The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I wish there was a rule not to end up creating any ties between the Night 0 options, so I can create them.

Also, how soon are the others willing to test the idea that Black Rock and Long Con were given baddie roles?

Ok Mr Smart Guy, let's test this. If you die Night 1, then it was me. Then everyone will know I was given a baddie role.

Night 1 might be to late... for you.

I love you both.

Voted watari

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I wish there was a rule not to end up creating any ties between the Night 0 options, so I can create them.

Also, how soon are the others willing to test the idea that Black Rock and Long Con were given baddie roles?

Ok Mr Smart Guy, let's test this. If you die Night 1, then it was me. Then everyone will know I was given a baddie role.

Night 1 might be to late... for you.

I love you both.

Please refrain from humping me.

I think you've mistaken llama for a camel.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think you've mistaken llama for a camel.

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:Oh, and I picked Xander Crews. I hope if that role is in the game that whoever has it finds more luck than I did with it. I never found a single xticle or whatever the hell they were.

The only Xander voter so far. Either there's a reward for the top choice(s) and Timmer's trying to stay away from it, perhaps distance himself from teammates, or there's something to gain from every option and he's trying to get his share. Confirmed baddie.

Ricochet wrote:I wish there was a rule not to end up creating any ties between the Night 0 options, so I can create them.

Also, how soon are the others willing to test the idea that Black Rock and Long Con were given baddie roles?

Only after Fuzz has been lynched.

All these posts are making me hate the word "scandalous." :P

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

The Old Testament is closer to 2/3 of the Bible in terms of books/pages. I just wanted an excuse to use Pedantic Pink.

I tend not to over think these polls, but I think the point LoRab made that the role included would likely not be a Mafia role is a good one, unless this poll has no reward attached, in which case it wouldn't matter if the baddies knew about the role.

I don't think I've ever played with RadicalFuzz before, but he is definitely acting weird here.

Also I voted for Finn because that was the only one of these games I played.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

You are very bad. Enrique in Star Wars bad.

Hopefully not Enrique in Trees bad

MacDougall wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:To clarify, I'm intentionally going to play differently than my previous game on this site. If that rouses suspicion then that's perfectly fine, but I'm vetoing any future "he's been acting strange" paths here and now.

Me too. I am going to play like a scum but you aren't allowed to say I am playing like a scum because I told you here and now that I am going to play like a scum.

RadicalFuzz do you understand the problem with your post?

MadDougall do you understand the problem with your reading comprehension?

Here's the long list of things I've said this game: The only thing I'm attempting to avoid is "he's been playing differently than last game" paths. I'm doing this by letting everyone know I'm going to be intentionally playing differently than my last game here so there can't be any implications of subconscious playstyle change. You're claiming that I believe that exempts me from any suspicion whatsoever but I haven't said that. If you think the way I'm playing is scummy then by all means lynch me for it. Just don't try to pull shit like "that one game that he's played here where he was civ he didn't do X but he did X here so clearly he's scum." I have zero issue with logical suspicions from elsewhere, but I'm not down for getting lynched for dumb reasons, that's why I'm playing here and not JTM.

Faraday define "acting weird here."

If you've never played with me then you have no expectation of my behavior, but it's still somehow "not normal" to you?

RadicalFuzz is acting weird. I say we lynch him.

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Elo and Metalmarsh made their first posts at very near to the same time. Discuss.

Are they having an affair?

Coincidence, MacDingus.

I wish there was a like "like" button for this.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Elo and Metalmarsh made their first posts at very near to the same time. Discuss.

Epignosis spends too much time at band practice.

I agree. It's only b/c we don;t usually get started until about 30 minutes after everyone is supposed to be there.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I will exhibit a behavior this game that has not been previously imagined by any mafia player ever (including myself).

Hold on to your butts!

"like" again You're hilarious MM.

