The Syndicate

Besides, G-Man, we all know I wouldn't be able to resist any opportunity to dogpee on you, or anyone else, for that matter. :P

Too bad she's not from Willowdale.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Too bad she's not from Willowdale.

G-Man wrote: I don't watch the show but very nice! I promise not to policy lynch you Day 1.

Cool. wake me up when d1

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote: I don't watch the show but very nice! I promise not to policy lynch you Day 1.

Cool. wake me up when d1

To see that Paul has made an impression on any of you fills me with too much happiness. :P

I voted Dr. Manhattan's Laboratory for fun. I didn't put much thought into my vote.

Let's try that again:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

This is the first game I play where I'm actually free of Epi (as a player at least) and you're gonna spoil it?

It's a dangerous job but someone's got to do it.

Canucklehead wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

RYM seems to bring in folks from all over the world, so I figured it was just a case of someone not being exposed to this particular American songwriter.

Dude. Alanis is from Winnipeg.

Did someone slip something in your maple syrup this morning Canuck? She's from Ottawa but now lives in LA.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't play mafia to have my grammar corrected, so if you want to vote me for such a reason, then I clearly will cast the in your direction, good sir.

So I've noticed. It's okay though. You've got an accounting degree. We all know that accountants are better with numbers than they are with words.

Accountants unite.

Sorry MP, you may be have multiple accounting degrees but I have a degree in accounting AND a degree in communications (I'm good with words but apparently formatting them on this site is hit or miss for me ). I simply cannot team up with someone who fails to differentiate between lowest, least, and fewer.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Besides, G-Man, we all know I wouldn't be able to resist any opportunity to dogpee on you, or anyone else, for that matter. :P

Yes, well at least this time I will know that you cannot help yourself. That will save me a PM or two to the host this game. Also, now I know just to ignore you when you go on a rant.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote: I don't watch the show but very nice! I promise not to policy lynch you Day 1.

Cool. wake me up when d1

Yeah, I'm going to hibernate now too. I've got payroll to process and A/P to pick through.

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't play mafia to have my grammar corrected, so if you want to vote me for such a reason, then I clearly will cast the in your direction, good sir.

So I've noticed. It's okay though. You've got an accounting degree. We all know that accountants are better with numbers than they are with words.

Accountants unite.

Sorry MP, you may be have multiple accounting degrees but I have a degree in accounting AND a degree in communications (I'm good with words but apparently formatting them on this site is hit or miss for me ). I simply cannot team up with someone who fails to differentiate between lowest, least, and fewer.

You'll regret this.

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Besides, G-Man, we all know I wouldn't be able to resist any opportunity to dogpee on you, or anyone else, for that matter. :P

Yes, well at least this time I will know that you cannot help yourself. That will save me a PM or two to the host this game. Also, now I know just to ignore you when you go on a rant.

Hey, every once in a while, I'm actually right. :P

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

21.
I listened to "Ironic" and the chorus is somewhat familiar but I wouldn't have attached her name to it. the most exposed acts from what I can remember in my childhood were the likes of outkast, basement jaxx, daft punk, that whole era of pop, so she was before my time I guess.

Ricochet wrote:Gender check on espers (btw did you name yourself after the folk band? I love them)

i'm male. (no, i'm interested in parapsychology and such. didn't remember there was a folk band with that name until after i'd changed it on RYM.)

I know nothing about this theme btw, I signed up because i'd not played for awhile and didn't want to wait for the next rym game, and the setup looked interesting. my vote in the poll was pretty arbitrary, guess I just like pressing buttons.

While I will be busy for most of the day, I am impatient and want Day 1 to start now, so I do want to bring up one item for discussion before I attend to PhD work.

Llama said I am in "full overreaction mode" That overreaction sentiment was echoed by DDL: I admit that I was taking all mentions of policy lynch of Golden seriously: So I am more than willing to admit I am overreacting, since I recognize my tendency to go super srs bsns and over the top.

Thus, while it may be true that I overreacted, Llama said this:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

You're vigorously arguing against an obvious jest that no one intended to carry out.

DDL said this:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

Everything.

