The Syndicate

DharmaHelper wrote:

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.

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.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can't say much at work, but one point I want to make is this: the importance of a lynch extends beyond just the alignment of the victim. Randomization ensures that a vote is not readable whatsoever and that it cannot progress the game.

Spacedaisy wrote:
Rico, I am well aware of the fact a large number of us are neutral, and the teams build progressively, but it doesn't change the fact that this IS a civ vs bad set up. Do you see the danger in that mind set being accepted as true? It is an easy mind set for baddies to hide in.

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Golden wrote:After I'm gone, lynch epi please. Thanks.

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Which general topics are you referring to?

Also regarding the llama/Rico/MP stuff, are you saying you agree with Rico, and distrust the other two?

That post is nearly as unclear as your magic eight ball posts.

G-Man wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Which general topics are you referring to?

Also regarding the llama/Rico/MP stuff, are you saying you agree with Rico, and distrust the other two?

That post is nearly as unclear as your magic eight ball posts.

No clue. I'd have to go back and look at his posts but I'm at work and it's time to do some billing.

I may feel drawn more to Rico just because I think we're cut from a similar cloth. Llama plays a mustache-twirling shifty sort of game and MP peed in my face once.

Sorry?

Spacedaisy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

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.

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.

I don't like it. Just as I don't like the same type of statements from MP, Timmer, or Rox. These are all experienced players too, which I find even more concerning. However, I will say that I did not even recall that comment from TH when I made my point. The ones I have found most baffling are the people who have seemed intent on continuing to believe this or who started the belief this was the way the game is set up later in the game. Because I am not the first person to point this fact out. I would need to look back at the context of that one quote you pulled to say if I trust him more than the other people perpetuating this misconception or less to determine if he would be the person I would want to put my vote on. I find your post directed at me to be odd as TH obviously did. It looked like you wanted someone else to build a case for you.

Rico, I am well aware of the fact a large number of us are neutral, and the teams build progressively, but it doesn't change the fact that this IS a civ vs bad set up. Do you see the danger in that mind set being accepted as true? It is an easy mind set for baddies to hide in.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can't say much at work, but one point I want to make is this: the importance of a lynch extends beyond just the alignment of the victim. Randomization ensures that a vote is not readable whatsoever and that it cannot progress the game.

Agreed. However I think the more pertinent question had already been asked. Was it actually random or was it a minor suspicion. His vote reasoning is unclear.

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Which general topics are you referring to?

Also regarding the llama/Rico/MP stuff, are you saying you agree with Rico, and distrust the other two?

That post is nearly as unclear as your magic eight ball posts.

No clue. I'd have to go back and look at his posts but I'm at work and it's time to do some billing.

I may feel drawn more to Rico just because I think we're cut from a similar cloth. Llama plays a mustache-twirling shifty sort of game and MP peed in my face once.

Sorry?

You don't have to be sorry, I just look forward to you clarifying some more when you are able. Otherwise it felt like a post with a lost pseudo-opinions, with it offering any real, direct opinions. I would like to hear what your opinions actually are though.

aapje wrote:Changeable votes? My poor spreadsheet

@Hosts: Will votes always be changeable? Can you let us know in advance next time?
Also I have some question open in an earlier post and I would be grateful if you were to answer those

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

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.

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.

I don't like it. Just as I don't like the same type of statements from MP, Timmer, or Rox. These are all experienced players too, which I find even more concerning. However, I will say that I did not even recall that comment from TH when I made my point. The ones I have found most baffling are the people who have seemed intent on continuing to believe this or who started the belief this was the way the game is set up later in the game. Because I am not the first person to point this fact out. I would need to look back at the context of that one quote you pulled to say if I trust him more than the other people perpetuating this misconception or less to determine if he would be the person I would want to put my vote on. I find your post directed at me to be odd as TH obviously did. It looked like you wanted someone else to build a case for you.

Rico, I am well aware of the fact a large number of us are neutral, and the teams build progressively, but it doesn't change the fact that this IS a civ vs bad set up. Do you see the danger in that mind set being accepted as true? It is an easy mind set for baddies to hide in.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can't say much at work, but one point I want to make is this: the importance of a lynch extends beyond just the alignment of the victim. Randomization ensures that a vote is not readable whatsoever and that it cannot progress the game.

Agreed. However I think the more pertinent question had already been asked. Was it actually random or was it a minor suspicion. His vote reasoning is unclear.

