The Syndicate

Enrique wrote:That's what he wanted to do. He was asking MP to change his vote until he got called out on how his plan made zero sense and so he changed it.

But um yeah that's not a bad point. Had he voted for Made already? Where was his vote?

linki- foogsndgsognweo

What? The linki part makes the most sense here.

Enrique wrote:So does that confirm The Valeyard as a role?

Also, every civ having +1 vote doesn't sound too bad... could've been worse consequences.

linki @ zeek: Why are we totally fucked? Surely that's a good thing? Smaller baddie influence on the poll.

WAIT OH! +1 vote as in, we start with a vote for us... shit never mind.

Yes - Everyone who is a civ already has 1 vote put on their name back here in hostey spreadsheet land.

RIP Snow Dog. What's even happening?

Is there any way for us to do maths after the next lynch poll to maybe narrow down who started with the +1 votes or not? Or would that not work?

We might not be in as much trouble as we think, as long as we trust the people we believe. There is always a way.

linki - Only if its a tie, between a baddie and a civ.

zeek wrote:We might not be in as much trouble as we think, as long as we trust the people we believe. There is always a way.

linki - Only if its a tie, between a baddie and a civ.

Indeed, it's certainly still possible for a civvie win, even if there's a setback.

Yeah, trying to purposefully set that up would probably be pretty difficult. Though I think it's imperative we don't have a very spread out vote tomorrow.

Zeek, nice usage of futurama meme! <3 futurama!

Next time, why not Zoidberg? ;D

And anyone sending PMs tonight, why not keys?


RIP the civvie Snow Dog. I like dogs, and snow, so, yeah. I hardly knew ye ot'wise. Peace be wit' ye!

zeek wrote:We might not be in as much trouble as we think, as long as we trust the people we believe. There is always a way.

linki - Only if its a tie, between a baddie and a civ.

Ah, yes. The total votes including the +1s wouldn't be made public, would they?

Is that a legitimate plan then? Aim for a tie? Or is that too risky?

linki - and MP pretty much answered my question. I still like the idea though.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

zeek wrote:We might not be in as much trouble as we think, as long as we trust the people we believe. There is always a way.

linki - Only if its a tie, between a baddie and a civ.

Indeed, it's certainly still possible for a civvie win, even if there's a setback.

Yeah, trying to purposefully set that up would probably be pretty difficult. Though I think it's imperative we don't have a very spread out vote tomorrow.

I wold absolutely agree.

If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Also: What's our strategy for the night poll?

(jk)

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

What do you mean?

Snow Dog

linki - No, Grotrees. I don't think the total votes would be made public. While that would be nice, the hosts would essentially be outing all the baddies.

I blind-voted #3.

I won't be on much through Sunday afternoon. Sorry about the timing.

I voted the 5th Chris!

Sorry, that wasn't well worded.

To keep this +1 from fucking with the will of the people, the person lynched needs to have two votes more than anyone else. We don't know what a tie will result in, so one vote isn't enough to keep it in our hands.

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Agreed. We all need to discuss candidates well in advance and have a game plan. We can't be lynching like this anymore.

It's possible we still leave ourselves open to manipulation and a more overwhelming civvie lynch, but we cannot let the vote spread be prevalent in the slightest.

It seems, at least I would predict right now but I really have no idea, that the major candidates for D4 would be Made, Metalmarsh, Hedge, and Elo.

Not sure if it SHOULD be those, or if it will be, but really what we need to do is come up with say, four or five people to focus on after we assess the best arguments, and then vote accordingly, making sure that the person in the lead gets at least 2 more votes than the person in second, even if that person isn't necessarily OUR number one suspect. Thoughts?

And of course I left myself off the list :P

Do you think Elo is that likely of a candidate? Didn't you and Daisy get more votes than her?

linki: lol right

You and daisy also took a lot of votes

what do you mean "even if that person isn't necessarily OUR number one suspect"? I don't think anyone should vote for someone they aren't the most suspicious of, and anyone who agrees to do that is suspicious IMO

linki - yup. I would take Elo off the list and add MP and daisy

Though I do like where you are coming from, MP. I really hate split votes since we are basically just giving it to the baddies then, so hopefully we can all agree a little better the next day.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Agreed. We all need to discuss candidates well in advance and have a game plan. We can't be lynching like this anymore.

