The Syndicate

OK. For me, saying you will pursue a policy lynch on day one is very different to saying you will pursue it endlessly until one of you two die, which is what I thought you were saying. I also have no problem with the aspect of you 'gaining reactions'.

I can't agree with the idea that Matt's approach is inherently unhelpful to the town, however. He comes up with some very good angles and lenses through which to examine the game. If I don't agree with his theories, I can happily discard them (no matter whether he does or not). They don't need to be 'distracting'. Sometimes he has very valid theories and his ability to correctly identify baddies should not be discounted because you found him frustrating in one game. In addition, I find MattF generally betrays whether or not his convictions are genuine, and so is readable in time.

If I was going to policy lynch someone who 'we might be better off having out of the way early', if you like, I'd sooner take out someone inscrutible, who rarely ever shows their hand when bad. But in reality, I believe there tends to be ways to catch baddies on day one, and as a matter of policy I don't really support policy lynches unless it comes to deadline and I really have no better idea.

Although I don't support the policy lynch, I actually think Zebra's point on MattF has a little merit.

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

Is it? That's interesting.

Let me explain.

A policy lynch is when you lynch a player based on predisposed conditions that player brings to a game and can only really occur on day 1 or on a very poorly managed day 2 in my opinion. From my observations MattF's influence on a game as town is negative. Unless a scum case is made that is compelling then a policy lynch is preferable in my opinion.

Take this hypothetical for instance.

If the town had no unanimous lynch candidate on day 1. If there were no decent cases going around. Would it not be in the best interest of the town to remove a player based on their value to the town as a townie, who may also simple be as likely to be scum as any other random player? This is why policy lynches exist and why they are used, albeit rather infrequently, on some mafia websites that I have frequented in the past.

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Policy_Lynch

linki: That's perfectly fine Golden. If you believe he is valuable enough to not support a policy lynch against him I can totally respect that. I disagree but you have more experience with him than I.

MacDougall wrote:I do not believe policy lynches can occur after day 1 so if this fails to occur I won't push for a policy lynch on him again.

And no, not really. This discussion should get people motivated to talk. It should influence a lot of play. It will help incentivise conversation on day 1 that could lead to genuine cases. Better that than we start by just asking about the weather. Let the games begin.

Policy-lynching a player Day 1 every game is unproductive, especially if you declare such a plan.

I will no be voting for Matt F today.

I will not be voting for metalmarsh today.

I'm afraid he is actually hit-marmot, what with him still wearing those underpants.

(Unless I think he is bad. Then I will vote for him).

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I do not believe policy lynches can occur after day 1 so if this fails to occur I won't push for a policy lynch on him again.

And no, not really. This discussion should get people motivated to talk. It should influence a lot of play. It will help incentivise conversation on day 1 that could lead to genuine cases. Better that than we start by just asking about the weather. Let the games begin.

Policy-lynching a player Day 1 every game is unproductive, especially if you declare such a plan.

I will no be voting for Matt F today.

So you will not be voting for Matt F even if significant evidence comes out in the thread that should encourage his lynch for not policy lynch reasons? Interesting.

And who said anything about doing it every game?

on Metalmarsh

MacDougall, I think you said that.

Weren't you just telling me you would do anything that I say?

Also, I'm still alive in some musical heads game, so the underpants stay for now. :P

Imagining what MacDougall would think of Vompatti.

Mind blown.

I will admit to having a no-lynch policy for newbies, on day one, so you won't see me voting for Luke or Banana.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:MacDougall, I think you said that.

Weren't you just telling me you would do anything that I say?

Excuse me sir I am terribly sorry but I have no idea what your first sentence is in relation to. Can you please explore that idea a little more for me?

You just said you will not be voting Matt F today. Choosing not to vote for him for policy lynch reasons is one thing but declaring that you will not be voting for him at all, at this point of the day, is highly unusual.

Your second sentence, sure I would do anything you ask me to Metalmarsh. What do you want me to do?

linki: What's a Vompatti?

Golden wrote:Imagining what MacDougall would think of Vompatti.

Mind blown.

I will admit to having a no-lynch policy for newbies, on day one, so you won't see me voting for Luke or Banana.

I miss vompatti.

Mafia must be expensive in Finalnd.

Someone that, when he plays, inevitably there are days where even us hardened TS regulars will end up considering voting out for policy reasons.

