The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:@JJ - what do you think, specifically, of MM's posts in relation to BWT?

A quick scan revealed nothing striking to me, what should I be looking for? The only curious thing I saw was, if I am interpreting correctly, MM stating his unwillingness to vote BWT because BWT is off-meta. That'd be interesting and MM should talk about that.

The only game I have played with BWT that stands out in my memory is Monopoly Mafia. He and I were two utilities, and the only two members of our baddie team in that game. I just looked back at that game though, and apparently I misrememberd how BWT behaved in that game, so I will rescind my statement that BWT is acting off-meta.

Here is a case that Epignosis made on BWT in that game that got him lynched. It's worth a read if you're interested. I still will not vote for birdwithteeth11 today though.

I subbed in for baddie BWT in Death & Taxes, and so had to become very familiar with his posts in that game. For me, this current BWT reminds me of being on-meta for his baddie self.

linki @JJ - I won't create a rift. I respect epi plenty, and next game will be a new day. It's up to others if they want to call it spiteful.

Typhoony wrote:Is DrWilgy always like this?

I'm generally more chaotic, don't have the time for that now.

If you want a reference game: http://jesustoastmafia.com/index.php/topic,134.0.html

That was my first forum mafia game.

@SVS, I will answer your question as soon as I can. I promise.

I switched my vote to DFaraday. I'm actually pretty happy with the candidates for how this lynch is turning out. My original theory on baddie recruiters was that they might pick someone like DF, and I think the fact many others are thinking that way has perhaps suggested that there is something to it in the end.

I think it ironic that the conversation that I had with SVS, that started epi's entire think with me, has ultimately been the same kind of thinking that is determining the lynch in the end.

Turnip Head wrote:

timmer wrote:Skimming at work. Before I vote, aapje, could you explain your vote for DH? Scotty's post does seem to smell like bullshit?

The monkey said he would vote for the next person to change their vote.

Oh, and DH had voted elsewher earlier? Fair enough, then, thanks TH!

I wonder if aapje is going to change his vote to the next person who changes their vote, thus forcing him to self vote?

*hed asplodes*

SVS hasn't exactly explained her beef with my post, but I'd already decided to give Unfurl the BOTD for now as I couldn't find any other reason to suspect her further than the one initial ping I had. Instead I shall vote for someone who hasn't contributed very much, if anything, to the game so far.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I think people would have been wise to vote epi, but oh well. Never mind.

Is there a compelling reason beyond the potential that he won't ever be on Golden's team?

Apparently there is no compelling reason.

EBWOP: Screwed up the ticking off who he had named. I think I started ticking off the ones he didn't name and then changed part way through. It is fixed below.

LoRab wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I've reached a verdict.

First though, I want to go back to the 8 lowest posters:

Boomslang
DFaraday
DrWilgy
LoRab
nutella
TinyBubbles
Tranq
Typhoony

I had narrowed this list down to 3 people last time: DFaraday, DrWilgy, and either Tranq or Typh (I forget now). Tranq and Typh have both contributed during Day 1, so cross them off. DrWilgy made me suspicious with his vote at first, but he offered up a reasonable explanation so he's off the list. Which leaves us with the one person I honestly do not remember posting at all during Day 1 (and didn't last time I checked)...

Votes DFaraday

Even accounting for timing, that list is not at all accurate. The current (or when I pressed the count button) list of lowest posters (ding next to the ones BWT named):

Sorsha (3)
DF (3) -
Bass (4)
DP (5)
Wiggly (7) -
Russ (8)
LoRab (9) -
Boomslang (9) -
Tiny Bubbles (10) -
Typh (11) -
Tranq (11) -
Devin (11)
Knuk (12)
SD (13)
LA (13) -
Scotty (14)

So...uh...why not all the names. Even if someone has made a few posts since you checked, the lowest portion of the list certainly wouldn't have changed. I think you just earned my vote.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.

Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

If I was a civilian recruiter I would be very willing to recruit Epignosis.

I don't mean he will permanently not be civ. I mean I do not believe his mindset is one of a civ right now.

Gonna be a sheep and join the bleating herds voting for *DFaraday* due to his non-commitment to the game. Shame, I always like playing with him!

I see my name being mentioned for a vote and that's fine, I know I haven't been posting a lot but I was hoping I'd get the botd since I'm out of state for a funeral. After tomorrow I should be able to participate more.

I really don't feel comfortable voting today. If you guys want I can throw out a random but I'm really not informed as well as I'd like to be to make an informed vote. I don't think it would be fair for me to be a tie breaker either.

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

Bullzeye wrote:SVS hasn't exactly explained her beef with my post, but I'd already decided to give Unfurl the BOTD for now as I couldn't find any other reason to suspect her further than the one initial ping I had. Instead I shall vote for someone who hasn't contributed very much, if anything, to the game so far.