Ricochet wrote:My rainbow list so far

Ricochet
DharmaHelper
MacDougall
thellama73

DharmaHelper

a2thezebra
bcornett24
Bass_the_Clever
Black Rock
Boomslang
dfaraday
DharmaHelper
Dom
Dr. Wilgy
Draconus
Elohcin
Epignosis
Golden
Hamburger Boy
JaggedJimmyJay
Juliets
Long Con
LoRab
Matt
Metalmarsh
nijuukyugou
RadicalFuzz
sig
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
Timmer
Tranq

How can you have one of these already? Can you explain your reasonings for rainbow list placements?

thellama73 wrote:Good morning, Gentlemen!

Very glad to be here in this game of champs. I'm voting for Xander Crews because I hosted that game and I like the character. I see there's already been some pot stirring, and Ricochet's rainbow list is hilarious. Very good.

Llama didn't read the rules?!?!

Also must not have read the thread before posting either. I'm shocked!

RadicalFuzz wrote:Faraday define "acting weird here."

If you've never played with me then you have no expectation of my behavior, but it's still somehow "not normal" to you?

A player going out of their way to discuss their play style for the game without prompting is unusual to me.

Elohcin wrote: Llama didn't read the rules?!?!

Also must not have read the thread before posting either. I'm shocked!

Scandalous!

DFaraday wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:Faraday define "acting weird here."

If you've never played with me then you have no expectation of my behavior, but it's still somehow "not normal" to you?

A player going out of their way to discuss their play style for the game without prompting is unusual to me.

Why didn't I catch this? It does seem awful weird.

I think we should force Golden to resign.

Elohcin wrote:

Ricochet wrote:
Ricochet
DharmaHelper
MacDougall
thellama73

DharmaHelper

a2thezebra
bcornett24
Bass_the_Clever
Black Rock
Boomslang
dfaraday
DharmaHelper
Dom
Dr. Wilgy
Draconus
Elohcin
Epignosis
Golden
Hamburger Boy
JaggedJimmyJay
Juliets
Long Con
LoRab
Matt
Metalmarsh
nijuukyugou
RadicalFuzz
sig
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
Timmer
Tranq

How can you have one of these already? Can you explain your reasonings for rainbow list placements?

The nose knows.

I notice no weird behaviour from RadicalFuzz. Confirmed civvie, in fact.

My rainbow list sense is tingling. I'm gonna give whoever it was that tainted the thread with those abominations the benefit of the doubt for now.

I'm going to update mine every six hours (while awake).

Ricochet wrote:I'm going to update mine every six hours (while awake).

You're an awful human being.

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:Oh, and I picked Xander Crews. I hope if that role is in the game that whoever has it finds more luck than I did with it. I never found a single xticle or whatever the hell they were.

The only Xander voter so far. Either there's a reward for the top choice(s) and Timmer's trying to stay away from it, perhaps distance himself from teammates, or there's something to gain from every option and he's trying to get his share. Confirmed baddie.

Cute.

I was just thinking how I wasn't going to vote for you day one because of the banner you're sporting, I may have changed my mind.

Ricochet wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Ricochet wrote:
Ricochet
DharmaHelper
MacDougall
thellama73

DharmaHelper

a2thezebra
bcornett24
Bass_the_Clever
Black Rock
Boomslang
dfaraday
DharmaHelper
Dom
Dr. Wilgy
Draconus
Elohcin
Epignosis
Golden
Hamburger Boy
JaggedJimmyJay
Juliets
Long Con
LoRab
Matt
Metalmarsh
nijuukyugou
RadicalFuzz
sig
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
Timmer
Tranq

How can you have one of these already? Can you explain your reasonings for rainbow list placements?

The nose knows.

By your list the game must be off balance.