It's possible we still leave ourselves open to manipulation and a more overwhelming civvie lynch, but we cannot let the vote spread be prevalent in the slightest.

It seems, at least I would predict right now but I really have no idea, that the major candidates for D4 would be Made, Metalmarsh, Hedge, and Elo.

Not sure if it SHOULD be those, or if it will be, but really what we need to do is come up with say, four or five people to focus on after we assess the best arguments, and then vote accordingly, making sure that the person in the lead gets at least 2 more votes than the person in second, even if that person isn't necessarily OUR number one suspect. Thoughts?

Nice in theory but I doubt people are going to go along with this. Mafia could use it to keep their teams names off the main list as well.

I would add your name to that list I'm afraid. I don't think you're bad, but this result isn't going to do you any favours.

zeek wrote:Sorry, that wasn't well worded.

To keep this +1 from fucking with the will of the people, the person lynched needs to have two votes more than anyone else. We don't know what a tie will result in, so one vote isn't enough to keep it in our hands.

I think we can assume that there was no manipulation in today's lynch at least.

Linki: Don't forget yourself MP.

Linki 2: Good deal.

Linki 3: Woah linki

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think we can assume that there was no manipulation in today's lynch at least.

I think this is going to be the entire debate of Day 4 tbh. I'm assuming nothing.

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Potential outcomes:

CIV + CIV tie = One civ lynched, no baddies revealed, one person confirmed as civ. (worst-case)

CIV + BAD tie = One civ lynched, one baddie revealed.

BAD + BAD tie = One baddie lynched, one baddie revealed. (best-case)

So it's pretty much a gamble, but at least all of the options are better than just lynching a civ like we've been doing these past few nights. Even with option one, we lose a civ but one person is also confirmed as definitely a civ, unless I'm missing some way the baddies can manipulate that. (I suppose they would probably just lynch that confirmed civ the next night, but who knows.)

Anyway, judging by this last poll, I doubt we're all organized enough to go through with that, but if there's any possibility of it happening, I'd be willing to get behind the idea.

Enrique wrote:Do you think Elo is that likely of a candidate? Didn't you and Daisy get more votes than her?

linki: lol right

I was just thinking of the first four names that I knew had gotten a lot of votes, I forgot Elo only had 2 in the end. Yeah, that's true. I'm fine with it being me I guess but IDK.

zeek wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Agreed. We all need to discuss candidates well in advance and have a game plan. We can't be lynching like this anymore.

It's possible we still leave ourselves open to manipulation and a more overwhelming civvie lynch, but we cannot let the vote spread be prevalent in the slightest.

It seems, at least I would predict right now but I really have no idea, that the major candidates for D4 would be Made, Metalmarsh, Hedge, and Elo.

Not sure if it SHOULD be those, or if it will be, but really what we need to do is come up with say, four or five people to focus on after we assess the best arguments, and then vote accordingly, making sure that the person in the lead gets at least 2 more votes than the person in second, even if that person isn't necessarily OUR number one suspect. Thoughts?

Nice in theory but I doubt people are going to go along with this. Mafia could use it to keep their teams names off the main list as well.

I would add your name to that list I'm afraid. I don't think you're bad, but this result isn't going to do you any favours.

Yeah, you're probably right. Guess it's probably not a realistic plan of action.

Gotrees wrote:

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Potential outcomes:

CIV + CIV tie = One civ lynched, no baddies revealed, one person confirmed as civ. (worst-case)

CIV + BAD tie = One civ lynched, one baddie revealed.

BAD + BAD tie = One baddie lynched, one baddie revealed. (best-case)

So it's pretty much a gamble, but at least all of the options are better than just lynching a civ like we've been doing these past few nights. Even with option one, we lose a civ but one person is also confirmed as definitely a civ, unless I'm missing some way the baddies can manipulate that. (I suppose they would probably just lynch that confirmed civ the next night, but who knows.)

Anyway, judging by this last poll, I doubt we're all organized enough to go through with that, but if there's any possibility of it happening, I'd be willing to get behind the idea.

