The Syndicate

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

So your contention is that Snowman "has not had the chance to respond" until the very moment of the poll closing? Surely you can see that this is madness.

No this is Patrick

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

So your contention is that Snowman "has not had the chance to respond" until the very moment of the poll closing? Surely you can see that this is madness.

If a potential voter is there right before the poll closes? Yes. If you have to vote 5 hours before it closes, then 5 hours is the answer. 24, 24, Etc, etc.

Unless we know for a fact he is here and is just choosing not to respond, he hasn't had the chance to respond. And since he and Zomba have both not posted in quite sometime, and it is friday night, it seems perfectly reasonable to say they just haven't been here today or tonight, which is why neither of them have posted.

I'm not sure what part of this is difficult to understand.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

So your contention is that Snowman "has not had the chance to respond" until the very moment of the poll closing? Surely you can see that this is madness.

If a potential voter is there right before the poll closes? Yes. If you have to vote 5 hours before it closes, then 5 hours is the answer. 24, 24, Etc, etc.

Unless we know for a fact he is here and is just choosing not to respond, he hasn't had the chance to respond. And since he and Zomba have both not posted in quite sometime, and it is friday night, it seems perfectly reasonable to say they just haven't been here today or tonight, which is why neither of them have posted.

I'm not sure what part of this is difficult to understand.

You have stated that there is no point of any duration at which you will consider a player to have had ample chance to respond to a vote. The implication is that any player can avoid your vote by not posting and not visiting the thread.

What is hard to understand is how this relates to your earlier statements about non-participants.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

So your contention is that Snowman "has not had the chance to respond" until the very moment of the poll closing? Surely you can see that this is madness.

If a potential voter is there right before the poll closes? Yes. If you have to vote 5 hours before it closes, then 5 hours is the answer. 24, 24, Etc, etc.

Unless we know for a fact he is here and is just choosing not to respond, he hasn't had the chance to respond. And since he and Zomba have both not posted in quite sometime, and it is friday night, it seems perfectly reasonable to say they just haven't been here today or tonight, which is why neither of them have posted.

I'm not sure what part of this is difficult to understand.

You have stated that there is no point of any duration at which you will consider a player to have had ample chance to respond to a vote. The implication is that any player can avoid your vote by not posting and not visiting the thread.

What is hard to understand is how this relates to your earlier statements about non-participants.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

So your contention is that Snowman "has not had the chance to respond" until the very moment of the poll closing? Surely you can see that this is madness.

If a potential voter is there right before the poll closes? Yes. If you have to vote 5 hours before it closes, then 5 hours is the answer. 24, 24, Etc, etc.

Unless we know for a fact he is here and is just choosing not to respond, he hasn't had the chance to respond. And since he and Zomba have both not posted in quite sometime, and it is friday night, it seems perfectly reasonable to say they just haven't been here today or tonight, which is why neither of them have posted.

I'm not sure what part of this is difficult to understand.

You have stated that there is no point of any duration at which you will consider a player to have had ample chance to respond to a vote. The implication is that any player can avoid your vote by not posting and not visiting the thread.

What is hard to understand is how this relates to your earlier statements about non-participants.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I interpreted boo's answer as, "As long as you can possibly wait for a response until you risk missing being able to vote." Or something along those lines.

Boo, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there. But llama, does that make more sense? Because this response right now sounds like you're either confused or deliberately misinterpreting.

Linki: I'm not sure that's a dissonance, Epig. I think boo's response might just be poorly worded.

Linki again: Posting anyway.

Epignosis wrote:You cannot advocate lynching low-posters while being okay with them not posting.

I think boo is okay with lynching low-posters, but for some reason wants to protect Snowman.

Epignosis wrote:You cannot advocate lynching low-posters while being okay with them not posting.

I think boo is okay with lynching low-posters, but for some reason wants to protect Snowman.

thellama73 wrote:How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

thellama73 wrote:You're drawing a distinction without a difference, Boo.

Snowman:
Last visited:
Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:37:14 pm

I voted for him more than an hour before that, meaning he had the chance to see my vote and respond to it. He chose not to. Your claim that he has not had the chance to respond is false.

linki: bwt. It wasn't hard to understand. It just didn't answer the question I asked.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You're drawing a distinction without a difference, Boo.

Snowman:
Last visited:
Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:37:14 pm

I voted for him more than an hour before that, meaning he had the chance to see my vote and respond to it. He chose not to. Your claim that he has not had the chance to respond is false.

linki: bwt. It wasn't hard to understand. It just didn't answer the question I asked.

