The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm too tired right now to go and type it all out, but tomorrow morning I'm going to make a big announcement, about something I've been working on for this game.

Like how there's a secret second phase about this game we don't know about?

Is there such a thing as Post-Traumatic Mafia Disorder?

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
However, you are welcome to act wild and try to get the bad guys to vote for you, and then you either have information or the civilians in your wake have information. How did that work out for you?

Ah yes. You lost.

It was a moral victory. Plus, I got a maneuver named after me. You don't have any maneuvers.

That's why I have more wins than...

Okay, that's why I'm a mod here and you're...

Okay, that's why I know more about Mongoose and you...

You know what? You once sipped Red Stag out of a Days Inn paper cup. That makes you awful.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
However, you are welcome to act wild and try to get the bad guys to vote for you, and then you either have information or the civilians in your wake have information. How did that work out for you?

Ah yes. You lost.

It was a moral victory. Plus, I got a maneuver named after me. You don't have any maneuvers.

That's why I have more wins than...

Okay, that's why I'm a mod here and you're...

Okay, that's why I know more about Mongoose and you...

You know what? You once sipped Red Stag out of a Days Inn paper cup. That makes you awful.

This post was so full of win.

I also LQTM at DH's most recent post.

I'm glad we are going to get down to business and vote for the most suspicious person, but I'm equally glad it looks like we are going to have a little fun doing it along the way.

Mongoose wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
However, you are welcome to act wild and try to get the bad guys to vote for you, and then you either have information or the civilians in your wake have information. How did that work out for you?

Ah yes. You lost.

It was a moral victory. Plus, I got a maneuver named after me. You don't have any maneuvers.

That's why I have more wins than...

Okay, that's why I'm a mod here and you're...

Okay, that's why I know more about Mongoose and you...

You know what? You once sipped Red Stag out of a Days Inn paper cup. That makes you awful.

This post was so full of win.

I also LQTM at DH's most recent post.

I'm glad we are going to get down to business and vote for the most suspicious person, but I'm equally glad it looks like we are going to have a little fun doing it along the way.

I already have someone in mind who will be getting my vote but I'm waiting to see what he does.

bea wrote:

S~V~S wrote:MP did something not totally dissimilar to that once~ he blew up ALOT of players on one night with bombs.

yes. Like most of the remaining living players.

Lesson learned: Never trust a Sockhost bearing gifts.....

But in Avant 2, he gave us all gifts, and the people who opened them found a button that, when pushed, deactivated a bomb. I think only 1 person didn't open their gift.

Lesson learned: Sockface is like a really good magician. He never repeats the same trick twice.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm too tired right now to go and type it all out, but tomorrow morning I'm going to make a big announcement, about something I've been working on for this game.

Like how there's a secret second phase about this game we don't know about?

Is there such a thing as Post-Traumatic Mafia Disorder?

if there is please sign me up for it.

Epignosis wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
However, you are welcome to act wild and try to get the bad guys to vote for you, and then you either have information or the civilians in your wake have information. How did that work out for you?

Ah yes. You lost.

It was a moral victory. Plus, I got a maneuver named after me. You don't have any maneuvers.

That's why I have more wins than...

Okay, that's why I'm a mod here and you're...

Okay, that's why I know more about Mongoose and you...

You know what? You once sipped Red Stag out of a Days Inn paper cup. That makes you awful.

This post was so full of win.

I also LQTM at DH's most recent post.

I'm glad we are going to get down to business and vote for the most suspicious person, but I'm equally glad it looks like we are going to have a little fun doing it along the way.

I already have someone in mind who will be getting my vote but I'm waiting to see what he does.

That wasn't towards me, was it? Anyway, I'm going to bed.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

bea wrote:

S~V~S wrote:MP did something not totally dissimilar to that once~ he blew up ALOT of players on one night with bombs.

yes. Like most of the remaining living players.

Lesson learned: Never trust a Sockhost bearing gifts.....

But in Avant 2, he gave us all gifts, and the people who opened them found a button that, when pushed, deactivated a bomb. I think only 1 person didn't open their gift.

