The Syndicate

Made wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I know you won't believe my words Keterman, so I'm hoping I can let my actions prove to you that I am not feigning anything. I genuinely believed what I said about picking a leader, and after playing (I think it was MP's) Rock and Roll(?) game with the DJ and seeing how that role was easily abused, I was genuinely invested in finding the best person for this leadership thing. It may be, as you say, for "just a game", but my plan is to win this game.

Ight, this could either be telling or damning, hell maybe both. What you think about S~V~S so far? Keep in mind Keterman's argument, while convincing, ain't law. Say what you think yo.

Epignosis wrote:

Keterman wrote:I'm strongly in favor of a 48 hour day to see which of these three (SVS, Sorsha, DH, or a possible other candidate if someone else gets very suspicious very fast) will get my vote.

Speed games on The Syndicate are 24 hour Days and 24 hour Nights. Full games here are 48 hour Days and 24 hour Nights.

S~V~S wrote:I am glad we have until Monday~

S~V~S wrote:*Votes Sorsha*

I love puppies

Sorsha wrote:

Dana wrote:Okay, here are my thoughts for all you wonderful people.

I think DH is being very logical, which is a very important quality for a leader. I also feel like they are trustworthy, though I could be wrong. I agree with many of their points about selfless leadership, not campaigning, etc., which is why they are at the top of my list for the time being.

Do you know DH off of the forums? Because I can't think of any reason you'd be new here and automatically think he is trustworthy.

Oh wait, yes I can. If you guys are on the same team and you're vouching for a teammate.....

Dana wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Keterman wrote:I'm strongly in favor of a 48 hour day to see which of these three (SVS, Sorsha, DH, or a possible other candidate if someone else gets very suspicious very fast) will get my vote.

Speed games on The Syndicate are 24 hour Days and 24 hour Nights. Full games here are 48 hour Days and 24 hour Nights.

Did we skip night 0 or is there none? Just day 0 to day 1?

Elohcin wrote:

Dana wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Keterman wrote:I'm strongly in favor of a 48 hour day to see which of these three (SVS, Sorsha, DH, or a possible other candidate if someone else gets very suspicious very fast) will get my vote.

Speed games on The Syndicate are 24 hour Days and 24 hour Nights. Full games here are 48 hour Days and 24 hour Nights.

Did we skip night 0 or is there none? Just day 0 to day 1?

Yes, it is quite odd to call it day 0 and not have a night. I think it should just be called the game intro or something.

DharmaHelper wrote: Unrelated = Something I found interesting about Sorsha apart from her buddy/buddy with SVS was her reactionary and weak (in terms of logic) post here:

Sorsha wrote:

Dana wrote:Okay, here are my thoughts for all you wonderful people.

I think DH is being very logical, which is a very important quality for a leader. I also feel like they are trustworthy, though I could be wrong. I agree with many of their points about selfless leadership, not campaigning, etc., which is why they are at the top of my list for the time being.

Do you know DH off of the forums? Because I can't think of any reason you'd be new here and automatically think he is trustworthy.

Oh wait, yes I can. If you guys are on the same team and you're vouching for a teammate.....

Keterman wrote:Yes, I noted that Sorsha's case (if that's what it should be called) against Dana was horrible, but some more emphasis on that is welcome. Bad cases don't always indicate scumminess but Sorsha's in particular seemed a little too opportunistic.

Made wrote:

Keterman wrote:Yes, I noted that Sorsha's case (if that's what it should be called) against Dana was horrible, but some more emphasis on that is welcome. Bad cases don't always indicate scumminess but Sorsha's in particular seemed a little too opportunistic.

I didn't want to say this because that's normally how i roll, but sometimes i like to intemidate homies to see how they react. Ain't gonna do that here doe. Ya'll syndicate mofos hood af.

Keterman wrote:SVS asks if anyone's up to volunteer for the leadership role in her first post. I was the first to volunteer, but SVS immediately voted Sorsha because puppies. It seems strange to me that after a serious establishment from SVS that she was interested in who to vote for, she tosses consideration out the window and votes for the one who's going to give her a free puppy. She knows that there's plenty of time to vote, why toss it for such a random, informal candidate?

