The Syndicate

sig wrote:SO CLASSES ARE FINALLLLY DONE!

Golden wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Linki: Why do you say he is always like this when good? Not sure what you mean here.

Sig has a knack for making himself look terribly scummy even when he isn't, I've seen him be lynched a fair few times now when civ for similar things.

That's not to say he MUST be good, just that I think more work is needed to figure out what is going on with him.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

sig wrote:Also moving over to boom I don't like the case on Wilgy or Mp's last minute switch

But...You Don't See the Case on Boomslang............................Your Words

That's my point.

CFD sig

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:Sig looks scummy as all fuck therefore sig is good.

Sadly, this is probably true. I cannot read this man.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

sig wrote:Also moving over to boom I don't like the case on Wilgy or Mp's last minute switch

Crown of shit

Golden wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Yeah, this. I would be shocked if sig wasn't bad at this point.

Except sig is always like this when good, so how do ever know with him?

I think you need to look past face value scumminess and look for motivations.

So, here's what I've got so far...

He was ok voting for boom, despite not really seeing the case, but not if it tied the votes.

Sig - it looks like you wanted your vote to be on one of the big wagons (even if you didn't agree with the case), but not to actually risk counting. Why did you not want to tie the votes? Why were you happy voting boomslang when you only left him a vote behind?

Anyone else - what's the baddie motivation for this from sig? Just to look like his vote mattered? But even a cursory iso would tell you how it actually went down...

tinfoil hat time! I'm on a mafia team with Golden and he is stopping me from getting lynched. Vote Sig

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Basically, Boom was not around to defend himself. Sig was. And sig chose to ignore any questions directed at him. That's why I currently lean more bad on sig than on Boom.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Regarding sig at the end of Day 2:

I am not bothered by his initial decision to vote for Boomslang despite having been underwhelmed by the case. At the time of sig's arrival in the thread, there were about 20 minutes left in the phase and three wagons formed -- Boomslang, DrWilgy, and A Person. If I enter the thread under the same conditions and feel underwhelmed about all three wagons, there's a good chance I'd still pick one of them.

Note: it was sig's first appearance on Day 2. He had too little time to be able to catch up with the game, which means he had too little time to be able to provide any preferable alternative to those three names. To me, the meaning of his vote is reliant more upon the alignments of the other two (and we know Wilgy was town). The best argument then, in my opinion, to criticize sig's decision is to suggest that he was trying to save A Person -- something that hinges upon an unknown alignment, and something that is inherently challenged by his next move:

sig wrote:actully never mind on that Boom vote just yet, I just realized that would tie them.

In the end when he did vote Boomslang, it was because he preferred that vote over a Wilgy vote (Wilgy's wagon is the one that had taken off late) -- given Wilgy's flip, I don't think that's a problem.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Sigurd. Sigmurd Freud. Sig Newton.

Sigourney Weaver?

Who? I think I'm to young to know these fossils.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:sig's true identity is Zuul, Gatekeeper of Gozer.

But I do know this reference.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Again regarding sig:

I discussed here why I wasn't bothered by his conduct at the end of Day 2. I am inclined to temper my own mindset here though, because this rationale is better suited as "why something is not scummy" instead of "why something looks civilian", and the difference is important. I want reads, Sigurd. Sigmurd Freud. Sig Newton.

Reads will come soonish


linki: Thanks Golden only seven more semesters to go until i can start my plot of world domination.

sig wrote: it also has occurred to me that we have two killing groups, the mafia and the SK. I don't think from the night 1 kill we can tell who performed that action and since one player submits the kill for mafia it could be that the kill submitter was absent. Or we could have had an afk SK, which A person would fit into. However, there is no hard evidence the kill didn't happen, it could have easily been blocked or the player who was targeted could have been protected so I don't think that is avenue worth pursing at this time.

Alfothad will be alerted and start killing when [Secrets]

Ricochet wrote:

Spoiler: show

A Person wrote:

Scotty wrote:Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Actually MP, your post count has already jumped to an obscene place. I'm not sure I've seen it quite like this since you started Transistor with 57 posts before the second-highest poster made it to #8.

You over-eager cuz you bad, m8?

i got a cherry tree out back
wanna pick some more?

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Actually MP, your post count has already jumped to an obscene place. I'm not sure I've seen it quite like this since you started Transistor with 57 posts before the second-highest poster made it to #8.