Lesson learned: Sockface is like a really good magician. He never repeats the same trick twice.

fair enough teefies. Sockhost is an enigma. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Listen, this is my Day 1 proposal:

We all choose someone to vote for who seems bad, and then we vote for that person. Can we manage that much?

I like the sound of that. The difficulty is deciding on who seems bad.

It's quite easy.

Vote for the person that seems the most suspicious. Got it?

Sound advice, my good chap!

The only suspicion I have so far is spacedaisy, I thought it was convenient she was around to respond to sock's post about the plasmids stock being ransacked I just got the feeling that she probably got one, but didn't want anyone to know about it. Just a minor ping-

Otherwise, I'm sort of interested in seeing if FH carries through with some sort of analysis based on my idea earlier

linki x3

Epignosis wrote:I already have someone in mind who will be getting my vote but I'm waiting to see what he does.

Is it MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE???

Oh wait...

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

bea wrote:

S~V~S wrote:MP did something not totally dissimilar to that once~ he blew up ALOT of players on one night with bombs.

yes. Like most of the remaining living players.

Lesson learned: Never trust a Sockhost bearing gifts.....

But in Avant 2, he gave us all gifts, and the people who opened them found a button that, when pushed, deactivated a bomb. I think only 1 person didn't open their gift.

Lesson learned: Sockface is like a really good magician. He never repeats the same trick twice.

fair enough teefies. Sockhost is an enigma. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

For the most part, he does a fairly good job. But I can always count on him throwing in some major aspect/secret that I've never seen in a game of mafia before.

Epignosis wrote:Vote for the person that seems the most suspicious. Got it?

I think I'll just try to vote for somebody essentially at random, but for whom I can invent a slightly plausible
justification, and hope that I'm not the one selected (essentially at random) to be crucified for my poor excuse
for my day one vote during day two. Is that cool?

I hate this part of the game..

Nevinera wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Vote for the person that seems the most suspicious. Got it?

I think I'll just try to vote for somebody essentially at random, but for whom I can invent a slightly plausible
justification, and hope that I'm not the one selected (essentially at random) to be crucified for my poor excuse
for my day one vote during day two. Is that cool?

I hate this part of the game..

I do too. Honestly, I'm most tempted to vote for DH right now for hubris, but it is early yet and I'm happy to wait and see if anything develops.

The Hubris Protocol.

We'll all look back at this day as the day that stared it all.

Mongoose wrote:The Hubris Protocol.

We'll all look back at this day as the day that stared it all.

HuBRIS

Always keep in mind that it will chop off a piece of your cock.

I really want to attend one of those sometime but I don't have enough Jewish friends.

Mongoose wrote:I really want to attend one of those sometime but I don't have enough Jewish friends.

I went to a seder. That is pretty close, right?

I attended a synongogue service. No offense Jewish people. I nearly nodded off.

But the "fellowship hour" had Wild Turkey. So go you.

Mongoose wrote:I really want to attend one of those sometime but I don't have enough Jewish friends.

I don't think that would be my first pick. I would much rather go to a guy's bar mitzvah than his bris tbh. Especially if Adam Sandler from Wedding Singer were playing at it.

Sooo, day one. awesome, my fav. Epi, about summed it up. I plan to take his advice and vote for someone I find suspicious. However, that's the hard part. You are all suspicious until you coax me in with your friendly banter and witty words, so don't do that this time, k?

thellama73 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:I really want to attend one of those sometime but I don't have enough Jewish friends.

I went to a seder. That is pretty close, right?

Yep, it's exactly the same thing!


Hedge - I used to to stand up at bar and bat mizvahs when at college. Good $!

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Listen, this is my Day 1 proposal:

We all choose someone to vote for who seems bad, and then we vote for that person. Can we manage that much?

I like the sound of that. The difficulty is deciding on who seems bad.

It's quite easy.

Vote for the person that seems the most suspicious. Got it?

Got it! Thanks!

Is that how this works? Sounds easy enough.

Alright Epi, lay one of your traps

Hedgeowl wrote:

Mongoose wrote:I really want to attend one of those sometime but I don't have enough Jewish friends.

I don't think that would be my first pick. I would much rather go to a guy's bar mitzvah than his bris tbh. Especially if Adam Sandler from Wedding Singer were playing at it.

