The Syndicate

boo wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Degobunny wrote:I am finding it really hard to post on this site. Every time I finish writing something I need to login again and it erases what I typed out on my pad.

When you log in, do you have "Log me on automatically each visit" checked? The last person this happened to resolved the issue by clicking that. If you do have that checked, then not sure what about this site would be causing that.

And not sure about bidding on any of these yet, initially I want to be more conservative with my money.

And I am still trying to figure out which option, search for partners or NOT search for partners, would benefit the rail/utilities more. Standard civvies, no BTS with purchased powers, but civvie win conditions OR indies building monopolies and potential hotels that will require the baddies to shell out real $$? I think FZ asked this question originally, and I don't think anyone really addressed the issue.

I definitely think that discussing what would most benefit the baddies should be the big topic.

Standard civvies would make it easier for the non-rails/utils to win, but going the other route might make it HARDER for the baddies to win, might present more competition. I could see going wither way, although, I find it unlikely that every civ will agree to do the non search thing, pretty much rendering it moot. Because you can pledge not to search all you want, if someone else finds you, it still affects your status & win conditions.

@boo~ if someone who is the member of a completed monopoly is lynched, will their Monopoly status as well as their card be revealed? Since being in a monopoly has effected their win conditions, and they are no longer really a "civ"? And if the member of a monopoly is deaded, does the remainder of the team revert to civ, or are they still a LMS team?

I need to reread the rail/util sections of the host posts.

Just the card. The remainder stays LMS (and will want to try and keep the lynched teammates property). They would still be allowed to build houses and hotels on their properties, but the equal building rule would require that if someone who wasn't them picked up the lynched players property, they build on it as well (so 1 house, 1 house, 0 house, would prevent from building a second until the 0 had 1 built). The person who got the property without knowing they were getting one that had had all of them together (meaning no houses had been built) wouldn't find out until someone landed on that space (since the amount of rent they would receive is doubled) or a house was built (although with the rent doubled, if you pay attention to the linked board movements, you could see that it was already that way if anyone landed on any of the properties in the monopoly).

There are however also powers that relate to this sort of thing that may come into play, so that won't all be true 100% of the time.

juliets wrote:MP, what do you think about the fact that llama has bid for the double search (where you can send in two guesses for your partner instead of just one)? Why would he do that if he's got all his partners?

fingersplints wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: I think Occam's Razor applies here. I'm still totally convinced that LC and Llama are bad news, and I will continue to try to get them lynched.

So, if one came back as good, that wouldn't change make you more hesitant about the other?
Also, if someone who once was a civvie but is now part of a LMS group is lynched, would we be told that or will it just appear the same? That's not really to you just in general idk if boo has already answered that

MovingPictures07 wrote:

juliets wrote:MP, what do you think about the fact that llama has bid for the double search (where you can send in two guesses for your partner instead of just one)? Why would he do that if he's got all his partners?

That's a good question, but you could ask the same question about why would anyone who has no or limited use for an item buy it? To keep it from other players.

I'm not sure that's why he's buying it, but it's at least an explanation if my assumptions are correct.

MovingPictures07 wrote:How am I acting weird, Llama? You said that before, and so has LC, but at least LC has given reasons, even if they are inaccurate.

thellama73 wrote:SVS, what do you make of Alex this game? I think he is acting weird, but I don't know that weird = bad.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:SVS, what do you make of Alex this game? I think he is acting weird, but I don't know that weird = bad.

I think he's acting pretty much just like he acted at the beginning of Dr Who. This is how he acts now

S~V~S wrote:I asked him that Day One, and he said you just come back as your card.

And thanks for the input on Zeek, MP. It is just a *feel* for me, as soon as I saw his post, I was like, "That's who killed me". I could be wrong, but that was how it felt, and how it still does feel to me.

Juliets, didn't you play Dr Who before zeek was recruited? So you have experienced him as a civ. He transitioned pretty flawlessly.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:How am I acting weird, Llama? You said that before, and so has LC, but at least LC has given reasons, even if they are inaccurate.

You're acting weird by insisting I am bad in the face of all logic, and continuing to rationalize your suspicion when presented with contradictory evidence. It doesn't seem like you.

MovingPictures07 wrote: And so it seems you're basically NO U'ing me then, just like LC.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Why am I not allowed to strongly believe a certain set of beliefs but you are? You say "juliets is bad" but you didn't even give a reason, and you keep suspicion hopping. How is that any better than my suspicion?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I also don't understand how my behavior in this game or DW is any different than my civvie behavior of the past, so I'm intrigued why people seem to think that's the case.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: And so it seems you're basically NO U'ing me then, just like LC.

Nonsense. I'm not saying you're bad because you suspect me. I'm saying you're weird for suspecting me for such an obviously incorrect reason.

What contradictory evidence, you ask? Well you know me, I am all about incentives.