Keterman wrote:I concede that my issues with you, DH, are mainly vibe-based and if I was more familiar with your meta I would be more confident with my rad of you. But because I'm not familiar with your meta, actions rather than words will indeed help promote you to a null read for me, and I'm glad you understand that.

Keterman wrote:I've also been taking issue with Sorsha's post, but everything that's bugged me about her has already been mentioned extensively enough, mainly that she tried to make it out like if she were scum she could be lynched easily. Also her case against Dana was horrible and it was followed by the beautifully-fence-sitting statement that she trusts SVS but that SVS could be tricking her. That was her most recent post, too.

Keterman wrote:

Made wrote:

Keterman wrote:Yes, I noted that Sorsha's case (if that's what it should be called) against Dana was horrible, but some more emphasis on that is welcome. Bad cases don't always indicate scumminess but Sorsha's in particular seemed a little too opportunistic.

I didn't want to say this because that's normally how i roll, but sometimes i like to intemidate homies to see how they react. Ain't gonna do that here doe. Ya'll syndicate mofos hood af.

I don't follow.

Sorsha wrote:That's a case to you guys? Uh... Ok. I call it more of an observation looking for a response but whatever. You guys are going to see what you want to see.

Sorsha wrote:That's a case to you guys? Uh... Ok. I call it more of an observation looking for a response but whatever. You guys are going to see what you want to see.

Yes, I noted that Sorsha's case (if that's what it should be called) against Dana was horrible, but some more emphasis on that is welcome. Bad cases don't always indicate scumminess but Sorsha's in particular seemed a little too opportunistic.

DharmaHelper wrote:I didn't see these quotes in Keterman's post and I think they're interesting so here you go:

S~V~S wrote:I am glad we have until Monday~

S~V~S wrote:*Votes Sorsha*

I love puppies

nijuukyugou wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I didn't see these quotes in Keterman's post and I think they're interesting so here you go:

S~V~S wrote:I am glad we have until Monday~

S~V~S wrote:*Votes Sorsha*

I love puppies

I had mentioned that I thought SVS's early Day 0 vote (and other early votes) was/were odd (and now especially considering this observation...), but she tacked it up to "having fun" on Day 0. From my little experience, SVS usually takes a bit more time and thought before voting, but she's had different alignments with the same calculated voting style, so don't really know what to make of it alignment-wise besides its being plainly unusual behavior. And wow to Keterman's accusations - definitely something to ponder...I'm eager to see what SVS has to say in response

Keterman wrote:Okay.

SVS asks if anyone's up to volunteer for the leadership role in her first post. I was the first to volunteer, but SVS immediately voted Sorsha because puppies. It seems strange to me that after a serious establishment from SVS that she was interested in who to vote for, she tosses consideration out the window and votes for the one who's going to give her a free puppy. She knows that there's plenty of time to vote, why toss it for such a random, informal candidate? My vote was fast but it was a self-vote. Some time later SVS makes a morning post, a fragment of which defends her early vote for Sorsha. At first I liked her defense for voting early, that we're not voting to kill someone so it most likely doesn't matter too much, all that. But then...

S~V~S wrote: Puppies aside, the main reason I voted for Sorsha so early is that she acted like a leader. She came in and boldly tried to buy the thread, no waiting and discussing for her. She saw what she wanted, and she made an effort to get it by bribing us to follow her. Whether that effort pans out for her or not is a "time will tell" thing. Initially I wanted to wait and hear from everyone blah blah but I think a bold move is a mark of leadership. Had someone else been the one to come in here with a bold move, they would have gotten my vote. Even good old El Hypocritico

Now wait a second. Sorsha didn't act like anything when SVS voted for her, she didn't have the time to. All she said was that anyone who voted for her got a free puppy. That's not being a bold leader, that's being playful. SVS actually considers the free puppy post a legitimate "bribe" here, and says as much. And even if is to be considered a serious "bold" bribe somehow, how is that acting like a leader? I really don't like how SVS goes from asking for a volunteer as if it were a serious concern of hers who gets the vote, then immediately voting for someone who made what's essentially a joke post, then goes back to being serious with defending that vote by making the candidate out to be a bold, audacious leader, entirely for the following post:

Sorsha wrote:Everyone who votes for me gets a free puppy!