Motherfuckers be skeptical as fuck. When have you known me to ask anyone to build a case in my stead? I wanted your thoughts..

aapje wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Here I was starting to get worried that you lost your touch.

Thanks for answering (some of) these
Some questions you missed and follow-up questions:
Does the Apprentice know the effect of their potions?
Can the Warden absorb (and subsequently use) more than 1 power at once?
What happens if someone tries to target the Ranger while he is untargetable? Will the power fail or is it redirected? Will they be told?

Black Rock wrote:Dragons are fiery, dangerous creatures of mythology. They usually breath fire and eat people. I wonder what could possibly irritate a dragon?

Questions?

aapje wrote:Change of plan: the next person to change their vote will get mine for fucking with my spreadsheet.

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.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Changing my vote to Wilgy for mimicking me.

Golden wrote: 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.

aapje wrote:Change of plan: the next person to change their vote will get mine for fucking with my spreadsheet.

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: 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.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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.

I went away from Golden because I felt the explanation he offered me when I questioned him about it seemed fairly reasonable, and I overlooked/missed an earlier post from him where he further explained his initial response to the whole SVS thing.

I think in a game this large, there's just too much unknown to really be sure we're going to hit a target on Day 1. So I feel more comfortable voting for someone who is not contributing to the game that significantly. I know it takes some people time to really get into games, and I understand that. But in a game this large, I'd rather it be more about people actively participating and trying to get involved early on.

Now Day 2 on the other hand, I would start to look for more concrete reasons to lynch someone than "a low poster".

DON"T HATE ME DAVID!

Ricochet wrote:Well, with votes being changeable, this favors Wilgy's gameplay from JTM (did he know beforehand, though, lol? or did he just noticed, after casting his first vote), nevertheless voting without saying much or anything is still frowned upon, so I'm hoping to hear what determined his new vote. I played with him on JTM and I remember his activity being just as low, he was clipped as mafia after the first Night in that game.

DrWilgy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Well, with votes being changeable, this favors Wilgy's gameplay from JTM (did he know beforehand, though, lol? or did he just noticed, after casting his first vote), nevertheless voting without saying much or anything is still frowned upon, so I'm hoping to hear what determined his new vote. I played with him on JTM and I remember his activity being just as low, he was clipped as mafia after the first Night in that game.

I figured it out while playing with the poll. I cannot explain my vote due to it interfering with some rules.

Unfurl, you are my nee friend OK?

bea wrote:I stayed up an extra hour and a half - to read a page about DH's poop.

I'm caught up. I'll take what JJJ says into concideration Imma vote early tomorrow because friday is my busiest day.

Can't say it'll be well reasoned or thought out or explained.

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

Roxy wrote: Are you saying there are not 5 different factions in this game?
Also if you are saying this is a good vs evil game then what do you call the neutrals (which most of us are) - good or evil?

timmer wrote:In regards to SD and Devin (and anyone I missed) who don't like my stance on the game. I've been pretty clear in saying that I think it is an LMS game that will then segue into a traditional mafia game. I'm not saying LMS forever, just LMS for now. An unrecruit has no allegiance, no alignment, no task except to stay alive until said recruitment can happen. That's it. Right now, day 1, there are apparently 8 people on teams, and something like 25 not on teams. So the majority of us have survival on our mind, plain and simple.

My problem with people saying that they are playing civvie until they get recruited is that it could all be such a lie already. Someone could say that as the leader of a baddie team, lol. Whether someone wants to admit it or not, it's all lying because half of the people saying it will end up bad and their stance will then be strategic tactics, or already are.

You must see how there is at least anelement of LMS in these early days?

Boomslang wrote:

Roxy wrote: Are you saying there are not 5 different factions in this game?
Also if you are saying this is a good vs evil game then what do you call the neutrals (which most of us are) - good or evil?

There are five different factions. However, please note the following, from the host post: "These are not teams, just origins." The "factions" are just flavorful ways to inform different roles and spice up some of the position changes. There may be some clan dynamics things that go on, but that doesn't change the essential civ vs. bad nature of this game. In the end, no matter your initial clan, you're going to end up as either good or bad (or neutral, if you's a Guardian).

What do I call the neutrals? Potentially good or bad. But that's not important. There ARE baddies among us right now, and that is where our energy should focus.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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.

I went away from Golden because I felt the explanation he offered me when I questioned him about it seemed fairly reasonable, and I overlooked/missed an earlier post from him where he further explained his initial response to the whole SVS thing.