Sure I did. You sounded like you were looking to justify a vote for Unfurl. You brought her up a few times. Other than flirting with the BWT wagon, she was the extent of the baddie hunting you did, yet you proposed to vote for her for, essentially, her lack of baddie hunting. Meanwhile, several people have basically said, "I'm neutral, meh with alienating potential teammates."

Although not sure if Wilgy really just wants to be friends with Unfurl, or what

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

Sorsha wrote:I see my name being mentioned for a vote and that's fine, I know I haven't been posting a lot but I was hoping I'd get the botd since I'm out of state for a funeral. After tomorrow I should be able to participate more.

I really don't feel comfortable voting today. If you guys want I can throw out a random but I'm really not informed as well as I'd like to be to make an informed vote. I don't think it would be fair for me to be a tie breaker either.

You could always vote Bass to re-instate the tie I just broke? I'm not overly familiar with the case against him though. I don't think you're really being discussed all that much and I think everyone appreciates your circumstances - I can say I'd ruled you out as my low poster vote once you explained the situation. Dunno if it's wise to miss the vote, our lovely benevolent hosts might not take kindly to it!

LoRab wrote:EBWOP: Screwed up the ticking off who he had named. I think I started ticking off the ones he didn't name and then changed part way through. It is fixed below.

Do you think BWT intentially left people off his low-poster list because he either already has BTSC with them/plans to recruit them later? Is this why you voted for BWT?

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I'd rather kill a neutral than end the day in a no lynch. We'd learn nothing.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.

DrWilgy wrote:Just wondering.

Is there anything wrong with me wanting friends? Nothing more nothing less. Unfurl, I want to be friends with you due to me voting for you so quickly. I'm sorry about that. Players have vouched for you and I may have made a mistake. MM86 and I have played together already, and I can see us becoming good friends as well. That's why I chose them!

There is nothing wrong to be friendly to people, Im not a very agressive player myself, but if I suspect someone of being bad, then I will vote for them even if they are among the people I get along the most overall
Maybe is just because we are from different sites/styles that it sounds somewhat odd to most people to propose to be friends in a game that can get hard core throught
But like I said Im glad you changed your mind

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I'd rather kill a neutral than end the day in a no lynch. We'd learn nothing.

What would we learn from a neutral lynch?

Posting from airport...my last weekend traveling before a one week break from it! Haha

I have been mostly following, just haven't had time to post. I only skipped 10 pages, I swear. And apparently they were full of DHs poop anyway.

I think voting low posters on D1 is ludicrous. DF could be really excited for this game and just had one long shift at work and then needed to sleep, and he could've missed basically all of today. I think people are basically giving up on getting a baddie because there are just 2, so they're playing for self preservation and feel least guilty about voting a low poster because they seem less interested in playing. I think that stinks.

I'm voting timmer. He and MP were suggesting we play the game in a way that pretty much guarantees cob defeat IMO. And plenty of baddies have tried to use odd setups as reasons to convince Cubs to work with them. I actually think MP was more militant about it, but I believe that his real life concerns are real, and timmer was all for an "everyone is LMS" game.

OMG STOP. I clicked submit 3 times without even reading the Linki and it won't go thru. *sobs*

Linki. Listen to JJJ. He's not stupid. If we get a baddie with DF, it'll be blind chance. Use actual suspicion. I know some people don't feel hopeful about getting a baddies, but we have to try. Nipping the baddie recruitment in the bud is by far the easiest way to win here.

Golden doesn't seem genuine to me. I'm voting for him.

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:SVS hasn't exactly explained her beef with my post, but I'd already decided to give Unfurl the BOTD for now as I couldn't find any other reason to suspect her further than the one initial ping I had. Instead I shall vote for someone who hasn't contributed very much, if anything, to the game so far.

Sure I did. You sounded like you were looking to justify a vote for Unfurl. You brought her up a few times. Other than flirting with the BWT wagon, she was the extent of the baddie hunting you did, yet you proposed to vote for her for, essentially, her lack of baddie hunting. Meanwhile, several people have basically said, "I'm neutral, meh with alienating potential teammates."

Although not sure if Wilgy really just wants to be friends with Unfurl, or what

Not counting the posts I've made in the past hour, exactly one of my now 43 posts is about Unfurl. In the other two that mention her, I say I'm undecided and then say that people who know her better than me think what I'm seeing is nothing special.

Typhoony wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I'd rather kill a neutral than end the day in a no lynch. We'd learn nothing.

What would we learn from a neutral lynch?

That the player was not civilian or baddie. Players involved and not involved could be examined for their involvement and non-involvement. It's not that different from any lynch in a normal game.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.

Rey - read this conversation back. You are contradicting yourself all over. Why does my original statement make me bad?

You say it's because it makes sense if I'm a recruiter.

Look at this:

golden wrote:If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

reywaS wrote:the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event

So which is it - that it's well established recruiters don't have control over the event....