And now for some hypocrisy. In a later post defending her vote for someone based on a single post, she claims Made to be lynch-worthy just for saying that nutella "knows what's up" citing only three posts. (one of which makes a good point against Sorsha...coincidence?) She tries to make it look like that Made was serious in her tone as opposed to being playful (this is the second time SVS has done this).

S~V~S wrote:
Now, THIS is interesting:

Made wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm strongly considering voting for nutella

Yeah, she seems to know what's up

Really? These are her posts in this game:

nutella wrote:yey game! huh, pick a leader, that's an interesting day 0 poll.

nutella wrote:I would more likely trust DH than SVS I think Canuck though, I'd put my money on her.

Those who have voted, is this a changeable vote?

nutella wrote:

Sorsha wrote: I think I am easy enough for most people to read, if I did happen to be bad (which I'm not), you'd all be able to tell in a day or two and could lynch me. I think I'm a good choice.

Really? I thought I'd seen you make it to the end as a sneaky baddie quite a few times...

Which of these make you think she knows whats up more so than anyone else playing so far? If this was a lynch, I think this post would have been worth a Day One vote, and it still might be.

Here's what I find rather amusing. Look at the bold. SVS attacks Made here for saying that nutella "knows what's up". Why not attack DH instead, who said he was strongly considering voting for her? That's a much more extreme indication of a serious endorsement than what Made said, so why go after Made and not DH? Made addressed this fallacy himself, and this is the response that SVS gave:

S~V~S wrote:
I voted for Sorsha, not DH, and it isn't a threat. It's a statement of suspicion; I find your behavior suspicious, and i am saying so~ as far as I am aware I can't lynch anyone by myself.Stating whom I suspect is how I play the game. Your statement was not the same as his. He said we was strongly considering voting for her. You said that she seemed like she knew what was going on. I get what you are saying, but i am not sure that I buy it tbh.

She dodges that she finds DH a good candidate without reason by saying that she didn't vote for him, she voted for someone else. Again, I find this amusing because in this same post SVS uses logic that renders that defense obsolete. A "statement of suspicion" is the same for a lynch vote as a statement of trust is for the Day 0 vote, so it doesn't matter that she didn't actually vote DH, she still excused him for a stronger offense than Made's. She tries to explain this by dividing the two statements of DH and Made: one is a vote statement, the other is "nutella knows stuff".

Okay.

Let's see here.

Why would DH consider nutella a likely vote? Her posts. Which, at the time, were three. Not much to base a vote off of, but hey, it's more than a "bribe" for a free puppy. Now what about Made? I don't know how familiar is with the language that Made has been going for throughout the game...but..."know's what's up" does not imply actual knowledge. At all. It's like, she's cool, she's hip, she's funky. When you take a simple ebonics-influenced phrase like that and stretch it so far you actually imply that it meant that nutella had superior knowledge of the game than everyone else, and you use that absurd leap as a justification for a potential lynch vote? I rest my case.

No, wait, then in her next post SVS dismisses her issues with Made over a simple misunderstanding while proceeding to hail DH, the one who possessed a stronger case against him based on SVS's own logic and had no newbie-related misunderstanding to excuse it. NOW I rest my case.

I've also been taking issue with Sorsha's post, but everything that's bugged me about her has already been mentioned extensively enough, mainly that she tried to make it out like if she were scum she could be lynched easily. Also her case against Dana was horrible and it was followed by the beautifully-fence-sitting statement that she trusts SVS but that SVS could be tricking her. That was her most recent post, too.

I've already stated my issues with DH early on and they're still present. His fittingly Ned Stark-ian "selfless leader" bullshtick seems fabricated to gain trust (especially taking into account that as I mentioned before it's regarding an online Mafia game for a vote that the general consensus seems to think doesn't matter much in the first place, even as far the actual game goes), and the fact that it worked as well as it did certainly doesn't help. Feigning honor and selflessness to gain power, how politican of you, DH.