Sooo, day one. awesome, my fav. Epi, about summed it up. I plan to take his advice and vote for someone I find suspicious. However, that's the hard part. You are all suspicious until you coax me in with your friendly banter and witty words, so don't do that this time, k?

Yeah I have that problem, too. I'm going to try to be more leery and paranoid than I usually am here.

This while keeping cool, calm head on my shoulders when regarding the constantly changing environment and the new hazards it produces.

I think it was Blind that mentioned this, but I too considered the possibility of SD having a plasmid now. This alone doesn't make her bad, but it's something to consider.

Nevinera wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Vote for the person that seems the most suspicious. Got it?

I think I'll just try to vote for somebody essentially at random, but for whom I can invent a slightly plausible
justification, and hope that I'm not the one selected (essentially at random) to be crucified for my poor excuse
for my day one vote during day two. Is that cool?

I hate this part of the game..

Invent a slightly plausible reason you say

Invent as in fabricate?
Fabricate as in lie?

Epignosis wrote:I miss Snow Dog.

same.

DH, do you think that was the sentiment Nev was going for?

Do I think Nev intentionally confessed to considering making up a reason to vote for somebody? Nah. But I think it's telling that they're willing to consider that, sure.

I am glad you said that, becasue when I saw that post I was like, way to streeeettch, DH! Becasue that is really a fairly good description of both days one & two on Nevins part, lol.

DharmaHelper wrote:Do I think Nev intentionally confessed to considering making up a reason to vote for somebody? Nah. But I think it's telling that they're willing to consider that, sure.

No, I definitely did. I consider it logically obvious that all civs will have to do so today, and mostly tomorrow too.
Baddies of course have more info, but they are motivated by not sticking out rather than by not getting lynched. Which admittedly is a ver similar goal.

I think it's 'telling' that you would take issue with such an obviously true implication. Of course it doesn't tell me much, since civs and baddies are both trying to scratch suspicion out of the air right now.

I will most likely vote for somebody who votes for someone that already had votes. And I'll prefer someon who has talked some, but not *said* much! because that is the only baddie pattern this early (do t draw attention).

You guys noticed bob is on the role list, right? Is anyone else surprised by that? I'm wondering how in the world he could lose, and also how baddie teams will behave knowing that it is almost a certainty that Bob will take one of their members sooner or later.

You guys can't trust your btsc teammates, and that's bound to make you less effective.. we should keep an eye out for the infighting that event will spawn, and for people that are suddenly granted correct 'suspicions'. Oh, and you baddies should keep this in mind - if your teammate is 'distancing ' himself, it might not be for the good of the team. :-)

Nevinera wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Do I think Nev intentionally confessed to considering making up a reason to vote for somebody? Nah. But I think it's telling that they're willing to consider that, sure.

No, I definitely did. I consider it logically obvious that all civs will have to do so today, and mostly tomorrow too.
Baddies of course have more info, but they are motivated by not sticking out rather than by not getting lynched. Which admittedly is a ver similar goal.

I think it's 'telling' that you would take issue with such an obviously true implication. Of course it doesn't tell me much, since civs and baddies are both trying to scratch suspicion out of the air right now.

I will most likely vote for somebody who votes for someone that already had votes. And I'll prefer someon who has talked some, but not *said* much! because that is the only baddie pattern this early (do t draw attention).

You guys noticed bob is on the role list, right? Is anyone else surprised by that? I'm wondering how in the world he could lose, and also how baddie teams will behave knowing that it is almost a certainty that Bob will take one of their members sooner or later.

You guys can't trust your btsc teammates, and that's bound to make you less effective.. we should keep an eye out for the infighting that event will spawn, and for people that are suddenly granted correct 'suspicions'. Oh, and you baddies should keep this in mind - if your teammate is 'distancing ' himself, it might not be for the good of the team. :-)

I didn't play twin peaks, could you or someone else explain how the mechanic of Bobs roles worked?

I don't actually find any of Nev's statements suspish, because he has said this before about Day 1 in other games. Also, I have found that knowing someone irl has actually been a disadvantage for me since I swing between trusting them completely or suspecting them greatly.