You over-eager cuz you bad, m8?

i got a cherry tree out back
wanna pick some more?

It's a cherry pick if MP dominates the early post count this much in every game, and I don't think he does. Indeed other than Transistor I might say the other most applicable comparison is to the Scrimmage (I can't remember his precise post count comparatively; I just remember it being very high very early). It doesn't make him bad, but it's worth throwing some poop.

you're right. it's certainly a load of crap.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

LoRab wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Who hasn't checked in yet? A Person, Lorab, Ninjuukyuwhatever, anybody else? (sorry if you did and I just missed your post)

I did so check in!! I was the first to post!!!!! I just haven't had anything to add since then.

That said...and this is probably a stupid question (and I'll probably get flack for it, but whatever). But, uh, are we supposed to be doing anything? There's no poll, but is there any sort of day 0 exercise that I missed? Do we know how we get to day 1 (or night 1, depending on which comes first)?

Hunting for mafia fellow townies. That's what we're supposed to be doing.

But seriously, no Day 0 poll or anything, just check in time... I believe.

How do other people feel about that line?
I don't feel great about it.

Dom wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dom wrote:i think he's purposefully exposing how flawed poe is

MP stated earlier that he isn't using PoE anymore. So what makes you think he is still doing it?

i'm talking about epi

birdwithteeth11 wrote:MP, you never answered my question directed at you earlier.

and you never answered mine

jay-- i'll bite.
*votes wilgy*

sig wrote: I'm pretty sure I've played with him before, I want to say Star Wars but not 100% sure, and while AP was a low poster he was present and giving some amount of context. So we have three posts N1 then nothing until Day 3. I could vote here.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Everybody is playing really well right now. Unfortunately, that means mafia is winning.

Linki: I don't know honestly.

LoRab wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm like 5 pages behind. Trying to catch up. Just wanted to let y'all know that I'm still here.

Hi, LoRab!

Curious to hear what thoughts you have when you get caught up.

Hi! For now at least, I'm skipping those 5 pages. I don't have the time or energy to go back--so if anything happened I need to know about, someone please let me know!!

I don't have much to say. The day 0/1 conversation has been interesting, but I'm not sure I have any conclusions from it. At least not strong ones. I think i'm still wrapping my brain around the game.

LoRab wrote:

A Person wrote:

Scotty wrote:Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

This may be the least civie friendly thinking I've read in mafia. Either you're a civ who is saying that vocal players who are actively discussing the game should be killed (which isn't good for the civ cause) and are telling the mafia to kill active civs. Or you're mafia and doing the same thing. Also, if you're mafia, that was a phenomenally ironic kill.

But, please, can you explain a possible civ justification for this post? Because it's not making sense to me from a civ perspective.

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

LoRab wrote:For what it's worth, I think MP is civ.

I also think he should take a deep breath and come back to the game.

I'm voting A Person. At least for now. If they come back and give a reason for their post advocating for killing high posters, then I may reconsider.

sig wrote:Also quick note before I go one of the top posters (JJJ, Sloonie, Golden, and MP) is most likely bad, I just have no clue which one it is. :P

sig wrote:I would review MM, but he has like 100+ posts and I need to grab dinner so I will be back in a bit if the players around could share their views of Dom and Lorab's vote on A Person I'd appreciate it.

Golden wrote:MP, when you get back, I'd like you to elaborate on your Vompatti read

MP is strong town for me. That's almost what I'd call a derpclear.

Golden wrote:

sig wrote:Also quick note before I go one of the top posters (JJJ, Sloonie, Golden, and MP) is most likely bad, I just have no clue which one it is. :P

Ok those who are not me, I would say that MP is least likely, sloonei is most likely. Jay in the middle.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't really care if I get lynched. I've done what I can.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't really care if I get lynched. I've done what I can.

I find your indifference hard to believe.

timmer wrote:I'm not really liking the state of this lynch. It seems like the majority of the people with votes (AP, MM, Lorab) are primarily being voted for being goofy, unhelpful or not their usual game style.

One other thing I'm noticing is that every time in this game A Person starts getting votes, along come other sort of sudden, weak lynch trains on easy targets.