I'm strongly in favor of a 48 hour day to see which of these three (SVS, Sorsha, DH, or a possible other candidate if someone else gets very suspicious very fast) will get my vote.

Epignosis wrote:

Made wrote:There seem to be hella special abbilites this game. What worries me the most is the uninvited guest. We have no clue what that nigga's powers are, nor what they're goal is.

He's Seth, and he takes powers from people and gives them to other people.

Epignosis wrote: 1. Role claiming is technically allowed, but role "outing" generally is not. You may say, "I am the Son of Sam," but you may not say "I role checked Player A and he's the Son of Sam."

Keterman wrote:Thanks for the meta on DH and Sorsha, although are you not weary at all of DH being deceitful in this game with his "selfless" act, especially considering that he's a good liar (which doesn't surprise me)?

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Made wrote:There seem to be hella special abbilites this game. What worries me the most is the uninvited guest. We have no clue what that nigga's powers are, nor what they're goal is.

He's Seth, and he takes powers from people and gives them to other people.

But this game seems to be based on series one. Seth doesn't show up until much later, he's a plot device at the very end of series two who becomes a full on character in series three. The villains of this game are all series one and none of the later Misfits appear as civs, so my money is more on the 'guest' being an original character of MR's creation. Don't get me wrong, I like your idea and it's a decent theory but I wouldn't assume it's 100% accurate just yet..

Boogs wrote:This game is cray cray lol. I am off today trying to catch up and I don't know what to make of everything lol. I'm not sure to continue thinking Sorsha for the Day 0 vote was really her playing dumb or if she was really just confused. And I'm not sure what to make of SVS voting for her, I think it's ballsy that early to vote for a teammate when most of us were self voting. But it looked like DH won? I don't see the poll so I must have missed before it ended. Because if people wanted to bring up that maybe SVS was in cahoots with Sorsha, then wouldn't the same be said for DH voters? If anyone has the poll results that would help us all

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Made wrote:There seem to be hella special abbilites this game. What worries me the most is the uninvited guest. We have no clue what that nigga's powers are, nor what they're goal is.

He's Seth, and he takes powers from people and gives them to other people.

But this game seems to be based on series one. Seth doesn't show up until much later, he's a plot device at the very end of series two who becomes a full on character in series three. The villains of this game are all series one and none of the later Misfits appear as civs, so my money is more on the 'guest' being an original character of MR's creation. Don't get me wrong, I like your idea and it's a decent theory but I wouldn't assume it's 100% accurate just yet..

Bullz, I believe I already addressed that here.

Boogs wrote:This game is cray cray lol. I am off today trying to catch up and I don't know what to make of everything lol. I'm not sure to continue thinking Sorsha for the Day 0 vote was really her playing dumb or if she was really just confused. And I'm not sure what to make of SVS voting for her, I think it's ballsy that early to vote for a teammate when most of us were self voting. But it looked like DH won? I don't see the poll so I must have missed before it ended. Because if people wanted to bring up that maybe SVS was in cahoots with Sorsha, then wouldn't the same be said for DH voters? If anyone has the poll results that would help us all

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Made wrote:There seem to be hella special abbilites this game. What worries me the most is the uninvited guest. We have no clue what that nigga's powers are, nor what they're goal is.

He's Seth, and he takes powers from people and gives them to other people.

But this game seems to be based on series one. Seth doesn't show up until much later, he's a plot device at the very end of series two who becomes a full on character in series three. The villains of this game are all series one and none of the later Misfits appear as civs, so my money is more on the 'guest' being an original character of MR's creation. Don't get me wrong, I like your idea and it's a decent theory but I wouldn't assume it's 100% accurate just yet..

Bullz, I believe I already addressed that here.

Crazy that I missed such an insightful and thought provoking post, right?

Boogs wrote:This game is cray cray lol. I am off today trying to catch up and I don't know what to make of everything lol. I'm not sure to continue thinking Sorsha for the Day 0 vote was really her playing dumb or if she was really just confused. And I'm not sure what to make of SVS voting for her, I think it's ballsy that early to vote for a teammate when most of us were self voting. But it looked like DH won? I don't see the poll so I must have missed before it ended. Because if people wanted to bring up that maybe SVS was in cahoots with Sorsha, then wouldn't the same be said for DH voters? If anyone has the poll results that would help us all

If you want to really get into it, the same can be said for anybody who voted for anyone.