We are joking about lynching people who screwed up with us on previous game and you're going full mama bear on us.

Well at least I know I'm joking, can't speak for the others.

However, view the following:

G-Man: DDL: Llama: So what I want to discuss and know from everyone is:

1) Do you think that G-Man intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
2) Do you think that DDL intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
3) Do you think that Llama intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?

4) Do you consequently think that I overreacted and that your answer to questions 1) through 3) were all No?

5) Do you find G-Man, DDL, or Llama suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?
6) Do you find me suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?

I am not casting suspicion on any of them, nor am I issuing my own opinions on the matter. Let that be known clear. I just want to know what everyone is thinking.

Of course, I hope others will make observations of behavior that they want to discuss as they come in here and catch up, but I want to leave this on the table while I go do some work, so at least there is some more potential for discussion than there would be otherwise, and we're not left with a situation where everyone else just checks in and we're scrambling on Day 1 to cram good discussion into 24 hours or less. I have no intent for this to dominate the discussion, by any means, but to merely push it and get everyone talking.

Also, what I want to know from Llama is:

Do you still think I am worthy of your or was that comment made in jest as well? Do you still believe I was defending Golden?

1) Unlikely, he actually gave a reason for wanting to lynch Golden but that reason is a pretty damn silly one.And Golden's post about G-Man was also pretty silly, I doubt G-Man would take it seriously.
2) No.
3) No, it's obvious he's joking.
4) Yes you did. Even if one of those is a mafioso intending to kill Golden, a policy lynch for such silly reasons would never happen.
5) Dunno. I think I'm neutral on both. Hard to get a read on anyone at this point.
6) I think your hardcore play on d0 may be forced, but I can't be sure at this point. I don't know baddie MP, but I do know you are being even more pro-active than you usually are. Still a neutral read.

G-Man wrote: Sorry MP, you may be have multiple accounting degrees but I have a degree in accounting AND a degree in communications (I'm good with words but apparently formatting them on this site is hit or miss for me ). I simply cannot team up with someone who fails to differentiate between lowest, least, and fewer.

I have a degree in Economics, Film Scoring, and Russian & Eastern European Studies. I plan to vote accordingly.

I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.

I agree. I have been poking MP a lot today to see how he reacts. He hasn't seemed fishy to me. He seems like normal, hyper-engaged civ MP.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I will be largely skipping Day 0 banter. It just never does anything for me!

And to whoever said that Rorschach "seems badass"? That's an understatement.

I love that scene.

Gonna get caught up on everything, and then post what I think so far, since in my skimming I seem to have missed at least a little bit of Day 0 development. Hi everybody!

MovingPictures07 wrote:So what I want to discuss and know from everyone is:

1) Do you think that G-Man intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
2) Do you think that DDL intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
3) Do you think that Llama intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?

4) Do you consequently think that I overreacted and that your answer to questions 1) through 3) were all No?

5) Do you find G-Man, DDL, or Llama suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?
6) Do you find me suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?

I am not casting suspicion on any of them, nor am I issuing my own opinions on the matter. Let that be known clear. I just want to know what everyone is thinking.

Of course, I hope others will make observations of behavior that they want to discuss as they come in here and catch up, but I want to leave this on the table while I go do some work, so at least there is some more potential for discussion than there would be otherwise, and we're not left with a situation where everyone else just checks in and we're scrambling on Day 1 to cram good discussion into 24 hours or less. I have no intent for this to dominate the discussion, by any means, but to merely push it and get everyone talking.

1) No. Golden is simply now my de facto fallback vote in case I don't see anything vote-worthy on Day 1.
2) Ignorance.
3) Apathy
4)I'll give you two guesses and the first one doesn't count.
5-a) Yes- he's basically admitting he wants to panty-raid a comic book character. That's just...
5-b) Yes, but that probably has more to do with prior games than this one. His demeanor has a lot of swagger to it and the only swagger I like is in Old Spice soap.
5-c) Yes, but doesn't everybody?
6) See 5-c
7) Your mom.

thellama73 wrote:

G-Man wrote: Sorry MP, you may be have multiple accounting degrees but I have a degree in accounting AND a degree in communications (I'm good with words but apparently formatting them on this site is hit or miss for me ). I simply cannot team up with someone who fails to differentiate between lowest, least, and fewer.

