The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:Hi.

JJJ is bad.



If anyone wants me, I'll be listening to REM

Hi Scotty.

No. What's your beef?

timmer wrote:Which means... what? lol

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I've OT talked enough.

Although recently I've uncovered that POE naturally describes my recently developed playstyle because I much more easily find town reads than I do baddie reads, I've never formally used POE before.

I'll be using POE exclusively this game, and I'd like to approach it both as an individual (with my rainbow lists like I usually do) but as a group this time.

Who wants to join me?

tbh what does this mean tbh

Stated as simply as possible, POE ("process of elimination") takes the typical strategy of a town player (to hunt for members of the mafia) and flips it on its head (instead hunt for fellow townies).

The theory behind POE is that town can win due to the fact that it has a majority, and if members of the town can collectively use POE to clear enough of each other from consideration of being mafia, then the only players that haven't been cleared are the mafia.

A player can approach POE on an individual level, like I've usually been doing more so these days in the beginning of the game when I state "here are 5 town reads", etc., and then when it comes time to vote I just vote among the players I haven't found any reason to call town.

Multiple players can approach POE on a group level with specific intent of using POE (something I have not yet participated in), and assuming those players can town-clear each other, they will then work with each other collectively to cross-examine each other's town reads to develop a consensus suspect pool. For example, if there are 10 players, and I (as Player #1) have town reads on Players #3, 5, 7, and 8, and Players #3 and #5 who also are using POE have town reads on Players #2, 4, 5, and 9, then that leaves a consensus suspect pool of only Players #6 and #10, since neither of those players are being town read by any of the players utilizing POE. All of the POE-utilizing players would then decide on either #6 or #10 for their votes.

timmer wrote:What the hell does POE mean? Am I that far out of the loop?

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
also I can't tell if my brain is just a brick or if whether or not there was supposed to be any useful info in the first host post/recording

Scotty wrote:No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Conclusion: I think Wilgy is tinfoil reading me as mafia because he's afraid that I'm mafia.

So... you are townreading Wilgy?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Usually I'm all for tons of chatter out of the gate, but I'm too tired to read 140 posts right now, so you can all gonto hell.

You're probably not the only one that feels that way. I think we let our dialogue drag too long and I am going to chill out for the rest of Day 0. This is check-in time, not blow up the thread time.

That changes when the lynching starts.

timmer wrote:What the hell does POE mean? Am I that far out of the loop?

timmer wrote:Oh, ignore me, I've just gotten to a post where eMP breaks it down, s'all good.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Day 0 and already hunting baddies


wow so many role secrets this game

also I can't tell if my brain is just a brick or if whether or not there was supposed to be any useful info in the first host post/recording

timmer wrote:

Spoiler: show

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I've OT talked enough.

Although recently I've uncovered that POE naturally describes my recently developed playstyle because I much more easily find town reads than I do baddie reads, I've never formally used POE before.

I'll be using POE exclusively this game, and I'd like to approach it both as an individual (with my rainbow lists like I usually do) but as a group this time.

Who wants to join me?

tbh what does this mean tbh

Stated as simply as possible, POE ("process of elimination") takes the typical strategy of a town player (to hunt for members of the mafia) and flips it on its head (instead hunt for fellow townies).

The theory behind POE is that town can win due to the fact that it has a majority, and if members of the town can collectively use POE to clear enough of each other from consideration of being mafia, then the only players that haven't been cleared are the mafia.

A player can approach POE on an individual level, like I've usually been doing more so these days in the beginning of the game when I state "here are 5 town reads", etc., and then when it comes time to vote I just vote among the players I haven't found any reason to call town.

Multiple players can approach POE on a group level with specific intent of using POE (something I have not yet participated in), and assuming those players can town-clear each other, they will then work with each other collectively to cross-examine each other's town reads to develop a consensus suspect pool. For example, if there are 10 players, and I (as Player #1) have town reads on Players #3, 5, 7, and 8, and Players #3 and #5 who also are using POE have town reads on Players #2, 4, 5, and 9, then that leaves a consensus suspect pool of only Players #6 and #10, since neither of those players are being town read by any of the players utilizing POE. All of the POE-utilizing players would then decide on either #6 or #10 for their votes.