What do people think in general of Sorsha? I feel like a lot of her posts have seemed really off to me... I mentioned earlier she seemed to be trying too hard to make people trust her or think she's a civ.

Hedgeowl wrote: Basically, I think it's pretty funny that one of her claims to be voted the leader was that she is so easy to read, which is one of the reason people are "reading" her as a potential baddie. I haven't decided myself how I feel about her since I also am a big fan of puppies.

Epignosis wrote:Certainly feels like one of those Day 1s where people will just vote near the end without much reason beyond "randomized" or "didn't want to miss the vote."

Canucklehead wrote:Yowza. Chattiness explosion.

I'm not super inclined to put too much stock into Day 0 actions as far as baddie hunting goes...I'm not sure the baddie teams would really risk drawing attention to themselves in order to get a title that, for all we know, might be a detriment rather than a boon to their gameplan. If I'm going to be trying to find baddies based on Day 0 actions, I'm much more inclined to be looking for people who were shirking the vote/not trying to be named leader/being overly effusive about "thinking it through" and "making the right choice for the town"...
However, I don't really have time to do a Day 0 read right now, so I'll just leave that for someone else to do if they desire. Long story short, I don't think Sorsha's puppy campaign really paints her in a baddie light. As for SVS, I'm more on the fence. It didn't stand out to me at the time, and I'm not sure if the case against SVS works if I don't also think Sorsha is bad, so I dunno.
Glad to see lots of talking, though.....even if it means I'm going to have a terrible time keeping up!

DH: Is there anything that you can tell us about what your duties as leader are? I'm guessing the host has forbidden it, but just in case..

Linki linki linki......

S~V~S wrote:

nutella wrote:SVS, I'm guessing Made's impression that I know what's going on could be explained by the fact that I introduced him to this site/forum mafia and so he's aware that I'm an experienced player. (Also I'm one of the few players who has watched Misfits, but that's probably not too important but you all should watch it, it's excellent fun)

I missed this I think before i made my last post~ this sounds reasonable. Danas jumping in to defend him got my other brow up, but I can see where you are coming from. I don't love voting for nubs on Day One anyhow.

Epignosis wrote:Dana and Made were both suspects of S~V~S, but that suspicion shriveled up because of nutella "guessing" what Made meant. S~V~S concluded that post with what seems to be a sigh of relief:

S~V~S wrote:

nutella wrote:SVS, I'm guessing Made's impression that I know what's going on could be explained by the fact that I introduced him to this site/forum mafia and so he's aware that I'm an experienced player. (Also I'm one of the few players who has watched Misfits, but that's probably not too important but you all should watch it, it's excellent fun)

I missed this I think before i made my last post~ this sounds reasonable. Danas jumping in to defend him got my other brow up, but I can see where you are coming from. I don't love voting for nubs on Day One anyhow.

"I don't love voting for nubs on Day One anyhow."

My impression was that Dana and Made were not "nubs" but had experience playing. Smells funny to me.

S~V~S wrote:Now, THIS is interesting:

Made wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm strongly considering voting for nutella

Yeah, she seems to know what's up

Really? These are her posts in this game:

nutella wrote:yey game! huh, pick a leader, that's an interesting day 0 poll.

nutella wrote:I would more likely trust DH than SVS I think Canuck though, I'd put my money on her.

Those who have voted, is this a changeable vote?

nutella wrote:

Sorsha wrote: I think I am easy enough for most people to read, if I did happen to be bad (which I'm not), you'd all be able to tell in a day or two and could lynch me. I think I'm a good choice.

Really? I thought I'd seen you make it to the end as a sneaky baddie quite a few times...

Which of these make you think she knows whats up more so than anyone else playing so far? If this was a lynch, I think this post would have been worth a Day One vote, and it still might be.

Canucklehead wrote:Yowza. Chattiness explosion.

