The Syndicate

bea wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Reywas / Roxy / Bea / any other original baddies from other RM games: Do you remember if you played differently than you normally would've when you were baddie leaders in RM 3?

I don't know Typh. You were on my team. Do you think I played differently? I try to play the same from game to game. I do remember that Epi called out what happened with my role (I died early and was rezzed into a secret role.) And for awhlle I was able to brush it off but as more and more civ recruits were rezzed, it was more and more difficult to defend against the truth of Epi's argument. Killing him didn't help anything even though you and Tranq both though it was the right thing to do at the time (if I am remembering correctly). Eventually, I became as close to an outed baddie as I've ever been. So yea, my play was prolly pretty different when I realized there was nothing I could do to hide anymore.

Golden wrote:@bullz - I love that you have time to play. It's good to have you being able to be in the thread.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey MM, could you describe in brief terms what sorts of criteria you're respecting when you eliminate certain players from the lynch pool?

timmer wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

Furthur to this, why does someone being a recruiter mean anything? If they are one, they might be a civ recruiter, which means eliminating them will hurt the civ cause. There are equal numbers of bad and good recruiters. And once you are eventually recruited to a team, that's your team, so why gun for a potential recruiter when that may end up your own team down the road?

timmer wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?

It's more of a sense than anything, but Epig kind of nailed it with his colour coding. The fact is, any of us who have been a part of this group for a long time could have been chosen recruiters/team leaders, and made, in the moment, a decision in recruiting targets that goes completely against the grain of everything people think of us in terms of our gameplay. None of the players who have been around for a long time are so boring that they are blindingly predictable. Golden knows this. So his answer, which Epig coded, feels false. It's like, he's trying to have a discussion and show the different facets of how he would come to a decision when we all kind of know that those facets are weighed by everyone in that position. Golden, in short, made a lot of words string together to make it sound like he was saying something - in more real terms, he was playing the "part" of Civ Golden, which often works for him. But the odds are against him in fact being that.

But as for the lynch, I don't see how this makes Golden a lynch target. We all have to post our thoughts, and say things, and get through this awkward part of the game where we have abilities but no guiding purpose. A clan, but no team. It's a weird feeling, so really, if someone is participating and at least trying to contribute, even if it feels false, it's good enough for me for Day 1. I want this game to be legend, the series' cred demands it, and I'd rather vote for a lame-o non-poster than an active one for now.

@Bea, lol, I was caught off guard by that as well.

Spacedaisy wrote:Voting low posters. Really? If you want to vote someone for low contribution, fine, but in this situation there seems like a beck of a lot of other things to consider and I think the discussion of recruit/recruiter reasoning has been an excellent example. If we can locate either a recruit or recruiter it might give us a possible direction to look next. At one point llama made a comment about not thinking low posters are a good lynch option, but if we are going to lynch them today would be a good day. I think that is extremely silly given the fact a recruitment has already occurred, and twice for at least one of the baddies it seems. It didn't give me warm feels about llama, but I read it twice and he did say he didn't think they were the best option, so I kind of out him on my back burner, suspicion wise. Anyway, the low poster people who have masse me last comfortable are MP and bwt. MP listed me in his low poster column, knowing full well what my situation is because he has been witness to my rage against the iPad.

timmer wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am playing like I would as a townie despite the fact that I am not a townie. What does that mean to you, timmer?

Since I know neither your civ game, your tactics or your tendencies... absolutely nothing. We're all actors in a wonderful, as yet unwriiten story.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Fuck x 9001, something's come up re: PhD and I'll probably be pulling an all-nighter tonight and possibly tomorrow night to get all of this shit done. I'm sorry, folks, but this absolutely has to come first.

I'm going to just go ahead and vote unfurl in case I can't come back in time. I know this is unlike me, but I'll be lucky enough to get this done even with not sleeping tonight. I'll catch up properly whenever I can, probably Saturday or Sunday.

bea wrote:Everything feels like day 1 bullshit. It always does to me.

Spacedaisy wrote:
Voting low posters. Really? If you want to vote someone for low contribution, fine, but in this situation there seems like a beck of a lot of other things to consider and I think the discussion of recruit/recruiter reasoning has been an excellent example. If we can locate either a recruit or recruiter it might give us a possible direction to look next. At one point llama made a comment about not thinking low posters are a good lynch option, but if we are going to lynch them today would be a good day. I think that is extremely silly given the fact a recruitment has already occurred, and twice for at least one of the baddies it seems. It didn't give me warm feels about llama, but I read it twice and he did say he didn't think they were the best option, so I kind of out him on my back burner, suspicion wise. Anyway, the low poster people who have masse me last comfortable are MP and bwt. MP listed me in his low poster column, knowing full well what my situation is because he has been witness to my rage against the iPad.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok people this is clearly not a LMS game. Allow me to demonstrate...

