will probably be llama's doing?

Dom wrote:

Boomslang wrote: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.

Boomslang wrote:

Dom wrote:

Boomslang wrote: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.

I don't understand. Surely by this argument any non action is likely to be civvie too?

Boomslang wrote:

Dom wrote:

Boomslang wrote: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.

I disagree. If anything, I think baddies are more likely to be conformists than civvies.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yay game.

Voting SVS for no reason.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Do you think so? My experience is that people often get lynched wrongly for humorous antics in the early days of mafia games, while baddies lay low or pretend to be helpful.

In my experience, if someone gets a couple chuckles, and plays the court jester. it creates a mindset that "this person can't possibly be bad, look how ridiculous they're acting. Plus, they're funny so I want to keep them around and see what else they've got that is funny"

It's a common, effective tactic. Put your enemy at ease, make them either underestimate you.

Indeed.

I usually draw suspicion on day one for being out of tune. I think I am actually doing a fantastic job of staying on task thus far.

Explain how these two things go together.

Voting for lynches is part of mafia. Everyone is expected to do it, therefore it is a task each player must undertake.

S~V~S wrote:Voting for someone just to start discussion is on task how?

I believe you answered your own question in your question.

S~V~S wrote:Perhaps a way to immediately deflect suspicion off of the low poster talk from Llama? Since everyone knows I am the person Most Likely to Start a Federal Case out of taking a vote? Or trying to put the Person Most likely to Become Defensive for No Reason Immediately on the Defense?

I did not know these things about you, but all the more reason to vote you on Day 1 and make something happen.

S~V~S wrote:I tend to ignore Llamas humor though ( ) and pay attention to his suspicions.

So we should pay attention. If you are NK'd it will probably be llama's doing?

This is a giant deflection. And that last remark especially.

I will be voting for the first person that votes for a low poster/non voter.

Unless something comes of the very interesting convo betwixt SVS & the Aardvark

People should use the word betwixt a lot more often.

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Wut? I know | missed a lot of games, butt this would often get Llama, myself, Vmops, Matt lynched in the early stages of the game k.

reywaS wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Can I assume since you responded with this 7 minutes after I voted for metalmarsh that this is directed at me? If it was directed at me, I must ask what makes it a humorous tactic? Why is it a humorous tactic as opposed to any legitimate attempt at playing the game?

I didn't read DH as specifically targeting you with that statement. You seem to me to be jumping to the defensive pretty quickly... especially since I didn't find your vote for MM particularly humourous or... antical?

Anyways, that made you my best choice for a Day One vote. *votes reywaS*

Roxy wrote:I will be voting for the first person that votes for a low poster/non voter.

Even if it's me?

Long Con wrote:

reywaS wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Can I assume since you responded with this 7 minutes after I voted for metalmarsh that this is directed at me? If it was directed at me, I must ask what makes it a humorous tactic? Why is it a humorous tactic as opposed to any legitimate attempt at playing the game?

I didn't read DH as specifically targeting you with that statement. You seem to me to be jumping to the defensive pretty quickly... especially since I didn't find your vote for MM particularly humourous or... antical?

Anyways, that made you my best choice for a Day One vote. *votes reywaS*

Hello, my name is reywaS. Apparently we've never met before. Nice to meet you, sir!

and who else could he have possibly been talking about, LC? It's not like there were a lot of other posts that he could have possibly been talking about.

I'll just be direct. I think you fabricated a reason to vote for me. The fabricated reason of being defensive. The fabricated evidence being that DH had a whole slew of other posts he could have been talking about when in fact the conversation in the thread at the time was all pretty much straightforward mafia tactics talk. I didn't see anything that I would consider any type of day 1 tomfoolery. Maybe mafia has changed during my recent absence.

reywaS wrote:and who else could he have possibly been talking about, LC? It's not like there were a lot of other posts that he could have possibly been talking about.

There was two votes in at that time for the same reasons.

I just caught up, page 2 took me to some weird places...