I'm not super inclined to put too much stock into Day 0 actions as far as baddie hunting goes...I'm not sure the baddie teams would really risk drawing attention to themselves in order to get a title that, for all we know, might be a detriment rather than a boon to their gameplan. If I'm going to be trying to find baddies based on Day 0 actions, I'm much more inclined to be looking for people who were shirking the vote/not trying to be named leader/being overly effusive about "thinking it through" and "making the right choice for the town"...
However, I don't really have time to do a Day 0 read right now, so I'll just leave that for someone else to do if they desire. Long story short, I don't think Sorsha's puppy campaign really paints her in a baddie light. As for SVS, I'm more on the fence. It didn't stand out to me at the time, and I'm not sure if the case against SVS works if I don't also think Sorsha is bad, so I dunno.
Glad to see lots of talking, though.....even if it means I'm going to have a terrible time keeping up!

DH: Is there anything that you can tell us about what your duties as leader are? I'm guessing the host has forbidden it, but just in case..

Linki linki linki......

nutella wrote:I'm fairly certain Dana and Made are both familiar with the party game version of mafia but completely new to forum-based mafia. Just to clear that up.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Yowza. Chattiness explosion.

I'm not super inclined to put too much stock into Day 0 actions as far as baddie hunting goes...I'm not sure the baddie teams would really risk drawing attention to themselves in order to get a title that, for all we know, might be a detriment rather than a boon to their gameplan. If I'm going to be trying to find baddies based on Day 0 actions, I'm much more inclined to be looking for people who were shirking the vote/not trying to be named leader/being overly effusive about "thinking it through" and "making the right choice for the town"...
However, I don't really have time to do a Day 0 read right now, so I'll just leave that for someone else to do if they desire. Long story short, I don't think Sorsha's puppy campaign really paints her in a baddie light. As for SVS, I'm more on the fence. It didn't stand out to me at the time, and I'm not sure if the case against SVS works if I don't also think Sorsha is bad, so I dunno.
Glad to see lots of talking, though.....even if it means I'm going to have a terrible time keeping up!

DH: Is there anything that you can tell us about what your duties as leader are? I'm guessing the host has forbidden it, but just in case..

Linki linki linki......

If I knew anything I'd tell you guys but so far, nothing really noteworthy

Sorsha wrote: I think I am easy enough for most people to read, if I did happen to be bad (which I'm not), you'd all be able to tell in a day or two and could lynch me. I think I'm a good choice.

Sorsha wrote: I'm a townie and easy enough to read after a few day that I think voting for me is a good choice. If anyone has some reason to think someone else is a good choice I'm all ears.

Sorsha wrote: This seems to be something I remember hearing from people who have come from sites like ksite. That you aren't supposed to say that or it's frowned up or something. Long ago there were roles (in nearly every game) that could lie detect statements. I have no idea if there is one in this game or not but where I come from (mafia game-wise) saying you're a civvie/townie/good guy isn't unusual.

Bullzeye wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Yowza. Chattiness explosion.

I'm not super inclined to put too much stock into Day 0 actions as far as baddie hunting goes...I'm not sure the baddie teams would really risk drawing attention to themselves in order to get a title that, for all we know, might be a detriment rather than a boon to their gameplan. If I'm going to be trying to find baddies based on Day 0 actions, I'm much more inclined to be looking for people who were shirking the vote/not trying to be named leader/being overly effusive about "thinking it through" and "making the right choice for the town"...
However, I don't really have time to do a Day 0 read right now, so I'll just leave that for someone else to do if they desire. Long story short, I don't think Sorsha's puppy campaign really paints her in a baddie light. As for SVS, I'm more on the fence. It didn't stand out to me at the time, and I'm not sure if the case against SVS works if I don't also think Sorsha is bad, so I dunno.
Glad to see lots of talking, though.....even if it means I'm going to have a terrible time keeping up!

DH: Is there anything that you can tell us about what your duties as leader are? I'm guessing the host has forbidden it, but just in case..

Linki linki linki......

Good job puppies don't enter into my suspicions of Sorsha then. Do you really not see her painting herself as an obvious civvie as suspicious in any way? I can sort of see what you're saying about day zero actions but at the same time if you come into day one ignoring day zero then it may as well not have happened.