Ricochet wrote:My rainbow list so far

Ricochet
DharmaHelper
MacDougall
thellama73

DharmaHelper

a2thezebra
bcornett24
Bass_the_Clever
Black Rock
Boomslang
dfaraday
DharmaHelper
Dom
Dr. Wilgy
Draconus
Elohcin
Epignosis
Golden
Hamburger Boy
JaggedJimmyJay
Juliets
Long Con
LoRab
Matt
Metalmarsh
nijuukyugou
RadicalFuzz
sig
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
Timmer
Tranq

If I can side track the entire thread for a moment.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with rainbow lists. They are bloated for one thing, why the hell do I need to know who you don't find suspicious? You're putting energy into telling me something vestigial. Anything in blue or green is totally useless to me. Another thing, Why the fuck am I in two places and in two colors? What does that mean, and did doing that take you longer than it would have taken to just say what you think of me as a suspect? Another thing, the placement of anybody in red is completely arbitrary (especially this early). And again, why am I supposed to care if you suspect over 2/3rds of the game.

Rainbow lists tell me nothing as to why you suspect any of the people you suspect. It's just noise.

Rainbow lists are the Kardashians of mafia culture. Some of them are pretty. A majority of them are bloated messes. They're all stupid.

I don't care about them either.

I like MacDougall. Some thoughts about LoRab.

Quotes referenced:

I'm voting Ezekiel.

Faraday thank you for backing up your point. Elo gets deducted one brownie point for buddying, reiterating a statement while adding zero input.

Very funny Rico.

DharmaHelper wrote:If I can side track the entire thread for a moment.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with rainbow lists. They are bloated for one thing, why the hell do I need to know who you don't find suspicious? You're putting energy into telling me something vestigial. Anything in blue or green is totally useless to me. Another thing, Why the fuck am I in two places and in two colors? What does that mean, and did doing that take you longer than it would have taken to just say what you think of me as a suspect? Another thing, the placement of anybody in red is completely arbitrary (especially this early). And again, why am I supposed to care if you suspect over 2/3rds of the game.

Rainbow lists tell me nothing as to why you suspect any of the people you suspect. It's just noise.

Rainbow lists are the Kardashians of mafia culture. Some of them are pretty. A majority of them are bloated messes. They're all stupid.

JJJ scoffs

DharmaHelper wrote:Another thing, Why the fuck am I in two places and in two colors?

Three.

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Another thing, Why the fuck am I in two places and in two colors?

Three.

Well hot damn.

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:Oh, and I picked Xander Crews. I hope if that role is in the game that whoever has it finds more luck than I did with it. I never found a single xticle or whatever the hell they were.

The only Xander voter so far. Either there's a reward for the top choice(s) and Timmer's trying to stay away from it, perhaps distance himself from teammates, or there's something to gain from every option and he's trying to get his share. Confirmed baddie.

Cute.

I was just thinking how I wasn't going to vote for you day one because of the banner you're sporting, I may have changed my mind.

As I told Long Con already, better make it quick, I'm already on to you two.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I feel like playing in Vocaroo right now. I voted for Watari.

I was ready to open all of these up and hate them, but I ended up liking them. I will not be voting for JJJ today, because I cannot anyway.

Ricochet is really coming out swinging today. I like that. It makes me not want to vote for him, at least not yet. I also love DH's analysis of the rainbow list. Wonderful.

Ricochet wrote:I was ready to open all of these up and hate them, but I ended up liking them.

Maybe the same thing will happen when you record yourself.

Lol @ Dharma using Rico's patent spoof of rainbow lists as the example for why we should hate on rainbow lists.

@DH - you don't have to find them effective. People will continue to use them who find them useful and you can continue to ignore them. It's kind of a win win.

Golden wrote:Lol @ Dharma using Rico's patent spoof of rainbow lists as the example for why we should hate on rainbow lists.

@DH - you don't have to find them effective. People will continue to use them who find them useful and you can continue to ignore them. It's kind of a win win.

Was it a spoof? I could barely tell. It hit on several of the problems I have with rainbow lists regardless.

Also, I would argue the definition of a win win.

The first time I put up a rainbow list that included DH, I included him in five different colors because it was obvious he hated them.

A current update of my rainbow list, hopefully less bloated and arbitrary this time.

Of the two with most heat right now (RadicalFuzz and LoRab) I'd be far more likely to vote LoRab.