So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

The idea behind this sounds pretty interesting but I'm just not sure it'll work in practice. Can you think of anyone who specifically uses different words and phrases when bad or civ? It's more the attitudes and tones behind a post that change in my opinion.

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

It's an interesting approach, but we have nowhere near enough data to do document classification for most of the players on the board.
I think you're much more likely to find patterns related to what other players are playing in the game.

I'm the lead developer at a company that specializes in pattern recognition and classification,
and while I haven't specifically written a data classifier, I'm familiar with the science.
Data sets for real classifiers need thousands of samples for 90% accuracy on things like 'author's gender', which heavily affect writing style.

I don't know whether you're just learning about machine learning and wanted to try something, or are attempting to grant yourself some scientific authority with which to influence future witch hunts or to cover up some other way of gaining info, but your tool is not going to be useful or effective, and is unlikely to beat random guessing in any statistically significant way.

Bullzeye wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

The idea behind this sounds pretty interesting but I'm just not sure it'll work in practice. Can you think of anyone who specifically uses different words and phrases when bad or civ? It's more the attitudes and tones behind a post that change in my opinion.

Of course, attitudes and tones count for a lot, but everybody subconsciously has tells, and a lot of baddies like to fly under the radar, and not offend anybody. This is a way of finding those people.

insertnamehere wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

The idea behind this sounds pretty interesting but I'm just not sure it'll work in practice. Can you think of anyone who specifically uses different words and phrases when bad or civ? It's more the attitudes and tones behind a post that change in my opinion.

Of course, attitudes and tones count for a lot, but everybody subconsciously has tells, and a lot of baddies like to fly under the radar, and not offend anybody. This is a way of finding those people.

Surely we can notice people flying under the radar based on what's happening in this thread? Also I'm sensing that this thing is something only you'll be able to use and any info the rest of us get from it will be the stuff you choose to share.

Nevinera wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

It's an interesting approach, but we have nowhere near enough data to do document classification for most of the players on the board.
I think you're much more likely to find patterns related to what other players are playing in the game.

I'm the lead developer at a company that specializes in pattern recognition and classification,
and while I haven't specifically written a data classifier, I'm familiar with the science.
Data sets for real classifiers need thousands of samples for 90% accuracy on things like 'author's gender', which heavily affect writing style.

I don't know whether you're just learning about machine learning and wanted to try something, or are attempting to grant yourself some scientific authority with which to influence future witch hunts or to cover up some other way of gaining info, but your tool is not going to be useful or effective, and is unlikely to beat random guessing in any statistically significant way.

The thing is, the program doesn't just cover the Syndicate. It also covers RM, the Piano, LP, Hedville, and ProgArchives. There is a surprisingly large sample size for a lot of people.

Obviously, I'm not an expert at these things, but it seems to me like in the example you just used, there is a percentage of likelihoods that determines an author's gender, and a percentage of how likely something is to be correct. I try to balance those, and rank them against each other. This is very different then determining one variable, it is seeing how a large group of people each individually come up on one variable, and ranking those against each other on how accurate the classification is. This isn't going to determine my vote every lynch, it's for these days where you don't have much to go on. The program is my back-up plan.

insertnamehere wrote: Obviously, I'm not an expert at these things

Yes, my point was that I *am*, and I'm very confident that you will not get useful information from such a tool
(and I rather suspect that you have not written it either).

Bullzeye wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

The idea behind this sounds pretty interesting but I'm just not sure it'll work in practice. Can you think of anyone who specifically uses different words and phrases when bad or civ? It's more the attitudes and tones behind a post that change in my opinion.

Of course, attitudes and tones count for a lot, but everybody subconsciously has tells, and a lot of baddies like to fly under the radar, and not offend anybody. This is a way of finding those people.

Surely we can notice people flying under the radar based on what's happening in this thread? Also I'm sensing that this thing is something only you'll be able to use and any info the rest of us get from it will be the stuff you choose to share.

If I tell you what the tells are for each person, the baddies will just specifically avoid those words, making the Program irrelevant. I also don't want to divulge the rankings, because if I'm completely 100% correct, I could be NK'd. I will divulge who is at the top each week, if you want to vote for that person, you can. Or you cannot. It's your decision.