I have a degree in Economics, Film Scoring, and Russian & Eastern European Studies. I plan to vote accordingly.

Your mustache makes much more sense to me now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.

Yeah, he's like the hyperactive Chihuahua of mafia.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.

I agree. I have been poking MP a lot today to see how he reacts. He hasn't seemed fishy to me. He seems like normal, hyper-engaged civ MP.

So have I. It's been fun. But I haven't been doing it to fish for reactions. I've been messing with him for sport.

timmer wrote:I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I will be largely skipping Day 0 banter. It just never does anything for me!

And to whoever said that Rorschach "seems badass"? That's an understatement.

Spoiler: show

I haven't been involved with enough Day 0's yet to determine if they matter much for anything. That clip though! Now I know not to watch that movie with my wife. She's not into comic book movies in general but I'd never hear the end of it for making her watch that degree of cold-hearted violence.

I am relieved to have MP back with us. I did not like being the thread's top poster in Bullets Over Broadway

My vote in the poll was due to Rorschach being the coolest. Also, at the risk of falling into one of my own biggest arguments from BoB, I am going to get off to a relatively slow start (for me) because I've got to work each of the next four days. There will still be plenty of questions, do not fret.

espers wrote:^that's correct.

Out of curiosity, roughly how many games have you played in total? Have you played anywhere outside of RYM? I really have not played a game there since January and haven't kept up with the new faces at all.

Ricochet wrote:
Gender check on espers (btw did you name yourself after the folk band? I love them), LoRab (nice to meet you ) and Sloonei (first time playing with you, sorry ), please.

Male. I should look into getting a more masculine avatar.
Hello, I look forward to our first game together

I was going to make several separate comments on the Day 0 developments, but MP's survey seems to sum up a great deal of what I was going to cover anyway, so I'll just answer that.

So what I want to discuss and know from everyone is:

1) Do you think that G-Man intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
2) Do you think that DDL intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
3) Do you think that Llama intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?

4) Do you consequently think that I overreacted and that your answer to questions 1) through 3) were all No?

5) Do you find G-Man, DDL, or Llama suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?
6) Do you find me suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?

I'm not hip to all this new lingo, apparently if you sit out a few games everybody comes up with stupid new words for things. You young people and your twerking policy lynch tweeter blogs.

1. G-Man initially came off to me as joking around, but like you pointed out, his comment was "Golden took this joke I made in pregame seriously, and is trying to use it against me in game so now I might vote for him." And if that itself is a joke, its a poorly landed one. i think (Judging from recent experience) Golden is a very easy target, to at least put a spotlight on if not lynch. I don't feel as thought G-Man's stance on the matter was as lighthearted as he let on, no.
2. I'm always wary of comments like DDL's that try and put the fear of God into civs, but I don't really see it as him being serious (or at least to the degree that I find G-Man's comments).
3. Yes I'm pretty sure llama would consider voting for Golden Day 1. Most of his posts at this stage have been focused on getting MP riled up. Llama and MP have been playing together for some time, so I have to assume llama knew what he was doing, in that he knew MP would take the poking and prodding and (over)react. Why llama continued to press MP, so early, placing the thread firmly in "Wow look at MP overreacting lol chill bro" mode remains to be seen.

4. While I think there are certainly suspicious things to be taken from the pool of players mentioned above, I also think that MP's reactions to those things were, in some respects, over zealous.

For example:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Scotty wrote:
linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

If it wasn't for Golden, the civilians wouldn't have won Biblical or Roger Rabbit, so... I can provide counterexamples for practically every example.

Is anyone here seriously considering a policy lynch option for Day 1? I just don't think it's wise.

Lets start here. MP, you *do* defend Golden here, (and in your previous post wherein you state that Golden is just as good of a civvie as he is a mafia), so I don't get the "I didn't defend Golden" stance.