The suspicion on RadicalFuzz reminds me of a standard suspicion of sig. Or a little bit of how people thought I was bad because I tried something different in recruitment. I don't see where the baddie motives are for claiming that you are going to play a different style this early in the game, for a couple of reasons 1) drawing attention to a change in play style is hardly helpful - I'd think a baddie would more likely want to avoid drawing attention to it... and 2) because I don't see it as likely that he is paranoid enough about how different his baddie meta looks that he would need to protect it in advance.

JJJ's quote 2 on LoRab - that is standard for all LoRab metas and she would say it either way. She isn't easy to read. I'd like to know more about why you and Mac feel the other two read as constructed, because they don't deeply to me. But I find LoRab to be good at hiding her affiliation, and so she could be bad. If I was to vote LoRab, it would be more because I trust the instincts of both of those people who have called her out (should they be town) and not based on my own read.

I'm more suspicious of two people who don't have a lot of heat right now.

My eye is more on Rico and Mac at this point. Rico minimises the value of the poll without any evidence beyond his own opinion that he has presented, but also claims certain options benefit him. He claims he thinks it has no value, but he immediately questions me for apparently being so sure that roles are imported wholesale, as though there could be some kind of baddie motive for that in a poll he apparently doesn't think has any meaning. His mindset just doesn't add up, to me, I don't know what his perspective is. He is drawing a lot of attention to himself with apparent nonsense/jokes (like that rainbow list). Maybe his agenda is just to have fun and be a little zany, in which case success. But I'm wary of the things that seem to me to be contradictions.

Mac, has felt more like town Mac for me except that one trap he put me in which reminded me much more of TH where he liked to try to talk people into traps. I don't remember him doing that when civ, and I don't like it from either player. I might have felt a little better if he'd taken the time to explain where his mindset was on that after I called him out on it. But I feel much more wary of Rico at this point.

Ricochet wrote:I notice no weird behaviour from RadicalFuzz. Confirmed civvie, in fact.

Day 0 rainbow lists? And this comment? **scratching my head**

This makes me a little uneasy.

-------

@ Radical Fuzz - Buddying?

Hey hosts, if you're willing could you tell us whether dead people are capable of winning this game? If this is already covered somewhere, muh bad.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:Lol @ Dharma using Rico's patent spoof of rainbow lists as the example for why we should hate on rainbow lists.

@DH - you don't have to find them effective. People will continue to use them who find them useful and you can continue to ignore them. It's kind of a win win.

Was it a spoof? I could barely tell. It hit on several of the problems I have with rainbow lists regardless.

Also, I would argue the definition of a win win.

No it didn't address the problems you have with rainbow lists. Because

1) People taking the list seriously don't put people in red 'arbitrarily', as you claim. Rico did, with what is clearly a very different rainbow list from any ever.
2) Rico barely put anyone in green or blue, but obviously the fact he put a couple of people in green was the SOLE piece of value in that post. He was saying that he didn't suspect a couple of people. He could have done it a lot more efficiently, but why is it not of value to you who people do NOT suspect. Do you think it is impossible to find baddies based on links in the thread? Saying you don't find someone suspicious is often as helpful as saying you do. If you don't want people spending energy telling you who they don't suspect, that is not an issue with rainbow lists... its done both in and outside of them.

You have an opinion on them, and thats fine, you don't have to use them. To dismiss them as meaningless and stupid in every single game you play that they happen in is just... bloating your post count.

DharmaHelper wrote: Also, I would argue the definition of a win win.

Me too, as this has been annoying me lately. Increasingly, people have been using the phrase win-win to describe a situation with multiple winners. That's not what it means. Win-win is properly used to describe a situation where either of two possible outcomes will result in a win for the relevant party.

For example, an opportunistic player might reason thusly: "If DH gets lynched and is bad, I win because we lost a bad guy. If he gets lynched and is good, it draws suspicion onto the people who voted for him and away from me. Win-win."

This has been a public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood llama. Thank you.

@llama - you should look up the definition of win win.

Extract.