If no one is willing ti bite on my Dom thoughts, and of course they weren't airtight, I'll move my vote to AP, for now. I don't get a bad feeling from Lorab yet. MM could be bad, so I'm not going to defend him, but in the end, the way AP keeps surviving these early lynch trains against him is making my gut get the feels.

AP for me.

timmer wrote:Yes but the seems to be a move again. Ap has contributed nothing to the game. MM has contributed in a goofy way that hasn't been very effective.

If ap is at 3 votes and mm at 0, why suddenky go for him when ther is no way to say that ap is more worthy to see sick around.

It's a word time to start creating an almost tie.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:timmer: the timing thing. Right now, it's the scummiest thing I've seen.

nijuu: her Day 2 vote. She voted Scotty because other people were talking about him, not because she read him as bad.
MP: He claimed that my accusation against timmer based on timing is historically inaccurate, but could not come up with an example (these two things don't go together)
sig: Similar to nijuu, his Day 2 vote.

Ninja suspicion - factually incorrect

nijuukyugou wrote:Trice: Seems like Epi vote was a placeholder at first, but morphed into a "real" vote (as in, one that stuck) after responding to people's questioning the train. I see his reasoning (Epi's lack of on-topic posts, frustration at the song gimmick, etc.) although I disagree with it. Appears like a genuine vote (I wanted to be more eloquent, but I'm running out of steam after a long day).

Wilgy: Errrrrr...why are people saying Scotty's vote is the most suspicious on this train? I get that Wilgy's a nut, but Wilgy offers literally no reasoning for his vote except #lynchepi. So, yeah, that first question is a genuine question. Answer it.

Scotty: From reading his posts on Days 0 and 1 (according to the headings), it appeared like he would vote one of his "gut-baddie" reads (JJJ, Sloonei, actually votes BWT as a changeable vote), but votes Epi. I see that he said vote "something that matters," which I assume is a vote somewhere that already had votes, and he didn't go with INH because...well, actually, I'm not sure why, more than Epi. Gave a bit of a vouch as far as INH's content, but said it could've been suspicious by trying to look good? Anyway, his Epi vote, as others have said, is pretty weird. However, he is helping insanified Golden currently, which looks helpful and civ to me, barring weirdness behind the scenes.

So, I suppose what I get from that is Trice's vote looks the most genuine, Wilgy's absolute nonsense (not helpful), and Scotty's disingenuous. Discuss.

MP suspicion - daft. I came up with an example immediately (LC hounding me about what I did in 17 minutes in Bullets Over Broadway). Why does MP need to come up with a different one? Especially when your Timmer suspicion is the most contrived thing that this game has seen (and is my primary reason for suspecting you) - you completely ignored everything else timmer had said and done.

Sig suspicion - apparently 'similar to ninja', but the ninja suspicion was wrong, and how similar was it?

It just felt like you pulled three names taking a little heat out of the air and said whatever you could think of.

sig wrote:Also quick note before I go one of the top posters (JJJ, Sloonie, Golden, and MP) is most likely bad, I just have no clue which one it is. :P

Golden wrote:I do not believe MP would have Vompatti in a rainbow list after knowing he had killed him, especially one made hurriedly when he was going out the door (far less likely to do it deliberately).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I decided to check my data compilation to see if I could assess trends among the lowest contributory tier of players in Syndicate Mafia games, as a way of qualifying any assumptions about A Person in this game. He has made 6 posts and we're about to complete the 3rd day phase. If he doesn't post again through the night, that'd be 2 posts per cycle. This is a statistic I have tracked for nearly every game played so far in 2016.

Alignment counts for players who have finished a game at or below 2 posts per cycle this year:

Good -- 11

Bad -- 9

Independent -- 5

This is a count of 25 players in the games I have tracked (17 or 18) whose rate of contribution has been comparable to A Person's so far in this game. 44% of them were purely good and 36% of them were purely bad. The indies can be judged as a gray area since their win conditions vary so much. This ratio is a lot closer than it would be if non-contributor alignments were arranged at random in accordance with typical starting rations between good and bad. In that regard, it means people who play like A Person is playing have been baddies more often than randomness would indicate -- suggesting lynching him wouldn't entirely be a guess.