From the hosts posts:
"Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1"

So Civvie group 1 can win with Civvie group 2, and they both share the same enemies. In fact their win cons are exactly the same which makes them one standard civ team in every sense of the word. The only difference is only ones of the baddie teams is out to kill them.

Additionally, they set the teams up like a traditional civ team, meaning the recruiters for the civ team get limited amount of btsc, see the below quite from the hosts posts...

"If someone gets recruited, do they gain BTSC with the Leader?

Some Civvies get BTSC with the Leader, but it is a very limited number because too much Civvie BTSC would ruin the game. Baddies always get BTSC with their recruits.."

I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Not a bad place to put your vote. What do you think of this post from TH?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Not a bad place to put your vote. What do you think of this post from TH?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

What do you think of that post?

Roxy wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.

But you don't seem to be having any fun.

I am not currently having fun.

You know what's fun? Playing lawn darts midday with a bright sun overhead.

Golden, I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up, with all this Arthur/Knights of the Round table stuff. You have 1 vote on you.

I can see why he is worked up - been there so many times myself. Being suspected for bs reasons sucks especially if they are using twisted logic - "like it has nothing to do with the question - it is how you answered the question" silly Day 1 stuff as per normal. Honestly would be better off just randomizing a vote.

Golden wrote:@dom - Not uncomfortable, but yeah I prefer to vote people I think could be bad. I do think epi could be bad.

But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point. So there is no value to me in epi living past today. I do not think he is civ. I think he has done some things which could mean he is bad. I think there are also neutral explanations for his behaviour. I don't mind seeing him lynched be he bad or neutral.

And, I see why you are confused because my response to JJ looks weird, it's because I read his question wrong. I thought he asked for motives that were not anti-town, hence my response to him about 'if epi was neutral'.

As for mafia motives, can think of two possibilities. One, he was thinking of recruiting me given we worked well together in Guess Who and creating distance first was a tactic to achieve it. Two, he was not thinking of recruiting me and so why not cast suspicion on me.

I'll be honest, I suspect the real reason epi won't back off his suspicion is much simpler. He has been busy with work starting up, lord of the realms, helping Simon with Angry Birds. I think he misread SVS question in the first place. But he is not the kind of person to back off because he misreads (or to admit he read something wrong), and so he just finds other ways to justify his suspicion.

Others can decide for themselves, I just don't have fun when people make up bs to accuse me of being bad. Lynching epi would restore balance to the force, and make the game more fun for me right now. That's my primary motive.

But my secondary motive is that, yes, I think he has given some cause to think he is bad. Particularly the post where he responded to me suggesting that everyone vote for either him or me, just after he voted for me and said we needed to 'end it'. He backtracked something chronic with that post. Called my tactics mafia 101, said I was setting some kind of trap, but wanted everyone to 'vote with their conscience' and not feel they had to vote for me, the person he thinks is bad?

Whatever comes, my original hope for today was that a lynch stop is used so no-one dies. But if epi gets the most votes, I think the lynch should be allowed to go through. Same for BWT. Those two have both given me reasons to think they could be bad.

linki @ SVS - you are completely right that I have made no entry into the contest to be recruited as a baddie and will not do so. SVS has had experience in the past of my warning baddie teams outright that if they recruit me I'll bus them all, which is a pretty effective tool to prevent baddie recruitment I can assure you. In a game called recruitment mafia I think doing something like that is not in the spirit of the game, so I will be the best I can of whatever I will be, but I will be far more excited to be recruited civ than bad.

I'm ok with DH talking about his poop, provided it is in nauseating brown. I understand unfurl's frustration with the lack of OT green.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Question:

Is Day 1 about ridiculing others' reasons for finding suspicion?

OR

Is Day about articulating your own suspicions and following through?

Day 1 is about scratching your butt, eating potato chips, and finding some time in between to vote for someone for a bullshit reason.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok people this is clearly not a LMS game. Allow me to demonstrate...

From the hosts posts:
"Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1"

So Civvie group 1 can win with Civvie group 2, and they both share the same enemies. In fact their win cons are exactly the same which makes them one standard civ team in every sense of the word. The only difference is only ones of the baddie teams is out to kill them.

Additionally, they set the teams up like a traditional civ team, meaning the recruiters for the civ team get limited amount of btsc, see the below quite from the hosts posts...

"If someone gets recruited, do they gain BTSC with the Leader?

Some Civvies get BTSC with the Leader, but it is a very limited number because too much Civvie BTSC would ruin the game. Baddies always get BTSC with their recruits.."

I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

Anyone in particular catch your eye? Is there someone you expect to talk more who hasn't? DP and DF are always "low posters" Bass is honestly a runner up here - SD has tech issues if I remember correctly, Sorsha's out town at a funeral. Devin is hella busy like us all, but maybe also is able to spend time with his wife (unlike myself. I miss my hubby)

I don't know dr wiggly

And typh is typh he will not comment off topic and he won't talk about things he finds redudent. Which given his Dutchie mentality is most everything.