Ok llama, we'll play things your way. You're here right now. I'm going to vote for you. You have 1 second after this post goes through to give me a reason I should not vote for you. Because apparently we can set a clock on people no matter how absurd.

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You cannot advocate lynching low-posters while being okay with them not posting.

I think boo is okay with lynching low-posters, but for some reason wants to protect Snowman.

Go back and read Epi. A non-participant, meaning someone who IS NOT PLAYING, is not the same things as a low-poster.

And it does make sense llama. If I wanted to vote for Snowman, I give him the chance to respond until I need to vote before voting for him. He doesn't respond, I can still vote for him because I think he's bad, he didn't defend, I need to vote. If I vote before I need to, and he then comes in and responds, that's stupid, because what he said to defend himself may change my mind, and guess what, we can't change votes in this game. Again, simple.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Well then we'll agree to disagree. Because I think he answered your question. Perhaps a poorly worded answer, but still an answer to your question. And he has since clarified it.

Since you aren't apparently satisfied with that, maybe you should ask him another question instead.

Linki: Or maybe not, since he apparently already voted for you. Although if someone intentionally misinterpreted my answer, I probably would too.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You're drawing a distinction without a difference, Boo.

Snowman:
Last visited:
Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:37:14 pm

I voted for him more than an hour before that, meaning he had the chance to see my vote and respond to it. He chose not to. Your claim that he has not had the chance to respond is false.

linki: bwt. It wasn't hard to understand. It just didn't answer the question I asked.

Ok llama, we'll play things your way. You're here right now. I'm going to vote for you. You have 1 second after this post goes through to give me a reason I should not vote for you. Because apparently we can set a clock on people no matter how absurd.

boo wrote:And you're out of time. *votes llama*

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You cannot advocate lynching low-posters while being okay with them not posting.

I think boo is okay with lynching low-posters, but for some reason wants to protect Snowman.

Go back and read Epi. A non-participant, meaning someone who IS NOT PLAYING, is not the same things as a low-poster.

And it does make sense llama. If I wanted to vote for Snowman, I give him the chance to respond until I need to vote before voting for him. He doesn't respond, I can still vote for him because I think he's bad, he didn't defend, I need to vote. If I vote before I need to, and he then comes in and responds, that's stupid, because what he said to defend himself may change my mind, and guess what, we can't change votes in this game. Again, simple.

Read my post. I was careful not to say "non-participant." I said low-poster, because everyone had posted (except Russ), so non-participant wasn't a thing.

It's sad really. I believe your arguments about low-posters / non-participants, but you don't believe in it yourself. Not this game. You gave yourself an out, it seems: If you wait until zero-minus 10 seconds to vote for such a player, that player will never be lynched, and you can continue to rally against them without ever changing the culture.

It takes more than that. It takes saying EARLY ON we won't tolerate low-posters / non-participators / what have you. Vote these guys out.

But you seem to be okay with it...sometimes? Dude.

thellama73 wrote:To clarify, I wasn't giving Snowman an hour to respond to my vote. My point was he last checked in after I voted for him, meaning he could have seen it and responded if he wished.

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You cannot advocate lynching low-posters while being okay with them not posting.

I think boo is okay with lynching low-posters, but for some reason wants to protect Snowman.

Go back and read Epi. A non-participant, meaning someone who IS NOT PLAYING, is not the same things as a low-poster.

And it does make sense llama. If I wanted to vote for Snowman, I give him the chance to respond until I need to vote before voting for him. He doesn't respond, I can still vote for him because I think he's bad, he didn't defend, I need to vote. If I vote before I need to, and he then comes in and responds, that's stupid, because what he said to defend himself may change my mind, and guess what, we can't change votes in this game. Again, simple.

Read my post. I was careful not to say "non-participant." I said low-poster, because everyone had posted (except Russ), so non-participant wasn't a thing.

It's sad really. I believe your arguments about low-posters / non-participants, but you don't believe in it yourself. Not this game. You gave yourself an out, it seems: If you wait until zero-minus 10 seconds to vote for such a player, that player will never be lynched, and you can continue to rally against them without ever changing the culture.

It takes more than that. It takes saying EARLY ON we won't tolerate low-posters / non-participators / what have you. Vote these guys out.

But you seem to be okay with it...sometimes? Dude.

Read my posts. I was careful to say non-participants. Someone asked and I very clearly laid out the difference.

They absolutely can be lynched. If someone who needs to vote 8 hours before the poll closes doesn't get a response to their suspicion, they vote 8 hours before the poll closes. If 5 people can wait until right before the poll closes, they should wait until right before the poll closes. It's about giving a person a fair chance to respond to the reasons they should be lynched before voting for them during that lynch. That fair chance is holding off until you can no longer do so.