You just blew my mind. And yet... wouldn't it be ridiculously exploitable? It would only take one civ-reading baddie to infiltrate the cluster of POE players and lead them astray, no?

Also, wouldn't this provide the baddies with a narrowed pool of targets?

Also also, isn't it sort of a way to "go after the absent/quiet players" without the stigma of having to say you are going after quiet/absent players, which some people don't like?

I'm so intrigued by this.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

Okay.

Why don't I satisfy your diet?

DrWilgy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:You could've just stated that you don't know.

Sure, I suppose I could have, but I'm naturally notoriously verbose when I speak and type, and I apparently intend on keeping it that way.

Staaaaaahp

It makes me baddie read you.

It's too early in the game for my gut to be whispering sweet nothings.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I've OT talked enough.

Although recently I've uncovered that POE naturally describes my recently developed playstyle because I much more easily find town reads than I do baddie reads, I've never formally used POE before.

I'll be using POE exclusively this game, and I'd like to approach it both as an individual (with my rainbow lists like I usually do) but as a group this time.

Who wants to join me?

tbh what does this mean tbh

Stated as simply as possible, POE ("process of elimination") takes the typical strategy of a town player (to hunt for members of the mafia) and flips it on its head (instead hunt for fellow townies).

The theory behind POE is that town can win due to the fact that it has a majority, and if members of the town can collectively use POE to clear enough of each other from consideration of being mafia, then the only players that haven't been cleared are the mafia.

A player can approach POE on an individual level, like I've usually been doing more so these days in the beginning of the game when I state "here are 5 town reads", etc., and then when it comes time to vote I just vote among the players I haven't found any reason to call town.

Multiple players can approach POE on a group level with specific intent of using POE (something I have not yet participated in), and assuming those players can town-clear each other, they will then work with each other collectively to cross-examine each other's town reads to develop a consensus suspect pool. For example, if there are 10 players, and I (as Player #1) have town reads on Players #3, 5, 7, and 8, and Players #3 and #5 who also are using POE have town reads on Players #2, 4, 5, and 9, then that leaves a consensus suspect pool of only Players #6 and #10, since neither of those players are being town read by any of the players utilizing POE. All of the POE-utilizing players would then decide on either #6 or #10 for their votes.

DrWilgy wrote:I lost interest after reading PoE 3 times

JJJ and MP, are you teammates again?

DrWilgy wrote:Linki @MP - idk. I think it's the PoE discussion along with your mannerisms. Declaring PoE as your playstyle gives you a means to stick to something and have at least have that method of play be true. Your mannerisms make it hard to read you in general.

DrWilgy wrote:That's exactly what a baddie would say.

Eh, I guess it was the mannerisms were just subject of my thoughts at the moment, but you are correct. This defined PoE playstyle is what has my feathers rustled. Your argument that it produces content doesn't settle my stomachache either as I know you have the potential to out tons of posts as a baddie just as you do while civvie.

Sloonei wrote:Usually I'm all for tons of chatter out of the gate, but I'm too tired to read 140 posts right now, so you can all gonto hell.

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

Okay.

Why don't I satisfy your diet?

Because you are actually antlantian.

Good morning everyone!

DrWilgy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:You could've just stated that you don't know.

Sure, I suppose I could have, but I'm naturally notoriously verbose when I speak and type, and I apparently intend on keeping it that way.

Staaaaaahp

It makes me baddie read you.

It's too early in the game for my gut to be whispering sweet nothings.

@MP, your read and understanding is accurate. I would like to bring to attention the underlined regarding the matter.

This doesn't change my gut read of you, but in regards to voting for you, you have convinced me that I want to keep you alive... With scrutiny...

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Still catching up, but I had a question about this post.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I've OT talked enough.

Although recently I've uncovered that POE naturally describes my recently developed playstyle because I much more easily find town reads than I do baddie reads, I've never formally used POE before.

I'll be using POE exclusively this game, and I'd like to approach it both as an individual (with my rainbow lists like I usually do) but as a group this time.