1. What incentive does baddie llama have to tie himself, needlessly and inextricably, to a teammate, knowing full well that if one of us goes down, the other will as well? Why not just stay quiet? It makes no sense, especially this early in the game.
2. What incentive does teammate llama have to spend valuable, precious money on a skill that would be f no use to me according to your theory? Why not bid on something else or not at all?
3. What incentive does baddie llama have to draw attention to himself by refusing to make real cases and just accusing people without backing it up? How does that help me or my alleged team?

None of this behavior makes sense as a baddie and you know it, but since you are wedded to your theory, you'll ignore the evidence and just shout WIFOM! even though that term is basically meaningless.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Why am I not allowed to strongly believe a certain set of beliefs but you are? You say "juliets is bad" but you didn't even give a reason, and you keep suspicion hopping. How is that any better than my suspicion?

I told you, I am not making cases this game. I am just saying things to see what happens.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I also don't understand how my behavior in this game or DW is any different than my civvie behavior of the past, so I'm intrigued why people seem to think that's the case.

It has no bearing on THIS game, so remind me post game and I will tell you what I am talking about. I also need time to think about it; it's hard to explain.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Fair enough, I'll consider this. Thanks for responding. Can I ask why you are just saying things though?

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, while I understand your point, the game of mafia is sometimes much more about deception than incentives. What incentive would you have had for gunning after your only civvie-appearing teammate ALL of American Gods? I could ask plenty of incentive questions not only to you but also myself and other players who have been baddies before and have defied the most straightforward cases of action.

thellama73 wrote:WIFOM! even though that term is basically meaningless.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'll give you another example. What incentive did Snow Dog have defending Bass casually the entire time in Doctor Who even though they were teammates? In fact, that entire team casually defended or refused to comment on their teammates all game, but they did it anyway. Epig even said he was trying to play the game as the "most obvious" baddie ever because people always say, "Oh, so and so wouldn't do that, that's too obvious!" But he avoided lynch cycle after cycle.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Fair enough, I'll consider this. Thanks for responding. Can I ask why you are just saying things though?

Thank you. All I ask is that you think things through instead of acting rashly. In answer to your question, there are two reasons.
1) It amuses me.
2) This is a big, complex game taking place during a month where free time is scarce for me. It was originally my intention to ride out the first few days without doing much in order to think the herd and have a more manageable group size. I have inadvertently gotten sucked in more than I intended to though. The case making will pick up after there is more of a vote record and when there are fewer people to make consider.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, while I understand your point, the game of mafia is sometimes much more about deception than incentives. What incentive would you have had for gunning after your only civvie-appearing teammate ALL of American Gods? I could ask plenty of incentive questions not only to you but also myself and other players who have been baddies before and have defied the most straightforward cases of action.

Deception doesn't matter more than incentives. Deception is an incentive. That's like saying money matters more than incentives.

With regard to American Gods, I had multiple reasons for playing that the way I did. Mainly, I wanted to appear consistent (it kept me from getting lynched, didn't it?) I was confident that he was in no real danger of dying, I was confident that if he did die it would not be a game ending blow to my team, and it was really, really funny.

Also, it convinced SVS that I always throw teammates under the bus, even though that is literally the only time I have done it, so that is worth something. I can't speak for the others you mentioned, as I do not know the particulars, but I guarantee they had good reasons.

keys56000000000 wrote:

I'm interested in hearing from keys, as he's been very quiet after the searching debate and not said much about suspicions.

People didn't like what I had to say. The one person who did was lynched for it. A few people have accused me of disrespecting Boo and his game. It continues to be said. So, yeah. Now I'm just trying to be polite and run out the clock so the game keep moving. And what is there to say, anyway? The consensus seems to be that we're all intending to ditch the civs, if we live long enough. So why communicate anything to my competitors?

boo wrote:In need of another replacement, if anyone is interested please let me know. Thanks.

thellama73 wrote:In fact, why don't I just play all the roles.

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In fact, why don't I just play all the roles.

If you played all the roles, would the Civvies or Baddies win?

S~V~S wrote:It certainly would not be the low posters.

S~V~S wrote:It certainly would not be the low posters.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Long Con, I went back and did a reread of your 'case' on me. I just realized that half of it I don't understand, and half of it is pretty much a No U. Do you mind reexplaining yourself?

Long Con wrote:In a recent game, I correctly called out Lorab and Canucklehead as baddies, because they trusted me and openly said they thought I was Civvie in the thread, multiple times. I found it suspicious, because I was a baddie, and I started to try to figure out why they thought I was Civvie. I came to the conclusion that they probably hoped I was Civvie, but that they were simply saying those things in order to placate me, or to make me feel more in sync with them in the thread. It was a way of acting that was, at its core, intended to make themselves seem more Civvie.

I'm not saying that Metalmarsh and Turnip Head are baddies. I am saying that their trust in Epignosis on Day One fits the basic points of what Lorab and Canucklehead were doing in that game, in that they don't have anything much to go on to say they trust him. It could be viewed as a way for baddies to set up a trust-warmed in-thread relationship with a player that they believe would be a better ally than enemy.