You're also ignoring the fact that there are multiple lynches in a game. I suspected BWT D1. Even if I hadn't gotten an answer from him D1, and decided not to vote for him D1 (I wouldn't wait for someone like that. I need to vote, I suspect them, they haven't defended, I vote for them) as some people do, lets say he then gave me the answer he did D2. I vote for him D2. Lets say he hasn't given me answer into D2 when I need to vote, I vote for him then.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:To clarify, I wasn't giving Snowman an hour to respond to my vote. My point was he last checked in after I voted for him, meaning he could have seen it and responded if he wished.

Could have. Not did. Could have.

But it's a good thing you like dealing in the theoretical and not the factual, or man oh man, you'd look inconsistent right about now.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

boo wrote:Goes back to not wanting to see him take more votes before he even comes in and has a chance to talk for himself, because I think that would lead to him just giving up and not bothering, which makes his lynch even easier.

boo wrote:If someone already has 12 votes, the people voting for them don't agree with you and wouldn't have voted for the person you want to vote for unless they had literally come in and role-claimed a baddie. You're more practical than this.

Snowman wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Snowman reminds me of Bad Mr. Frosty:

Yikes, now I kinda want to lynch Snowman...or play Clayfighter.

Epignosis wrote:^I already pointed that out llama. S~V~S is not here to give me a cookie, sadly.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:^I already pointed that out llama. S~V~S is not here to give me a cookie, sadly.

Apologies for being duplicative.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

boo wrote:Goes back to not wanting to see him take more votes before he even comes in and has a chance to talk for himself, because I think that would lead to him just giving up and not bothering, which makes his lynch even easier.

But if these people couldn't wait that long, then...what?

boo wrote:If someone already has 12 votes, the people voting for them don't agree with you and wouldn't have voted for the person you want to vote for unless they had literally come in and role-claimed a baddie. You're more practical than this.

Or some of these people are evil.

Epignosis wrote:^I already pointed that out llama. S~V~S is not here to give me a cookie, sadly.

thellama73 wrote:In fact, Snowman did come to this thread (after I voted for him), saw that people were talking about him, posted, and did not respond in any substantive way. This was a choice on his part. Do you still maintain he had no chance to respond?

Snowman wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Snowman reminds me of Bad Mr. Frosty:

Yikes, now I kinda want to lynch Snowman...or play Clayfighter.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 37#p116237

FZ. wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm hearing a lot of "This is not typical FZ." not so much "This is not typical civ FZ." can anyone reconcile the two for me?

This!! Has anyone really played with me when baddie? I wasn't a baddie here except for one game here where people voted for me because I was on a team with MP who went after me on the first day and everyone said he goes after his own team? I was lynched the second day and not because people really thought I was acting like a baddie, but because of MP.

DharmaHelper wrote:Just as a neat little factoid, 58% of currently alive players have no vested interest in lynching non-detective roles.

Long Con wrote:A lot of players right now don't even have "motives". Even the two baddie teams (or the baddie team and the independent team?) don't really have a clear goal... the red team has to eliminate detectives, but they all want to appear to the thread as detectives, so it's very easy for a red team member to go hard with a case against another red, thinking they're getting a detective, wanting the thread to think they're going after a baddie, and really having no idea what the reality actually is.

For all we know, the best case-makers are all red, and they will be awesomely convincing and get us to lynch their teammates, while the Civvies sit back and lay low while it happens. It could be! That's so backwards! Maybe you want to accuse me of some sort of manipulation by suggesting that, but even if I were red, how would I know?

Long Con wrote:Hey, it's Mr Low-Poster-Under-The-Radar Long Con, here to post something. I cannot deny that I haven't given everyone much of anything to use to read me. My posts are few, but I have tried to analyze what I could in them. I don't even know what I'm going to post here, a lot of suspicions sound like they're pretty good, but then someone comes in with a counterpoint and I'm not so sure anymore. Like Snowman. That oft-quoted line about suspicions coalescing seems like a really good basis for a suspicion, and some of his posts could be seen as bad. Then someone recently mentioned that it's only his second game, and his first game was Donner Party, which was as far from a regular game of Mafia as I have seen.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In fact, Snowman did come to this thread (after I voted for him), saw that people were talking about him, posted, and did not respond in any substantive way. This was a choice on his part. Do you still maintain he had no chance to respond?