Who wants to join me?

tbh what does this mean tbh

Stated as simply as possible, POE ("process of elimination") takes the typical strategy of a town player (to hunt for members of the mafia) and flips it on its head (instead hunt for fellow townies).

The theory behind POE is that town can win due to the fact that it has a majority, and if members of the town can collectively use POE to clear enough of each other from consideration of being mafia, then the only players that haven't been cleared are the mafia.

A player can approach POE on an individual level, like I've usually been doing more so these days in the beginning of the game when I state "here are 5 town reads", etc., and then when it comes time to vote I just vote among the players I haven't found any reason to call town.

Multiple players can approach POE on a group level with specific intent of using POE (something I have not yet participated in), and assuming those players can town-clear each other, they will then work with each other collectively to cross-examine each other's town reads to develop a consensus suspect pool. For example, if there are 10 players, and I (as Player #1) have town reads on Players #3, 5, 7, and 8, and Players #3 and #5 who also are using POE have town reads on Players #2, 4, 5, and 9, then that leaves a consensus suspect pool of only Players #6 and #10, since neither of those players are being town read by any of the players utilizing POE. All of the POE-utilizing players would then decide on either #6 or #10 for their votes.

I get your argument for a group-based POE as a way to potentially eliminate civilians from the candidate pool. And maybe I'm just being a dunderhead here. But wouldn't your strategy not be very effective from a short-term perspective (I.E. only one or two days' worth of read from multiple people vs. a longer period of time)? I agree it could work in the long-term, but isn't there an opportunity cost early on that could still lead to several mislynches? Does your strategy do anything to prevent that?

Now granted, the fact we already have this much discussion and it is Day 0 might completely invalidate my question. But I guess a part of it is I'm just not a big fan of POE's style-wise. I feel like it potentially paints a broad brush if used too early, and can let baddies sneak under the radar if people are mis-identified. Hence my question.

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:Hi.

JJJ is bad.



If anyone wants me, I'll be listening to REM

Hi Scotty.

No. What's your beef?

No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Still catching up, but I had a question about this post.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I've OT talked enough.

Although recently I've uncovered that POE naturally describes my recently developed playstyle because I much more easily find town reads than I do baddie reads, I've never formally used POE before.

I'll be using POE exclusively this game, and I'd like to approach it both as an individual (with my rainbow lists like I usually do) but as a group this time.

Who wants to join me?

tbh what does this mean tbh

Stated as simply as possible, POE ("process of elimination") takes the typical strategy of a town player (to hunt for members of the mafia) and flips it on its head (instead hunt for fellow townies).

The theory behind POE is that town can win due to the fact that it has a majority, and if members of the town can collectively use POE to clear enough of each other from consideration of being mafia, then the only players that haven't been cleared are the mafia.

A player can approach POE on an individual level, like I've usually been doing more so these days in the beginning of the game when I state "here are 5 town reads", etc., and then when it comes time to vote I just vote among the players I haven't found any reason to call town.

Multiple players can approach POE on a group level with specific intent of using POE (something I have not yet participated in), and assuming those players can town-clear each other, they will then work with each other collectively to cross-examine each other's town reads to develop a consensus suspect pool. For example, if there are 10 players, and I (as Player #1) have town reads on Players #3, 5, 7, and 8, and Players #3 and #5 who also are using POE have town reads on Players #2, 4, 5, and 9, then that leaves a consensus suspect pool of only Players #6 and #10, since neither of those players are being town read by any of the players utilizing POE. All of the POE-utilizing players would then decide on either #6 or #10 for their votes.

I get your argument for a group-based POE as a way to potentially eliminate civilians from the candidate pool. And maybe I'm just being a dunderhead here. But wouldn't your strategy not be very effective from a short-term perspective (I.E. only one or two days' worth of read from multiple people vs. a longer period of time)? I agree it could work in the long-term, but isn't there an opportunity cost early on that could still lead to several mislynches? Does your strategy do anything to prevent that?