This would be a good idea, especially in the case of #3, BUT we wouldn't know whether #1 or #2 happened because in the case of a tie there is a coin flip. So if a civvie flipped we wouldn't know whether it was because the other person was bad or a civ... right?

Gotrees wrote:

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Potential outcomes:

CIV + CIV tie = One civ lynched, no baddies revealed, one person confirmed as civ. (worst-case)

CIV + BAD tie = One civ lynched, one baddie revealed.

BAD + BAD tie = One baddie lynched, one baddie revealed. (best-case)

So it's pretty much a gamble, but at least all of the options are better than just lynching a civ like we've been doing these past few nights. Even with option one, we lose a civ but one person is also confirmed as definitely a civ, unless I'm missing some way the baddies can manipulate that. (I suppose they would probably just lynch that confirmed civ the next night, but who knows.)

Anyway, judging by this last poll, I doubt we're all organized enough to go through with that, but if there's any possibility of it happening, I'd be willing to get behind the idea.

Amy Ponds vote is potentially worth two, and I see a baddie with vote manips. So there are at least those factors to consider.

Plus this is assuming there is no vote manipulation

Actually it's probably best to just keep the votes from being spread too much and other than that just vote our suspicions. Trying to coordinate these plans, while great in theory, I'm starting to think they just won't work at all.

zeek wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think we can assume that there was no manipulation in today's lynch at least.

I think this is going to be the entire debate of Day 4 tbh. I'm assuming nothing.

I hope not. Considering that the leading vote-getter was lynched, what's there to talk about in this context?

I feel like I'm going to have to reformulate my thoughts completely. You guys won't hear much from me the rest of the night ('cause I'll be gone/on the road). Thanks for staying up for the lynch zeek.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Actually it's probably best to just keep the votes from being spread too much and other than that just vote our suspicions. Trying to coordinate these plans, while great in theory, I'm starting to think they just won't work at all.

I'm curious how you plan to do this anyway.

And stop posting things, you're keeping me from going to sleep.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Actually it's probably best to just keep the votes from being spread too much and other than that just vote our suspicions. Trying to coordinate these plans, while great in theory, I'm starting to think they just won't work at all.

It's pretty easy for baddies to manipulate voting plans too. I remember in the King Arthur game on RM (you were actually my teammate so you might remember this), there was a voting plan in place for everyone to vote themselves to try and draw out the baddie whose vote was worth 2 (me). I made it days before I was lynched and it was for something totally unrelated to the voting plan.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Actually it's probably best to just keep the votes from being spread too much and other than that just vote our suspicions. Trying to coordinate these plans, while great in theory, I'm starting to think they just won't work at all.

I'm curious how you plan to do this anyway.

And stop posting things, you're keeping me from going to sleep.

Plan to keep it from being spread too much? Well, people will have to self-police, I know that's asking a lot.

And this is my last post for the night because I'm really tired too. See you folks tomorrow.

Linki Splints: Yeah, I do remember that, that was a fun game! But that's a good point. I guess we just have to try to stay conscious of this +1 thing and make sure the person with the most votes is ahead by at least a couple, IF POSSIBLE. I don't know what else we can do.

In case anyone confronts me about it later: Voted for the 4th option because I used to have the #4 jersey in little league in like 1st grade so it's become my go-to number for this type of thing.

linki to mp regarding uncertainty after a coin-toss: yeeessss, I think you're right, actually. Guess I didn't think that through well enough. I assume the hosts probably wouldn't say if it went to a flip or not.

So it becomes a 33% chance at revealing two baddies vs a 66% chance at killing one civ.

Sounds like it still might be worth it, but I guess I've never been the best at numbers. It would be a real risky move for sure, and actually considering that so far we've gotten a total of zero baddies, the hope of achieving option #3 is slowly fading away in my head as I type...

Shame, for a second there I thought I had actually come up with a move that would be both bold and useful

Gotrees wrote:In case anyone confronts me about it later: Voted for the 4th option because I used to have the #4 jersey in little league in like 1st grade so it's become my go-to number for this type of thing.

IS THAT WHY YOU'RE GOTREES4?!?!?!

Gotrees wrote:So it becomes a 33% chance at revealing two baddies vs a 66% chance at killing one civ.