Snowman wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Snowman reminds me of Bad Mr. Frosty:

Yikes, now I kinda want to lynch Snowman...or play Clayfighter.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 37#p116237

3 out of 26 people have voted so far. Based on the fact that I know I'm still here, I know you're still here, and I know TH has been here since voting, we could still be sitting at 0/26 people having voted so far, without changing anything. If making a joke post is enough to convince people he's never going to actually address things, they can vote for him as they see fit. It doesn't convince me he's not going to do so.

Long Con wrote:A lot of players right now don't even have "motives". Even the two baddie teams (or the baddie team and the independent team?) don't really have a clear goal... the red team has to eliminate detectives, but they all want to appear to the thread as detectives, so it's very easy for a red team member to go hard with a case against another red, thinking they're getting a detective, wanting the thread to think they're going after a baddie, and really having no idea what the reality actually is.

For all we know, the best case-makers are all red, and they will be awesomely convincing and get us to lynch their teammates, while the Civvies sit back and lay low while it happens. It could be! That's so backwards! Maybe you want to accuse me of some sort of manipulation by suggesting that, but even if I were red, how would I know?

I just looked back at the roles to see if I missed anything and another thing that is a major part of the game is the receiving of Death Notes... a major part of the game that we cannot use for anything because we don't know what the deal is, how they get received, when this happens, if there's an element of chance or skill to get them...

So if people are mostly individuals, their biggest motivation is going to be personal survival. A Detective, trying to survive long enough to somehow catch a Kira, will want to be really careful about what he says, so as not to attract too much suspicion... unless he wants to try and be extra-outspoken, to both attract suspicion AND seem like a useful player to have around. Wait, no, I just described how a baddie would probably want to play. See?

After talking this out with myself, I find myself on boo's side of lynching low-posters... at least until some game elements coalesce into something more tangible. Hoping that will happen. Also, I tend to agree with his other points about low posters. I don't think it's an acceptable tactic to specifically not post so as to make it to a later part of the game, knowing that people won't vote for them.

Then again, I'm pretty sure I'M a low poster in this game, so there's that as well. I don't want to be lynched.

If you read all my thoughts here, and you have a different opinion on how to get a more solid handle on this game, then I'm all ears. There must be something more we can use, and it's not currently what we'd use in a regular Mafia game, where baddies have BTSC.

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

boo wrote:Goes back to not wanting to see him take more votes before he even comes in and has a chance to talk for himself, because I think that would lead to him just giving up and not bothering, which makes his lynch even easier.

But if these people couldn't wait that long, then...what?

boo wrote:If someone already has 12 votes, the people voting for them don't agree with you and wouldn't have voted for the person you want to vote for unless they had literally come in and role-claimed a baddie. You're more practical than this.

Or some of these people are evil.

Then he's shit out of luck. Luck is a thing that exists Epi, it does play a part in a mafia game.

Sure, or some of those people are evil. Which isn't relevant in a game where the baddies start with the same amount of BTSC as the civvies, but ok, lets throw it out there because we can.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In fact, Snowman did come to this thread (after I voted for him), saw that people were talking about him, posted, and did not respond in any substantive way. This was a choice on his part. Do you still maintain he had no chance to respond?

Snowman wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Snowman reminds me of Bad Mr. Frosty:

Yikes, now I kinda want to lynch Snowman...or play Clayfighter.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 37#p116237

3 out of 26 people have voted so far. Based on the fact that I know I'm still here, I know you're still here, and I know TH has been here since voting, we could still be sitting at 0/26 people having voted so far, without changing anything. If making a joke post is enough to convince people he's never going to actually address things, they can vote for him as they see fit. It doesn't convince me he's not going to do so.

Not the question I asked.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

boo wrote:Goes back to not wanting to see him take more votes before he even comes in and has a chance to talk for himself, because I think that would lead to him just giving up and not bothering, which makes his lynch even easier.

But if these people couldn't wait that long, then...what?

boo wrote:If someone already has 12 votes, the people voting for them don't agree with you and wouldn't have voted for the person you want to vote for unless they had literally come in and role-claimed a baddie. You're more practical than this.

Or some of these people are evil.

Then he's shit out of luck. Luck is a thing that exists Epi, it does play a part in a mafia game.

Sure, or some of those people are evil. Which isn't relevant in a game where the baddies start with the same amount of BTSC as the civvies, but ok, lets throw it out there because we can.

Then why use a scenario that doesn't pertain to our present circumstance?

If the yellow portion doesn't pertain to this game, as you state in the pink comment, then why bring it up? Aren't you invalidating your own argument?

I see a boo who is spiraling out of control.

Epignosis wrote:Does boo drink?

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.