While BR isn't familiar with 'policy lynch' (something I picked up on RYM) what we do recognise is that there are certain philosophies about how to approach lynches, especially day one, particular the 'lynch a low poster' debate. Vomps falls into this category.

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:MacDougall, I think you said that.

Weren't you just telling me you would do anything that I say?

Excuse me sir I am terribly sorry but I have no idea what your first sentence is in relation to. Can you please explore that idea a little more for me?

You just said you will not be voting Matt F today. Choosing not to vote for him for policy lynch reasons is one thing but declaring that you will not be voting for him at all, at this point of the day, is highly unusual.

Your second sentence, sure I would do anything you ask me to Metalmarsh. What do you want me to do?

linki: What's a Vompatti?

You asked me "Who said anything about doing it every game"?

I reminded you that you said that.

I want you to uncover some significant evidence that Matt F is worth lynching today so that I can eat my words. Can you do that for me Mac?

Mac, if you enjoy reading old mafia ISO's here's one of Vompatti from a recent game.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 0&sr=posts

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:MacDougall, I think you said that.

Weren't you just telling me you would do anything that I say?

Excuse me sir I am terribly sorry but I have no idea what your first sentence is in relation to. Can you please explore that idea a little more for me?

You just said you will not be voting Matt F today. Choosing not to vote for him for policy lynch reasons is one thing but declaring that you will not be voting for him at all, at this point of the day, is highly unusual.

Your second sentence, sure I would do anything you ask me to Metalmarsh. What do you want me to do?

linki: What's a Vompatti?

You asked me "Who said anything about doing it every game"?

I reminded you that you said that.

I want you to uncover some significant evidence that Matt F is worth lynching today so that I can eat my words. Can you do that for me Mac?

Encouraging the policy lynch of Matt in every game we play together =/= policy lynching every game. Only ones that he is in.

See this is interesting because I would argue that unless ANYONE discovers significant evidence that SOMEONE ELSE should be lynched then I would consider Matt worth lynching. You might disagree?

Metalmarsh if there was no significant evidence or case on anyone by the end of the day. Where would your vote end up?

MacDougall wrote:Encouraging the policy lynch of Matt in every game we play together =/= policy lynching every game. Only ones that he is in.

See this is interesting because I would argue that unless ANYONE discovers significant evidence that SOMEONE ELSE should be lynched then I would consider Matt worth lynching. You might disagree?

Metalmarsh if there was no significant evidence or case on anyone by the end of the day. Where would your vote end up?

Correct, I'm not arguing that.

I don't disagree with that notion. I probably won't follow it though.

I don't know. I will probably go with the strongest ping I notice, and I've never considered a policy-lynch in the cards before.

Interesting. The strongest "ping". What if you didn't get one at all. Or you arrived late to the thread and didn't have the opportunity to read it all? Would you just put your vote on whichever person had a few votes and you thought was less effective a townie say? Is that a fair indication of what you would do?

MacDougall wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

Is it? That's interesting.

Let me explain.

A policy lynch is when you lynch a player based on predisposed conditions that player brings to a game and can only really occur on day 1 or on a very poorly managed day 2 in my opinion. From my observations MattF's influence on a game as town is negative. Unless a scum case is made that is compelling then a policy lynch is preferable in my opinion.

Take this hypothetical for instance.

If the town had no unanimous lynch candidate on day 1. If there were no decent cases going around. Would it not be in the best interest of the town to remove a player based on their value to the town as a townie, who may also simple be as likely to be scum as any other random player? This is why policy lynches exist and why they are used, albeit rather infrequently, on some mafia websites that I have frequented in the past.

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Policy_Lynch

linki: That's perfectly fine Golden. If you believe he is valuable enough to not support a policy lynch against him I can totally respect that. I disagree but you have more experience with him than I.

Wow that is probably one of the meanest sounding things I have ever heard of. But Mafiascum, so yeah. I played 1 game there years ago, and they were pretty mean in general. So I never played 2 games there. I am happy enough playing where that is not a common thing, and tbh, I hope this does not catch on here.

My experience with Matt is mixed~ he & I have butted heads and not always been kind to each other. I think that he has an extraordinary gut, and that he tends to overanalyze small things to justify his gut suspicions. That makes him seem tunnelly, but he is more often than not spot on. He can be an especially thorny thorn in baddies sides as he does not give up.