I hesitate to say anything, for fear of being accused of baddie motives, but I don't like the idea of using a computer to play the game for us. It seems to defeat the purpose of the game to substitute a machine for our ability to read people.

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.

Nevinera wrote:

insertnamehere wrote: Obviously, I'm not an expert at these things

Yes, my point was that I *am*, and I'm very confident that you will not get useful information from such a tool
(and I rather suspect that you have not written it either).

Well, since you have decided only to respond to that part, and not say how it actually will not work in your mind, but only automatically condemn me, is a bit suspect.

thellama73 wrote:I hesitate to say anything, for fear of being accused of baddie motives, but I don't like the idea of using a computer to play the game for us. It seems to defeat the purpose of the game to substitute a machine for our ability to read people.

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.

Once again, this isn't for every lynch, it is only for lynches like this one where there isn't a major candidate, or much to go on.

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

Wow, that's awesome and scary. Kinda like my debate club friend telling me I said, uh, um over 140 times in a short presentation. I am not sure I really want to know, because I am sure it is more repetitive than I think it is. Points for being inventive.

Ok, so went and pull Bob's role since I hadn't yet read through all the ones I don't know. This seems like an incredibly interesting and powerful role. Similar is style to Wednesday in AG it seems. So best way to combat is spread votes? Seems tricky as week and benefiting baddies. How did this role play out in twin peaks?

• Bob – [Twin Peaks] - Wow, Bob, Wow. On even nights, can possess someone. That person will join his team and they gain BTSC. Bob himself cannot kill, but his minions can, unless they are under suspicion. Bob's minions collectively can NK someone every night, unless they receive at least one vote. To win, Bob and his minions need to outnumber everyone else. Minions can still use their NP, and even have BTSC. If Bob is killed, only his minions remain.

insertnamehere wrote: If I tell you what the tells are for each person, the baddies will just specifically avoid those words, making the Program irrelevant. I also don't want to divulge the rankings, because if I'm completely 100% correct, I could be NK'd. I will divulge who is at the top each week, if you want to vote for that person, you can. Or you cannot. It's your decision.

I will be voting for people because I find them suspicious. Not because a computer program of questionable accuracy run (allegedly) by a player whose motives I have no idea of says so.

thellama73 wrote:I hesitate to say anything, for fear of being accused of baddie motives, but I don't like the idea of using a computer to play the game for us. It seems to defeat the purpose of the game to substitute a machine for our ability to read people.

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.

I agree. It's kinda the same reason I'm against infodumping, there's just no point in playing if you can say hey this person is definitely bad because my info/computer says so. The fun is in the hunt, or avoiding the hunt if you're bad.

Hedge, how will spreading the votes help combat Bob? Maybe my brain is not awake yet.

I don't know about you guys, but INH's concept, if ture, is pretty neat. I know it's technically not fair towards the rest of us, but I'm want to see this thing in action and how accurate it is k.

juliets wrote:Hedge, how will spreading the votes help combat Bob? Maybe my brain is not awake yet.

Because Bob's minions can only kill if none of them take any votes. But Bob has no minions yet, since this is only day 1.

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:Hedge, how will spreading the votes help combat Bob? Maybe my brain is not awake yet.

Because Bob's minions can only kill if none of them take any votes. But Bob has no minions yet, since this is only day 1.

ah yes, of course, thanks llama. Not enough coffee.

insertnamehere wrote: If I tell you what the tells are for each person, the baddies will just specifically avoid those words, making the Program irrelevant. I also don't want to divulge the rankings, because if I'm completely 100% correct, I could be NK'd. I will divulge who is at the top each week, if you want to vote for that person, you can. Or you cannot. It's your decision.

Orrrrrrr you could be NK'd simply because you brought this up in the first place.

Wow you all are a talkative bunch!

INH, your program sounds interesting. I think I have to think about it more before I decide my opinion on it and its use in the games. My first thought was about my son who plays Words with Friends. He went from playing 3 letter words to 30 point words overnight. So I asked him, how did you make such a drastic improvement?? He said, Mom - there's cheat apps all over the place! So I'm not sure if 1) your program will really work or 2) if I actually equate it to a cheat app. Thus, I'm pensive I do wonder why you would announce that you have it in a game, which would likely make you the target of a NK.

linki