I don't like those odds

Welcome back Epi! I hope things get better soon Canuck

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Enrique wrote:... how is it too late? If you both vote snow dog it's a tie between them.

Where have YOU been?

Exactly!

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Enrique wrote:... how is it too late? If you both vote snow dog it's a tie between them.

Where have YOU been?

Exactly!

what

MP07, I don't see how "No u"ing you is a baddie maneuver. Is that what a baddie does? Did I twirl my black moustache as I did it?

It's not an alignment thing, it's just what it was. I didn't have a solid suspicion due to quick-catch-up reading on the phone... I get the basics of some of the prominent debates, but I don't know who's right, which are Civ-on-Civ, etc. If you want to lynch me for being a poor player, then make that your argument. But it doesn't make sense to call it a baddie maneuver, because... it's just not a move that's in my sly-baddie repertoire, you know? I don't even get how that would result in any advantage at all, really.

But if you guys need a Civvie for this plan of yours, I will be happy to volunteer. Tie me up with someone, and let me be lynched. And then you'll have a baddie.

Of course, the plan is not going to happen. Everyone is not going to agree to it, because of possible vote manipulation by the baddies... but I thought I'd offer up my lame ass for it if you need a Civvie. Ha ha ha, probably suspicious of me to offer. At least I'll become part of this game now.

Long Con wrote:But if you guys need a Civvie for this plan of yours, I will be happy to volunteer. Tie me up with someone, and let me be lynched. And then you'll have a baddie.

It won't work this way, unfortunately We need two baddies or else we don't know. Civ/Civ tie and Civ/Bad tie will have the same result. A Bad/Bad tie will help us because then we'll know the other person is bad too, but we'd need to single out two baddies, and we haven't even been able to get one so far, so I'm not sure how likely that'd be.

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Enrique wrote:... how is it too late? If you both vote snow dog it's a tie between them.

Where have YOU been?

Exactly!

what

You don't know what exactly means?

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Enrique wrote:... how is it too late? If you both vote snow dog it's a tie between them.

Where have YOU been?

Exactly!

what

You don't know what exactly means?

no?

That is an extremely shitty result

Enrique wrote:

Gotrees wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Gotrees, what do you think of Made, did I miss it somewhere or are you unsure?

Right now, I'm mostly unsure about Made. I feel like he wouldn't have all those votes if he wasn't really suspicious (or something evil was going on), but right now, I'm just not really seeing the suspicions around him.

Dom: Could you link me the posts where he said he misread you so I can get a sense of the context?

Look at the voters. Four out of five are hardly involved in this game.

I am curious as to how being quieter makes them bad. They all voted early, Bass at least as I recall voiced prior suspicion of Made; you and he even had a bit of discussion on it, where Bass said you were defending Made, iirc. They all voted fairly early, which would make them a pretty crappy baddie team. And I think we do not have crappy baddies this game since we have only lynched civs. All but ONE of those Snowy votes came after Made took his last vote. I don't want to hear that they were saving Daisy, or anyone else.

I still think Daisy is bad (and look forward to people explaining to me why they think she is civ, I have an open mind), but am more than willing to look in Mades direction tomorrow. Then, depending on how that goes, we can look at the Snowy voters.

That was a horrible result, and the fact that it was so obvious made it even more horrible

Also welcome back, Epi Hope you're still good.

S~V~S wrote:That was a horrible result, and the fact that it was so obvious made it even more horrible

What was obvious? That Snow Dog was civ? I have to disagree, it wasn't.

I'm not sure I get why SD was acting like he was a couple hours before the lynch end. RIP Snow! I will go with option *Chris*.

zeek wrote:

S~V~S wrote:That was a horrible result, and the fact that it was so obvious made it even more horrible

What was obvious? That Snow Dog was civ? I have to disagree, it wasn't.

At the end of the lynch, that there was a save going on. Those three votes, glomming onto the suspicion of someone most people view as civvie. Especially MM with his "gotta save MP" thing , I did not but that at all
.

I know I said the Epi lynchlooked like a save, but this one was so overt. I am willing to drop my suspicions to keep the vote tight and vote for Made or one of the last Snowy voters.