So I would have to disagree with your analysis of him as unhelpful civvie, whichever thread you made it in. I was having a little thread blending going on to begin with, and this is not helping

Hello players. It has come to my attention that you recently voted in a Day 0 poll in which 'spice' was an option. While you may not have been voting for Old Spice per se, I can't help but feel that a vote for 'spice' was a vote for Old Spice in spirit. To those who voted for 'spice,' I commend you. Clearly you have an education in sophistication and realize that spice makes things better. I agree with you completely. Stay beautiful.

To those of you who did not vote for 'spice' while the option was still available, I simply shake my head in disappointment. Clearly you have more to learn about the virtues that spice, in all of its varieties, has to offer. Particularly Old Spice body wash, which 999,999 out of one million women agree smells 150 bajillion times better on a man than lady-scented body wash. In time, under the right tutelage, you will learn tha-





Now Terry, remember what we talked about? Your incessant shouting and constant outbursts are frightening to some players. Why, you might just scare away some of the new folks who just joined the forum recently.

I can confirm that spice was a bad choice

Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that spice was a bad choice

Why was it a bad choice?

I can confirm water was a choice.

Luke11646 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that spice was a bad choice

Why was it a bad choice?

Because it didn't give me superpowers, or any other benefit. Didn't get me high. Can't even season my food with it.

Water didn't give me anything either. Except a thirst quencher later on.

I'm still digesting the Matt f/ Mac thing. I was a civvie tunneled by Matt last game so it's tempting to vote him but I'd definitely be waiting to see if something else comes up before I place my vote. I'd rather go with a legit suspicion but those don't always come out on day one.

I can confirm TH's story - the spice was useless. I should have known Epi wouldn't let the obvious be the best.

So, we're anything things at the warehouse useful?

TheFloyd73 wrote:So, we're anything things at the warehouse useful?

Was yours?

MacDougall wrote:Interesting. The strongest "ping". What if you didn't get one at all. Or you arrived late to the thread and didn't have the opportunity to read it all? Would you just put your vote on whichever person had a few votes and you thought was less effective a townie say? Is that a fair indication of what you would do?

No, I am unable to predicate my actions. You'll just have to wait and see.

Turnip Head wrote:

Luke11646 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that spice was a bad choice

Why was it a bad choice?

Because it didn't give me superpowers, or any other benefit. Didn't get me high. Can't even season my food with it.

We shoulda gone with Old Spice instead of regular Spice.

Golden wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:So, we're anything things at the warehouse useful?

Was yours?

Poison snooper

Yeah, but did the poison snooper help at all?

Golden wrote:Yeah, but did the poison snooper help at all?

With what?

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Yeah, but did the poison snooper help at all?

With what?

I'm sure I wouldn't know, since I picked spice, which did not help at all. Maybe I should rephrase the question - you asked 'were any of the items at the warehouse useful' which I assume you mean things on the poll - I'm asking was yours useful?

Matt F wrote:Zebra - I did come on a little strong Day 0. It's been gettin' pretty intense in TH so I thought I'd let loose in her for a bit, being day 0 and all. I know this didn't require a defense really, especially you giving it "barely a 2", but wanted to explain.

I do, however, plan to grab a hold of myself this game, and instead of spitballin' in nearly every post like I usually do, maybe just type it in the notepad, and only post a suspish when I feel it's solid.

I'm perfectly satisfied with this response. Consider my imaginary vote gone.

MacDougall wrote:I am the perfect day 1 lynch in every game I play. As a townie I distract from genuine scum hunting with tunneling, a lack of focus and volumes upon volumes of posts trying to get people to ignore their genuine scum hunting efforts and follow my uninspired scumdar ... and of course there is as good a chance that I'm scum as anybody else. I'm a policy lynch for myself in every game I play. I make no apologies for this.

Fixed that for you.

But seriously people, I think we can chalk this up to Mac making a mistake by failing to read the rule that says you can't change your vote, (which to be fair, I almost did myself, and only didn't because I checked the rules for whether my vote should be bolded or underlined or whatever else) and now that his vote is permanent he's just having fun pretending that his mistake (which was ironically originally intended to poke fun at yours truly) is in fact a genuine permanent vote backed up by reasoning. I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly. Mac has even stated openly that what he is doing is encouraging game-related discussion right off the bat, which it is. Incidentally, that's the main reason I placed an imaginary vote on Matt F in the first place.