The sample size isn't large enough to make a concrete assertion and stamp it into Mafia law, but it's enough to make me reconsider my prior statement that baddies don't want to let their team mates down by giving nothing to the game. There's clearly a precedent for that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

sig wrote:Also quick note before I go one of the top posters (JJJ, Sloonie, Golden, and MP) is most likely bad, I just have no clue which one it is. :P

Ok those who are not me, I would say that MP is least likely, sloonei is most likely. Jay in the middle.

Sig makes a good point. If we look at this from a probability standpoint, there's a pretty good chance that one of you is mafia. This is historically accurate.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Marmot voters: could you summarize your most significant beefs very briefly?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't really care if I get lynched. I've done what I can.

I find your indifference hard to believe.

Ok fine. I want to be lynched.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have around 15 minutes left in this thread. For the moment I don't feel the inspiration to move my vote. The most important problem with LoRab's content isn't that she has been pressed for time, it's that she hasn't used that time to promote much of a hunting effort. She's asserted that she will play her own way and I am supportive of that, but I also don't know what that means in this game so far other than answering to accusations.

I welcome inspiration from those of you promoting other wagons.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I decided to check my data compilation to see if I could assess trends among the lowest contributory tier of players in Syndicate Mafia games, as a way of qualifying any assumptions about A Person in this game. He has made 6 posts and we're about to complete the 3rd day phase. If he doesn't post again through the night, that'd be 2 posts per cycle. This is a statistic I have tracked for nearly every game played so far in 2016.

Alignment counts for players who have finished a game at or below 2 posts per cycle this year:

Good -- 11

Bad -- 9

Independent -- 5

This is a count of 25 players in the games I have tracked (17 or 18) whose rate of contribution has been comparable to A Person's so far in this game. 44% of them were purely good and 36% of them were purely bad. The indies can be judged as a gray area since their win conditions vary so much. This ratio is a lot closer than it would be if non-contributor alignments were arranged at random in accordance with typical starting rations between good and bad. In that regard, it means people who play like A Person is playing have been baddies more often than randomness would indicate -- suggesting lynching him wouldn't entirely be a guess.

The sample size isn't large enough to make a concrete assertion and stamp it into Mafia law, but it's enough to make me reconsider my prior statement that baddies don't want to let their team mates down by giving nothing to the game. There's clearly a precedent for that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am not inclined to mount resistance to an A Person lynch. The numbers I just pulled at least make it appear better than a roll of the dice if those numbers have any value.

Marmot voters: could you summarize your most significant beefs very briefly?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am not feeling a significant degree of tinfoil about MP, Sloonei, or Golden.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Marmot voters: could you summarize your most significant beefs very briefly?

He reminds me of Dune marmot. Nominally contributing 'real reads' but it feels more like a smokescreen of playing out what Marmot is expected to do, and it feels like he isn't really reading the thread.

Plus, he made that case against me which had significant flaws but he never showed any indication that he was interested in considering or acknowledging that there could be flaws.

nijuukyugou wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I decided to check my data compilation to see if I could assess trends among the lowest contributory tier of players in Syndicate Mafia games, as a way of qualifying any assumptions about A Person in this game. He has made 6 posts and we're about to complete the 3rd day phase. If he doesn't post again through the night, that'd be 2 posts per cycle. This is a statistic I have tracked for nearly every game played so far in 2016.

Alignment counts for players who have finished a game at or below 2 posts per cycle this year:

Good -- 11

Bad -- 9

Independent -- 5

This is a count of 25 players in the games I have tracked (17 or 18) whose rate of contribution has been comparable to A Person's so far in this game. 44% of them were purely good and 36% of them were purely bad. The indies can be judged as a gray area since their win conditions vary so much. This ratio is a lot closer than it would be if non-contributor alignments were arranged at random in accordance with typical starting rations between good and bad. In that regard, it means people who play like A Person is playing have been baddies more often than randomness would indicate -- suggesting lynching him wouldn't entirely be a guess.

The sample size isn't large enough to make a concrete assertion and stamp it into Mafia law, but it's enough to make me reconsider my prior statement that baddies don't want to let their team mates down by giving nothing to the game. There's clearly a precedent for that.

Good or bad, dude, I just want to applaud this science That's dedication.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am not feeling a significant degree of tinfoil about MP, Sloonei, or Golden.

Why? That seems unlike town!JJJ.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:Good or bad, dude, I just want to applaud this science That's dedication.

Agreed.