MP also immediately attempts to shift attention from the "policy" of lynching Golden to a different "policy", perhaps assuming that a "policy" lynch is inevitable.

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

More "Don't Lynch Golden":

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Like G-Man and Cookie, I am not familiar with the theme, so don't expect me to know things about things.

I am still annoyed at Golden about Guess Who, so I would be up for lynching him Day 1. MP is getting my for so eagerly defending him.

I don't know Golden's alignment this game, so why are you implying that I do? I am arguing fervently against policy lynching ANYONE, including Golden.

Policy lynching someone just because they got off of a baddie win or two, especially when they've consistently proven to be one of the best civilians at the site,is a ridiculous waste of Day 1. And I will make my opinion well known on the matter. If it gets me eyeballs or even death on Day 1, so be it.

More "policy" shifting:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If anything, we should policy lynch a player who is least apt to contribute, rather than one that is apt to most contribute. I've been in Golden's shoes, hot off a baddie win or having a ton of baddie roles, and everyone started viewing everything I had to say with blood-colored glasses, instead of analyzing my words and making up their minds after being open to either scenario.

I will not stand for a closed-minded town on Day 1.

So, there *are* instances. All that being said, I will say that I agree with you, MP. I can't think of any reason to lynch Golden that has been brought up that doesn't have to do with a game we're not playing.. I won't do it. in answering the MP survey, I've come across several other suspects that will get my eye for Day 1 at least.

"Policy" lynching sounds like the new "Randomizer gave me..." and I just want to point out to everyone how bullshit that is. If anybody cops out with their vote, get ready for a shitstorm.

DharmaHelper wrote:"Policy" lynching sounds like the new "Randomizer gave me..." and I just want to point out to everyone how bullshit that is. If anybody cops out with their vote, get ready for a shitstorm.

Do you think it is "bullshit" for someone to have a contingency plan for their vote on Day 1 in the event that they don't see anyone clearly standing out as bad?

In each of the games I started in here so far, we have lynched a civvie on Day 1, so it seems evident to me that mafia communities have gotten no better at rooting out the baddies early on in games. As someone who is a terrible people-reader, many of my early votes are either blind guesses or have weak reasoning. I fully intend to have several fallback contingencies in place for my Day 1 vote. Given this, I would like you to expound upon just what you mean by "copping out with a vote." That way I can hold you to the same standard and watch for you letting people off the hook for such a violation. It will also help me know in advance when I might need to break out my umbrella.

Just to explain: policy lynching = lynching someone without actually thinking they are mafia, because you think they can be detrimental to the game in some way. An inactive player, a player who refuses to contribute, or a player who has a tendency of lieing even when civilian can be good targets. Or, in a game that allows claims, a player who claims an useless role like survivor or miller.

Of course policy, lynches become harder to justify as the game progresses. Heck, justifying them on d1 is already controversial.

DharmaHelper wrote: 2. I'm always wary of comments like DDL's that try and put the fear of God into civs, but I don't really see it as him being serious (or at least to the degree that I find G-Man's comments).

Fear of God? What?

Personally, I have a "policy no-lynch". Which is, I avoid lynching on d1 people I know are really good at the game, unless I have a strong reason to.

G-Man wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:"Policy" lynching sounds like the new "Randomizer gave me..." and I just want to point out to everyone how bullshit that is. If anybody cops out with their vote, get ready for a shitstorm.

Do you think it is "bullshit" for someone to have a contingency plan for their vote on Day 1 in the event that they don't see anyone clearly standing out as bad?

In each of the games I started in here so far, we have lynched a civvie on Day 1, so it seems evident to me that mafia communities have gotten no better at rooting out the baddies early on in games. As someone who is a terrible people-reader, many of my early votes are either blind guesses or have weak reasoning. I fully intend to have several fallback contingencies in place for my Day 1 vote. Given this, I would like you to expound upon just what you mean by "copping out with a vote." That way I can hold you to the same standard and watch for you letting people off the hook for such a violation. It will also help me know in advance when I might need to break out my umbrella.