MacDougall wrote:Vompatti kicks all kinds of ass. I would never policy lynch him. He brings amusement value to the game.

I second this, and I have been familiar with him since my PA days. I am not exaggerating when I say that he is the most laugh-out-loud funny personality I've ever encountered on the internet. And that is a tall order.

Finally, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we not be openly talking about how the choice we made in the poll effected the gameplay so far? I was under the impression it was to remain private information to all that received the result of their pick.

self vote Day 1

If I'm here Night 1, then we can put this ugly business behind us and rock 'n roll. If not, just as well.

Damn it Matt, you really just did that knowing that it's a permanent vote. Wow.

Was going to say what I got from voting nothing, but zebra just ruined the joke for me


I think the whole policy vote is just garnering discussion that is not game related and can't help us find baddies. Mac, you say it's going to get people talking, but in my opinion, it's a general discussion that just helps baddies blend in. If you wanted discussion, you should have just voted Matt without saying anything or saying something related to his in game posts. That would start conversation about suspicions.

In contrast, and for the reasons I stated above, I like zebra's post about Matt. I don't know if he's on to something or not, but it's a start and in my book makes zebra look pretty good for now.

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?


SVS, when I joined TS, I thought people here were a lot meaner than what I was used to but I agree with you that the post came off mean, and I wasn't fond of it

Matt, I really wish you hadn't done that. People play differently and you can't let them get to you.

And to answer Mac's question, if I had no ping whatsoever (which I find hard to believe), I would always vote a low poster who didn't have a real life reason for it over someone who is doing their best at playing the game no matter how frustrated they might make me. No brainer for me.

FZ. wrote:Matt, I really wish you hadn't done that. People play differently and you can't let them get to you.

And to answer Mac's question, if I had no ping whatsoever (which I find hard to believe), I would always vote a low poster who didn't have a real life reason for it over someone who is doing their best at playing the game no matter how frustrated they might make me. No brainer for me.

Would you vote a self voter over a low poster?

MacDougall wrote:

FZ. wrote:Matt, I really wish you hadn't done that. People play differently and you can't let them get to you.

And to answer Mac's question, if I had no ping whatsoever (which I find hard to believe), I would always vote a low poster who didn't have a real life reason for it over someone who is doing their best at playing the game no matter how frustrated they might make me. No brainer for me.

Would you vote a self voter over a low poster?

Depends on the voter, but maybe. When I just started here, I couldn't stand self votes...heck, I still can't. But I can understand a situation in which people can do it. You don't have time to catch up and you don't want to be responsible for lynching a civ, so you self vote, hoping people don't jump on that wagon and you have time to catch up later. I also hate randomized votes, but at least if you know you're not bad, there's more chance of getting a baddie that way than self votes.

Basically, I hate (in game context) players who don't try enough and make it harder for the rest. Matt F, while you can like or dislike his way of playing, or while you might get really frustrated with it, is at least trying really hard. Whether he's right or wrong is not relevant. If you don't like his posts, just ignore them.

FZ. wrote:Matt F, while you can like or dislike his way of playing, or while you might get really frustrated with it, is at least trying really hard. Whether he's right or wrong is not relevant. If you don't like his posts, just ignore them.

I concur with the sentiment that its sad Matt felt the need to self-vote. I wish he hadn't.

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Yeah, but did the poison snooper help at all?

With what?

Are you playing dumb on purpose?

You guys are making me feel bad.

Zebra - I have never suggested Mac is bad for his behaviour or 'tried to make him look bad', so I'm not sure where you get that from. I didn't really get any suspicion from BR either, although I'd have to read that back.

I did, however, point out the inherent contradiction/irony in Mac's sentiment vs his posts, and talked his thinking through with him, and was satisfied with his answers. If I had voted for Mac on day one, it would not have been because I thought it was bad - it would have been to solely to fulfil his own reasoning for what makes a good policy vote on day one. Having backed down somewhat from the 'I will vote him forever in any game we both play' aspect, though, means I see nothing in Mac's position that is specifically unhelpful to the town - at least beyond day one. I don't specifically oppose policy lynches on day one, I just am unlikely to ever agree to the policy reason.