Now granted, the fact we already have this much discussion and it is Day 0 might completely invalidate my question. But I guess a part of it is I'm just not a big fan of POE's style-wise. I feel like it potentially paints a broad brush if used too early, and can let baddies sneak under the radar if people are mis-identified. Hence my question.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Linki @MP - idk. I think it's the PoE discussion along with your mannerisms. Declaring PoE as your playstyle gives you a means to stick to something and have at least have that method of play be true. Your mannerisms make it hard to read you in general.

While I can see the argument for the first part, I disagree very much with the bolded. Since I started playing mafia, I think MP's mannerisms have changed considerably. I used to be able to tell much more quickly in games if he was civ or bad. But I think he has evolved and adapted well enough that he's become a much more difficult read, regardless of playstyle and mannerisms.

That being said, there are some thing he is more likely to do if he is civ vs. bad and vice-versa...

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:That's exactly what a baddie would say.

Eh, I guess it was the mannerisms were just subject of my thoughts at the moment, but you are correct. This defined PoE playstyle is what has my feathers rustled. Your argument that it produces content doesn't settle my stomachache either as I know you have the potential to out tons of posts as a baddie just as you do while civvie.

Sooooo....you feel his defined playstyle and him stating so bothers you, but then say it isn't indicative-alignment right afterwards?

I thought you were trying to make your mind up on something. Are you sure you aren't just trying to stir the pot early on?

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Nevermind MP. You already answered this in a previous response to INH.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:That's exactly what a baddie would say.

Eh, I guess it was the mannerisms were just subject of my thoughts at the moment, but you are correct. This defined PoE playstyle is what has my feathers rustled. Your argument that it produces content doesn't settle my stomachache either as I know you have the potential to out tons of posts as a baddie just as you do while civvie.

Sooooo....you feel his defined playstyle and him stating so bothers you, but then say it isn't indicative-alignment right afterwards?

I thought you were trying to make your mind up on something. Are you sure you aren't just trying to stir the pot early on?

He could be, because you know, it's Wilgy and he's an enigma from game to game, but that's not the impression I'm getting at all. I'd even say that Im seeing a comparatively more transparent / forthcoming Wilgy so far than what I typically see.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

Okay.

Why don't I satisfy your diet?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Just got off a long shift of calling farmers. Checking in, will read tomorrow.

I'm intrigued.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Last! Well maybe. Who hasn't checked in.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

Okay.

Why don't I satisfy your diet?

bc you served a bunch of bull product when you read MP as bad because he's posting a lot.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey Sloonei, talk to me about some things too when you get the chance! What's your strategy?

Sloonei wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey Sloonei, talk to me about some things too when you get the chance! What's your strategy?

I've read about 1% of the thread so far. I've been either at work or asleep since this game started, but that's done now. I'll have things to say soonish.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

Okay.

Why don't I satisfy your diet?

bc you served a bunch of bull product when you read MP as bad because he's posting a lot.

1. Why are you answering for Scotty?

2. That's an oversimplification of what I did that makes it sound worse than it was. I made a very specific numeral comparison to a game when MP was bad. It's not that he "posted a lot", it's that he utterly obliterated the count lead by a mile. He doesn't always manage quite that. It was something that concerned me in Transistor because I thought it might get him into trouble for being too tryhard. The memory came to me here so I poked him with it. I don't read him as bad. He warrants a little more poking than most other players because he does well to convey "genuine" effort regardless of alignment. I doubt it's the last time I'll poke him.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I've spent like ten minutes looking at timmer's posts because they make me feel something, I just couldn't decide what.

A) His curious exploration of PoE with MP reflects a genuine interest in a method he hasn't considered, and his decision to forego it for now develops naturally from his stated concerns. That'd be nice.

B) He took the opportunity to discuss strategic matters without really thinking about their merits for his own sake. It creates posts in his ISO and establishes a rapport with an active contributor. That'd be less than nice.

Having typed both out now I feel like A) is more reasonable. So that's nice for timmer.

Golden wrote:Hot takes

Bwt is town. Scotty is bad.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:Hot takes

Bwt is town. Scotty is bad.

Can you elaborate?

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:Hot takes

Bwt is town. Scotty is bad.

Can you elaborate?

No.

I mean, I could, but I'd rather not right now.