I think in a game this large, there's just too much unknown to really be sure we're going to hit a target on Day 1. So I feel more comfortable voting for someone who is not contributing to the game that significantly. I know it takes some people time to really get into games, and I understand that. But in a game this large, I'd rather it be more about people actively participating and trying to get involved early on.

Now Day 2 on the other hand, I would start to look for more concrete reasons to lynch someone than "a low poster".

You are not making me feel better about you, BWT. I agree that it is always the norm to have more concrete evidence to go on in Day 2. But there is now almost 30 pages of discussion to sift through on this Day 1, and that is just too much info to ignore and go with a random or a low poster.
Not only this, but I get the feeling that you are avoiding putting yourself out there into some of the more prominent discussions going on. Your "on-the-fence" (as someone other than you referred to it) comment RE:Golden is what pinged me immediately. That felt almost identical to something you said in Bioshock, and we lynched you Day 1 as a baddie. I wanted to get away from that and go after someone referring to this game as LMS (I still might if enough people vote that rout), but I just can't get this out of my mind. So I'm going meta for now and voting for you. I will check back in later before the day ends, but I have to disappear now that I've caught up. I REALLY need to work, as I am off for most of next week.

DON"T HATE ME DAVID!

I HATE YOU SO MUCH RIGHT NOW WELL maybe a little not really at all

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: 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.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Ricochet wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Randomized Ricochet.

I will not be voting for DisgruntledPorcupine today.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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.

Now this is a compelling observation, and a vote I could maybe get behind./quote]
Somehow, I missed TH's post earlier. So I'll try and address it.

I'm not sure what he means by feeling "like something is already on the line" for me, so I'll wait to hear/read more on that.

But I will say that this is my first game of mafia in several months, and in the 5 or so years I've been playing, it's the longest break I've ever taken from the game. I was planning on going until the end of the year at least, but MP told me that Recruitment 4 was in signups, and I couldn't pass on this game. So if it's because of me posting more than I normally do, me making a conscious effort to be more active, or it seems like I'm more enthusiastic than I normally am this early on, then that answers all of that.

If it's something else entirely though, then let me know.

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

Ricochet wrote:

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

reywaS wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: 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.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Those 2 Golden sentences stuck out to me as well.

Also, I have found myself agreeing with Timmer. I think he has made some very cogent points. The only thing I would disagree with is playing this as a LMS game for now. I believe that is overthinking things way too much. We have all played games with typical civvie to mafia ratios that also had neutral roles. I have played such a neutral role before. This game is no different. There are 2 civvie teams and 2 baddie teams. The only difference between this game and the typical game featuring neutrals is that there are a lot more neutrals and a lot fewer civvies and baddies which will of course change over time.

aapje wrote:Change of plan: the next person to change their vote will get mine for fucking with my spreadsheet.

Canucklehead wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: 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.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Those 2 Golden sentences stuck out to me as well.

Also, I have found myself agreeing with Timmer. I think he has made some very cogent points. The only thing I would disagree with is playing this as a LMS game for now. I believe that is overthinking things way too much. We have all played games with typical civvie to mafia ratios that also had neutral roles. I have played such a neutral role before. This game is no different. There are 2 civvie teams and 2 baddie teams. The only difference between this game and the typical game featuring neutrals is that there are a lot more neutrals and a lot fewer civvies and baddies which will of course change over time.

What your analysis in your last paragraph misses is that, unlike in "typical" games that have neutral roles, in THIS game, one's neutrality is almost guaranteed to change over the course of the game. There is no real room here for playing the same sort of strategy one would play as a neutral in a typical game because, unlike in those games where I understand that I'm on my own 'till the end and therefore don't have to worry about the fates and fortunes of other factions, in THIS game all I can really be certain of is that I won't always be neutral. Eventually, I'm going to have a win con specific to one side or the other, and because I do not know what that side will be, I need to work hard at this time to screw over neither side. That variability is what is guiding my strategy right now, in that I do not want to lose players that may later end up being members of the team I'll inevitably be recruited to. My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral. That is nothing at all like how I would play a neutral role in a typical game.
Obviously, YMMV

Spacedaisy wrote:The attitude of this game being played as survival only produces exactly what Canuck is espousing. She doesn't want to baddie hunt, but hey that is ok, because it's all about survival and she is only a neutral. Now this is carte blanche for baddies to do whatever they want because whenever we try to analyze anything, they are just neutrals liking to survive, they don't have to actually baddie hunt. As long as they don't get lynched it is ok. Look people, the majority of us will end up being civ.

I'm voting Canuck.