My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Just to explain: policy lynching = lynching someone without actually thinking they are mafia, because you think they can be detrimental to the game in some way. An inactive player, a player who refuses to contribute, or a player who has a tendency of lieing even when civilian can be good targets. Or, in a game that allows claims, a player who claims an useless role like survivor or miller.

Of course policy, lynches become harder to justify as the game progresses. Heck, justifying them on d1 is already controversial.

DharmaHelper wrote: 2. I'm always wary of comments like DDL's that try and put the fear of God into civs, but I don't really see it as him being serious (or at least to the degree that I find G-Man's comments).

Fear of God? What?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

Comments like that, intended to make civs nervous about how good of a mafia player Golden is (and painting a target on his back as a result).

I've just realized we have two silencers/voteblockers. One for the good guys, one for the bad guys.

Fortunately for G-Man, there does not appear to be an insanifier.

DharmaHelper wrote:Comments like that, intended to make civs nervous about how good of a mafia player Golden is (and painting a target on his back as a result).

I wasn't being serious tho. I don't think policy lynching someone because they are a good mafia player is a good idea. If anything, it's probably a terrible idea, considering they tend to also be good civilian players (and I've heard Golden is, though I've never seen civ Golden long enough).

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Comments like that, intended to make civs nervous about how good of a mafia player Golden is (and painting a target on his back as a result).

I wasn't being serious tho. I don't think policy lynching someone because they are a good mafia player is a good idea. If anything, it's probably a terrible idea, considering they tend to also be good civilian players (and I've heard Golden is, though I've never seen civ Golden long enough).

Seriously or not, you put the idea out there.

DharmaHelper wrote:My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

Fair enough but keep this in mind: one player's hunch is another player's "arbitrary, barely relevant reason." You set up a slippery slope of interpretational ambiguity. I'd like to think the days of true randomization are over. Even if I were desperate enough to resort to a randomizer, I can guarantee you that not all players names go into the hat. I have not actually used a randomizer in a long, long time though. It usually boils down to my often-faulty process of elimination based on what few vibes I actually pick up on.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Just to explain: policy lynching = lynching someone without actually thinking they are mafia, because you think they can be detrimental to the game in some way. An inactive player, a player who refuses to contribute, or a player who has a tendency of lieing even when civilian can be good targets. Or, in a game that allows claims, a player who claims an useless role like survivor or miller.

Of course policy, lynches become harder to justify as the game progresses. Heck, justifying them on d1 is already controversial.

DharmaHelper wrote: 2. I'm always wary of comments like DDL's that try and put the fear of God into civs, but I don't really see it as him being serious (or at least to the degree that I find G-Man's comments).

Fear of God? What?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

Comments like that, intended to make civs nervous about how good of a mafia player Golden is (and painting a target on his back as a result).

I'd much rather mistakenly lynch a super-civ player than accidentally give a super-baddie player a free pass.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Fortunately for G-Man, there does not appear to be an insanifier.

One can hope there is one hiding in the secrets.

G-Man wrote:I'd much rather mistakenly lynch a super-civ player than accidentally give a super-baddie player a free pass.

Debatable. But if we assume a D1 lynch is a blind one (like it almost always is), the former is more likely to happen than the later. In this game, for example, the probability is 75%, excluding indies.

Sorry I think I phrased that wrong. I mean, lynching a super-civ is more likely than lynching a super-baddie.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:I'd much rather mistakenly lynch a super-civ player than accidentally give a super-baddie player a free pass.

Debatable. But if we assume a D1 lynch is a blind one (like it almost always is), the former is more likely to happen than the later. In this game, for example, the probability is 75%, excluding indies.

Your number doesn't make sense. And why exclude the indie role?

9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

Ugh, massive hangover. If anyone asks, don't mix tequila with cider.

I'm not keen to gleaning much of anything from Day 0 discussions. I mean, I'd never heard of Day 0 before online mafia. Which has me questioning why MP is being so tantalizingly nit-picky.

DharmaHelper wrote:My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

I'm confused.
-You're wary of self-voting or random voting
-You're wary of people justifying random voting by saying that early voting doesn't matter, and then voting randomly
-but if they can't make up their minds, no biggie
-but if people justify random voting, self voting, or weak-reasoning voting, and ultimately look for "somewhere to go", then it's ok.