Putting this post in other words, ping! I now have my first real candidate for a vote. I found zebra to be a relatively fair and astute analyst of what was going on in the thread in Talking Heads. That post, though, was not a fair analysis. It felt to my like an artifical 'taking of sides' in a conflict that didn't exist, a setting up for a future vote for me or BR, and it caught my eye.

MacDougall wrote:You guys are making me feel bad.

Was not my intention, but it was in my opinion a little harsh.

That said, I've said mean things to people that I didn't think were mean at the time, so I think a lot of us have been in that situation. Mafia can get intense at times and we all just have to remember that and try to be more civilized as well as not take to heart what other people say.

If all players were low posters and jokers, the game would suck. As much as long ISOs, crazy theories, tunnelling a specific player and all the other stuff that people who are invested in the game do, can be hard for different players, I'd take it any day. It's what makes the game. But that's just my opinion

I believe that Golden is not part of a network of united evil you guys and I will play as such until such time as he loses my trust.

FZ though. The guy is pure evil. I insist he be held down and have clamps tightened to his nips and be tickled with feathers while being spanked lightly by a raincoat wearing Serbian aristocrat.

Golden wrote:Zebra - I have never suggested Mac is bad for his behaviour or 'tried to make him look bad', so I'm not sure where you get that from. I didn't really get any suspicion from BR either, although I'd have to read that back.

I did, however, point out the inherent contradiction/irony in Mac's sentiment vs his posts, and talked his thinking through with him, and was satisfied with his answers. If I had voted for Mac on day one, it would not have been because I thought it was bad - it would have been to solely to fulfil his own reasoning for what makes a good policy vote on day one. Having backed down somewhat from the 'I will vote him forever in any game we both play' aspect, though, means I see nothing in Mac's position that is specifically unhelpful to the town - at least beyond day one. I don't specifically oppose policy lynches on day one, I just am unlikely to ever agree to the policy reason.

Putting this post in other words, ping! I now have my first real candidate for a vote. I found zebra to be a relatively fair and astute analyst of what was going on in the thread in Talking Heads. That post, though, was not a fair analysis. It felt to my like an artifical 'taking of sides' in a conflict that didn't exist, a setting up for a future vote for me or BR, and it caught my eye.

This is gold. This is really gold. This is the fucking jackpot, baby. Okay. Oh boy. Alright. Here goes. Deep breath. Let me get this straight. Wow. Here we go.

I pinged you because I made a post that could be interpreted as an opportunity to set up a future vote for you or BR. The reason you claim that it could be interpreted this way is because I seem to have taken a definite stance in an imaginary conflict. What was that stance again? Oh yeah, that you and BR may have been a little opportunistic with your interactions with Mac. Keep in mind, I didn't say that I was intending to vote for you or that what you two did was a serious "ping" for me, I only said that I was suspicious, and I said that with good reason. It seemed to me that you were the ones who could have been setting up a potential vote. Why else would you go after someone with genuine, serious arguments, when they are clearly trolling, as if Mac's absurd actions could potentially put his alignment on trial? But lo, that is in fact what I am doing! My bad. So just to recap, my suspicion of either you guys maybe setting up a potential mislynch is opportunistic, but when you suspect that I am doing the exact same thing with way less reason to believe so, it's not opportunistic, because...you really think I wouldn't notice the over-the-top hypocrisy of such an accusation? What makes this even better is that I merely suspected you, whereas for the exact same reason (but to a less rational extent!) you not only suspect me, but have made me a "real candidate for a vote"! Good luck.

MacDougall wrote:You guys are making me feel bad.

I am sorry if I did so; if it helps I think the concept of a policy lynch sounds mean, and that was what I was referring to, not you personally. The mafiascum reference did not help, Lol. Those guys were brutal and I guess that was fun for THEM but it explains why so many cycle in and out of there and the core membership is relatively small.

But IMO all this has led us to discuss is you and Matt. Not sure if that was what you were going for

And since someone else let the cat, or spice, out of the bag, I will concur that it did not bring the awesome. But even if it was allowed, if people don't want to talk about their items, then they shouldn't have to.

Golden wrote:MacDougall has claimed a policy lynch of tunnelling on someone who he considers is unhelpful to scum-hunting effort because he tunnels.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Policy-lynching a player Day 1 every game is unproductive, especially if you declare such a plan.

My thoughts exactly. There are other ways to have a better shot at getting a baddie on Day 1.