Or that the comment makes me look like I'm bad because it makes me look like I have control over the event...

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.

What do you think of Bass's proposed theory re: MP and llama in his most recent post?

I'd lynch BWT before DF.

Turnip Head wrote:

timmer wrote:Skimming at work. Before I vote, aapje, could you explain your vote for DH? Scotty's post does seem to smell like bullshit?

The monkey said he would vote for the next person to change their vote.

This.

S~V~S wrote:I wonder if aapje is going to change his vote to the next person who changes their vote, thus forcing him to self vote?

*hed asplodes*

I just hope votes will not be changeable every day

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.

What do you think of Bass's proposed theory re: MP and llama in his most recent post?

I'd lynch BWT before DF.

Bass's theory doesn't register as a ping on bass.

I agree that some hosts would make sure their recruiters would not be someone who is likely to flake. I think there are a lot of people in this game who are not likely too flake. Bass's theory makes it look to me like he is trying to solve the game, although putting it specifically on llama or MP, I dunno, I'll have to think about it.

JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: That the player was not civilian or baddie. Players involved and not involved could be examined for their involvement and non-involvement. It's not that different from any lynch in a normal game.

I'm not sure why the neutral in this case needs to die in order for you to look at people's involvement in his/her lynch though.

Note that I'm working on the assumption of a neutral lynch here.

Bullzeye wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I see my name being mentioned for a vote and that's fine, I know I haven't been posting a lot but I was hoping I'd get the botd since I'm out of state for a funeral. After tomorrow I should be able to participate more.

I really don't feel comfortable voting today. If you guys want I can throw out a random but I'm really not informed as well as I'd like to be to make an informed vote. I don't think it would be fair for me to be a tie breaker either.

You could always vote Bass to re-instate the tie I just broke? I'm not overly familiar with the case against him though. I don't think you're really being discussed all that much and I think everyone appreciates your circumstances - I can say I'd ruled you out as my low poster vote once you explained the situation. Dunno if it's wise to miss the vote, our lovely benevolent hosts might not take kindly to it!

Yeah.. I'm not super worried I just saw a couple lists with my name on them.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I agree with this

Tranq wrote:

LoRab wrote:EBWOP: Screwed up the ticking off who he had named. I think I started ticking off the ones he didn't name and then changed part way through. It is fixed below.

Do you think BWT intentially left people off his low-poster list because he either already has BTSC with them/plans to recruit them later? Is this why you voted for BWT?

Essentially, that's my thought. For day 1, it's a strong enough reason. Unless he answers and convinces me otherwise, or something else happens to ping my suspiciometer.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I'd rather kill a neutral than end the day in a no lynch. We'd learn nothing.

Unless the person is bad, we actually will theoretically learn nothing regardless because of the seemer being a position 1 action--at least the first time, the seemer role (which I had, so I remember it well), was able to show up as they wanted in a check and as they wanted if lynched. It was really quite fun to have--and is a pain to have if you are not on that team, lol. LC could have tweaked the ability for this game, and probably has, but we can't know ot what degree.

I mean, we learn that the person lynched is either X role or a baddie alligned/playing as a baddie even though neutral Seemer--so the chances are a person really is as they appear. But we won't actually know that as fact.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not sure why the neutral in this case needs to die in order for you to look at people's involvement in his/her lynch though.

That analysis would probably change if the alignment is non-neutral (primarily if it's a recruiter).

What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

That is a good point.

Russtifinko wrote: He and MP were suggesting we play the game in a way that pretty much guarantees cob defeat IMO. And plenty of baddies have tried to use odd setups as reasons to convince Cubs to work with them. I actually think MP was more militant about it, but I believe that his real life concerns are real, and timmer was all for an "everyone is LMS" game.

What is cob and cubs? Civvies?

13 pages for me to catch up on? You guys are killing me. I do not think golden is bad
D. I do not think epi is bad. I do not think marmot is bad.

You know who didn't post at all during those 13 pages, who disappeared as soon as I wasn't around to attack her? TinyBubbles. She gets my vote.

I would be pretty ok with the lynch not being stopped.

@JJ - someone who seems like another role (ie they don't come back as themselves when their role card is revealed).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.

A role that "seems" to be another role when lynched. Like say you're a baddie with seemer power and we lynch you, you appear as the bestest but most believable civ when your role is revealed and we all cry a lot thinking we killed someone good.

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

I like her new nickname

Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.

I interpret him as seeing what he thinks is a logical discrepancy in your content and perceiving it to be a sign of insincerity. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front, but I can understand why he'd take that position. What has he said that has suggested to you that he might be jumbling his thought process?

I voted for BWT because I can't shake the gut feeling I have about him. Voting DFaraday for not being involved on Day 1 when the majority of players have no win condition yet is... I won't call it unfair, just lazy.