I literally can't wrap my head around the logic of this paragraph. And I am a great wrapper, especially around Christmas time.

Hello new and old players. I'm excited for this game; love me some Mafia!

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

This is the first game I play where I'm actually free of Epi (as a player at least) and you're gonna spoil it?

G-Man, I blame cell phones. These youngsters never learned how to write correctly. Good job keeping them in line.

MovingPictures07 wrote:A policy lynch of a complete no-show is practically the only one I will support. I hope that doesn't happen here though.

You're telling me you've never voted low posters for the sake of them being low posters?

timmer wrote:I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I will be largely skipping Day 0 banter. It just never does anything for me!

BOR-ING! C'mon, Day 0 banter is fun! I've basically missed it all while I was sleeping! I have got to get myself on a normal schedule again by Monday too which means to bed y 10:30 and up at 7:30am :O

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Personally, I have a "policy no-lynch". Which is, I avoid lynching on d1 people I know are really good at the game, unless I have a strong reason to.

I like this policy. I've been known to randomize on Day 1, vote for low posters, etc. I honestly don't see anything wrong with voting for those who aren't participating. If you sign up....PLAY! Am I right?

I am voting to search the apartment.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

You're forgetting Moloch the Mystic, which normal civs need dead to win.

Where are the accountants when you need them?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Personally, I have a "policy no-lynch". Which is, I avoid lynching on d1 people I know are really good at the game, unless I have a strong reason to.

Yes, you night kill them instead.

Well, looking at the list, it seems Moloch is pretty much a 1-man mafia, so that's anti-town too. That gives us a little less than 75% But the Watchmen may be pro-town or anti-town depending on their wincons/game situation.

linki: ninaj'd by Scotty

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

I think you can add Silk Spectre and The Comedian to the civvie side of the equation. Neither of their win conditions suggest any harm to the civvies. Regardless, we're always more likely to lynch civvie than a baddie whether we use randomization or our best effort to deduce the identity of a baddie. Using strict probability, the odds are always stacked against us.

Scotty wrote:Ugh, massive hangover. If anyone asks, don't mix tequila with cider.

I'm not keen to gleaning much of anything from Day 0 discussions. I mean, I'd never heard of Day 0 before online mafia. Which has me questioning why MP is being so tantalizingly nit-picky.

DharmaHelper wrote:My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

I'm confused.
-You're wary of self-voting or random voting
-You're wary of people justifying random voting by saying that early voting doesn't matter, and then voting randomly
-but if they can't make up their minds, no biggie
-but if people justify random voting, self voting, or weak-reasoning voting, and ultimately look for "somewhere to go", then it's ok.

I literally can't wrap my head around the logic of this paragraph. And I am a great wrapper, especially around Christmas time.

I don't think you understood what I was saying..

What I said was this:

I do not like random voting. I do not like self-voting, I do not like votes on Day 1 that reflect near-zero effort. These types of votes will not get a pass from me at all. If someone has genuinely exhausted their options, I won't consider that as suspicious as "Meh I'm just gonna vote for Tom because his name ends in M for Mafia lol" or "Randomized, got Tom", or "Tom didn't post, voting Tom,"

In other words, the level of effort put into the vote will reflect how suspicious I find the vote.

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Personally, I have a "policy no-lynch". Which is, I avoid lynching on d1 people I know are really good at the game, unless I have a strong reason to.

I like this policy.

I don't. Good players won't usually give you a good reason to vote them on Day 1. If they did, they probably wouldn't be on you 'good players' list. Giving a pass to "good players" is bad. While I realize that you're are not saying that you wouldn't put pressure on or look closely at a "good player" Day 1, you are in a way creating a class of people who are worthy of a free pass. You better believe they take advantage of that charity every time they can.