Who exactly in the low posters do you want us to look at? And why?

You and MP both can feel free to answer that.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Randomized Ricochet.

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.

But you don't seem to be having any fun.

I am not currently having fun.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:DrWilgy: The early vote thing may or may not mean anything. Can anyone answer if he's new to mafia or if he has played on another forum before?

nutella wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'm probably voting for BWT today. He's not playing like I think he would if he were still neutral. Feels like something is already on the line for him.

bea wrote: I would also like to add here, IDK if teefies is bad or not yet. I DO know that there is something inside of me that always thinks he could be bad and wants to question him like an inquisitor from the beginning of the game. I know this is MY gig based on my play and hosting of and with him. But like SVS, he is someone I try to develop a read on as soon as I can. And I will question him and ask him hard questions till I feel I can be ok with him. It's just a thing I have. I'm tough cuz I love you David

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Linki: Then that makes me feel worse about his early vote. Unless their voting mechanics are significantly different from ours.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: DFaraday: I forgot he was even playing.
Devin: He's posted a bit more, and I know he's behind, but I'd still like to hear something from him that's.....well, kind of his idea.
DrWilgy: The early vote thing may or may not mean anything. Can anyone answer if he's new to mafia or if he has played on another forum before?

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Spacedaisy wrote:Right now the fore runner for my vote is probably bwt. The way he jumped on the JJJ thing about golden using the word but, then back pedaled out of it, followed by him jumping into MP's case for voting a low poster, I'm just feeling all kinds of sketch from him right now.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Not a bad place to put your vote. What do you think of this post from TH?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

What do you think of that post?

I think you're inaccurate in stating that all recruiters are equally bad. I don't think there's ever been a RM with recruiters who are not one way or the other in terms of baddieness.

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Not a bad place to put your vote. What do you think of this post from TH?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

What do you think of that post?

I think you're inaccurate in stating that all recruiters are equally bad. I don't think there's ever been a RM with recruiters who are not one way or the other in terms of baddieness.

Okay you think I'm wrong. Technically I've been proven to be wrong. Obviously Daisy thinks I'm wrong too because she's already said that. What else do you want Daisy to say about my post? Do you think I'm "not a bad place" for Daisy to put her vote because I'm wrong?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

I'm confused. Is this a random vote or are you voting for SVS because you think she has an ability?

Ricochet wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Linki: Then that makes me feel worse about his early vote. Unless their voting mechanics are significantly different from ours.

Votes are changeable and expressed in writing.

DrWilgy wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: DFaraday: I forgot he was even playing.
Devin: He's posted a bit more, and I know he's behind, but I'd still like to hear something from him that's.....well, kind of his idea.
DrWilgy: The early vote thing may or may not mean anything. Can anyone answer if he's new to mafia or if he has played on another forum before?

BWT, this has been explained previous. Actually this has been explained previous multiple times now. I'm from JTM, and the fact that you somehow missed multiple accounts of that explanation bothers me.

I have a new angle. We have information, it's the contest. Does anyone know if anyone else here would be considered artsy? If so who would that artsy person find the challenge to be more enticing to participate in for strictly the compitition? I suppose what I'm asking is, who would want to enter that challenge? Who has a history of wanting to be a baddie?

Can people verify if SVS is artsy in specific for me as well?

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

unfurl wrote:I noticed that DrWilgy changed his vote from me, which Im glad , to Ricochet but I dont see why him?

aapje wrote:Not a big fan of the whole melodramatic Golden stuff. I can see why Epi would be annoying but try taking a deep breath and relax.

I see people considering voting for low (content) posters. Maybe I will go with that. Day 1 is a crapshoot anyway.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Votes are not changeable in this poll. Just sayin'.

Ricochet wrote:

unfurl wrote:I noticed that DrWilgy changed his vote from me, which Im glad , to Ricochet but I dont see why him?

Wait, so votes are changeable?

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Votes are not changeable in this poll. Just sayin'.

unfurl wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Votes are not changeable in this poll. Just sayin'.

then how that vote was moved? maybe people who already voted can say if they are able to change it?

Spacedaisy wrote:Two things:

1. I'm here but I have to catch up

2. I'm having trouble with my iPad the last couple days, so bear with me trying to post.

Off to catch up.

Anyone else think that MP should give SD a better title now that they're hitched? Henchman just doesn't cut it in my book anymore

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Two things:

1. I'm here but I have to catch up

2. I'm having trouble with my iPad the last couple days, so bear with me trying to post.

Off to catch up.

Anyone else think that MP should give SD a better title now that they're hitched? Henchman just doesn't cut it in my book anymore