And, well, Epig is that sort of player.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Of course, I'd just like to say right now (for any murderous, property-hungry baddies that are reading) that if I ever win the bid for a property, it will IMMEDIATELY be put up for private trade, and be gone from my possession before the next night kill lands.

What if I don't believe you?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, LC, what exactly is your case against Epig? Do you think he's bad, or is it that you don't agree with TH's early read of Epig? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but I might have missed your reasoning somewhere.

I got nothing much against Epig. He got my vote Day One, but he's not my biggest suspicion right now. I don't really want him to be lynched, I'd rather see how his game goes after the start he chose.

And that's exactly how I felt on Day 1. I didn't want Epi to be lynched, so I voted the closest person to him in vote totals. You happened to be one of a couple people tied at 1, so you got my vote.

No I'm not suspicious of you, I just don't agree with your strategies. I also don't agree with FZ.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Good point, I was wrong there. They couldn't kill one of their own. So I guess now I'm a railroad who's intentionally getting some things wrong about my own role...?

Well, Made didn't misunderstand his role on purpose.

Long Con wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'm also wary of Hedgeowl being quiet, especially after the last game.

Ha! I was just thinking "Boogs wants to come after me for being a sneaky baddie in Monty Python?? What about Hedgeowl and her extended gang of superthugs who were laughing at all of us while they ran the whole game?"

Hedgeowl wrote: Not sure who I will vote yet

Long Con wrote:Switching my vote now to birdwithteeth, to gain access to the $200 bidding bonus on his property, and to widen the gap between him and myself.

thellama73 wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote: Not sure who I will vote yet

You've only got 95 minutes to decide, you know.

Long Con wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Long Con, I went back and did a reread of your 'case' on me. I just realized that half of it I don't understand, and half of it is pretty much a No U. Do you mind reexplaining yourself?

Ok, well, I originally laid out the "Baddies Who Profess Trust in Civvies to Gain Trust and Foster Feelings of Synergy With Them" concept here:

Long Con wrote:In a recent game, I correctly called out Lorab and Canucklehead as baddies, because they trusted me and openly said they thought I was Civvie in the thread, multiple times. I found it suspicious, because I was a baddie, and I started to try to figure out why they thought I was Civvie. I came to the conclusion that they probably hoped I was Civvie, but that they were simply saying those things in order to placate me, or to make me feel more in sync with them in the thread. It was a way of acting that was, at its core, intended to make themselves seem more Civvie.

I'm not saying that Metalmarsh and Turnip Head are baddies. I am saying that their trust in Epignosis on Day One fits the basic points of what Lorab and Canucklehead were doing in that game, in that they don't have anything much to go on to say they trust him. It could be viewed as a way for baddies to set up a trust-warmed in-thread relationship with a player that they believe would be a better ally than enemy.

And, well, Epig is that sort of player.

I thought that what you and TH were doing with your early trust in Epignosis fit that theory. I presented the possibility, and the way you reacted (in contrast with TH's reaction) made me suspect that I had hit a nerve with you.

Long Con wrote:Your first post after mine above:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Of course, I'd just like to say right now (for any murderous, property-hungry baddies that are reading) that if I ever win the bid for a property, it will IMMEDIATELY be put up for private trade, and be gone from my possession before the next night kill lands.

What if I don't believe you?

What is this, just lashing out at me for... what reason? It really strikes me as weird.

Long Con wrote:Your next post to me, you say you're not suspicious of me:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, LC, what exactly is your case against Epig? Do you think he's bad, or is it that you don't agree with TH's early read of Epig? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but I might have missed your reasoning somewhere.

I got nothing much against Epig. He got my vote Day One, but he's not my biggest suspicion right now. I don't really want him to be lynched, I'd rather see how his game goes after the start he chose.

And that's exactly how I felt on Day 1. I didn't want Epi to be lynched, so I voted the closest person to him in vote totals. You happened to be one of a couple people tied at 1, so you got my vote.

No I'm not suspicious of you, I just don't agree with your strategies. I also don't agree with FZ.

Long Con wrote:Then in your next post to me, you imply that I'm bad again:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Good point, I was wrong there. They couldn't kill one of their own. So I guess now I'm a railroad who's intentionally getting some things wrong about my own role...?

Well, Made didn't misunderstand his role on purpose.

I hope this clarifies my suspicion of you, Metalmarsh. From these quotes, I observe that you went straight to acting like I am untrustworthy, then say you don't suspect me, then you go back to suggesting I'm a baddie. That behaviour just looks bad to me.

fingersplints wrote:I wonder who quit

Spacedaisy wrote:I give up. I don't have time to catch up. I honestly don't even know the mechanics of this game. I'm going to roll with a BWT vote.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'll give you another example. What incentive did Snow Dog have defending Bass casually the entire time in Doctor Who even though they were teammates? In fact, that entire team casually defended or refused to comment on their teammates all game, but they did it anyway. Epig even said he was trying to play the game as the "most obvious" baddie ever because people always say, "Oh, so and so wouldn't do that, that's too obvious!" But he avoided lynch cycle after cycle.