In writing, there's a phrase: "murder your darlings." Don't be afraid to apply that here. Heaven knows the baddies do it all the time.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

I gotta be honest. I always tend to feel the Day 1 vote as more or less a crapshoot. Sure, maybe you can pull little bits of aggression or ignorance as "suspicion" but I guess I'm just not at that level yet. I'm much more of a logic and factual-based deducer. If I know the parameters and am presented with a set of data, then I can start making justified decisions. Day 2 is when it tends to start making sense to me. Day 1 has speculation, and a majority can KNOW that someone is bad or suspicious, but they won't really KNOW without having a role-check role or public-knowledge alignment.

Also, I can't vouch for people's pre-game reputation, since I've only played with 2 or 3 of you, and actually still don't know what alignment they were/are in the BoB game, but I will say that I am also in the camp of eliminating the slack- the people that haven't posted. I'm totally down to make that my first vote, since 1/3 of the players in BoB right now are MIA on Day 10, and it's making it difficult to pinpoint alignments.


So if you haven't chimed in by Day 1, I'm most likely voting your way by end of day. Because I don't want to have to deal with lots of no-shows again.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Scotty wrote:Ugh, massive hangover. If anyone asks, don't mix tequila with cider.

I'm not keen to gleaning much of anything from Day 0 discussions. I mean, I'd never heard of Day 0 before online mafia. Which has me questioning why MP is being so tantalizingly nit-picky.

DharmaHelper wrote:My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

I'm confused.
-You're wary of self-voting or random voting
-You're wary of people justifying random voting by saying that early voting doesn't matter, and then voting randomly
-but if they can't make up their minds, no biggie
-but if people justify random voting, self voting, or weak-reasoning voting, and ultimately look for "somewhere to go", then it's ok.

I literally can't wrap my head around the logic of this paragraph. And I am a great wrapper, especially around Christmas time.

I don't think you understood what I was saying..

What I said was this:

I do not like random voting. I do not like self-voting, I do not like votes on Day 1 that reflect near-zero effort. These types of votes will not get a pass from me at all. If someone has genuinely exhausted their options, I won't consider that as suspicious as "Meh I'm just gonna vote for Tom because his name ends in M for Mafia lol" or "Randomized, got Tom", or "Tom didn't post, voting Tom,"

In other words, the level of effort put into the vote will reflect how suspicious I find the vote.

Well at least you've admitted that it's subjective.

Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Scotty wrote:Ugh, massive hangover. If anyone asks, don't mix tequila with cider.

I'm not keen to gleaning much of anything from Day 0 discussions. I mean, I'd never heard of Day 0 before online mafia. Which has me questioning why MP is being so tantalizingly nit-picky.

DharmaHelper wrote:My stance on Day 1 voting has been clear and fairly consistent. I'm of the mind that the game starts on Day 1, and therefore I tend to be very harsh on random voting, self-voting, etc. People who insist that "Day 1's mean nothing" and vote accordingly, are the people that I am going to be watching for. If you genuinely have nowhere to go with your Day 1 vote, that's fine, I guess. But if you don't even put forth the effort of looking for somewhere to go other than "Randomizer" or "Self-voting" or "Voting for X because [arbitrary, barely relevant reason]", that'll put you on my list quick.

I'm confused.
-You're wary of self-voting or random voting
-You're wary of people justifying random voting by saying that early voting doesn't matter, and then voting randomly
-but if they can't make up their minds, no biggie
-but if people justify random voting, self voting, or weak-reasoning voting, and ultimately look for "somewhere to go", then it's ok.

I literally can't wrap my head around the logic of this paragraph. And I am a great wrapper, especially around Christmas time.

I don't think you understood what I was saying..

What I said was this:

I do not like random voting. I do not like self-voting, I do not like votes on Day 1 that reflect near-zero effort. These types of votes will not get a pass from me at all. If someone has genuinely exhausted their options, I won't consider that as suspicious as "Meh I'm just gonna vote for Tom because his name ends in M for Mafia lol" or "Randomized, got Tom", or "Tom didn't post, voting Tom,"

In other words, the level of effort put into the vote will reflect how suspicious I find the vote.

Ah, ok. I gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
So Day 1 effort = less suspicious
I feel like our viewpoints of Day 0-1 are going to be vastly different, since I don't necessarily find putting effort into Day 1 is synonymous with civ reads.