The Syndicate

Boomslang wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?

Ah, MP, always wanting to talk mechanics :P I can see where you're coming from; if we were able to identify a strong dueling civ, we could put him or her up against the suspect for a better chance at a death. However, and this is important, the rules for warriors say "most likely to win in a duel." It's not a guarantee, it would seem. On the negative side, that strategy would identify good NK targets for the baddies. And if we try to get two baddies in a duel and succeed, one of them is destined for death

However, the civs have many more warriors than the baddies. So picking one from each list (suspected civs and suspected baddies) for each night might actually be a good call.
Linki: Just as JJJ put a little more eloquently.

Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I mean, I haven't caught up yet, but do we have much in the way of suspected baddies yet?

I was thinking of pitting two generally utr players against each other. Might be a way of getting some earlier reads.

I have a bad feeling the "UTR" crew will be more than half of the player roster. :P

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have a bad feeling the "UTR" crew will be more than half of the player roster. :P

Thats why I said 'generally' utr - players I have a hard time getting reads on in normal circumstances.

I mean, I'm gonna be utr this game.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

Went with DF and DP.

Boomslang wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.

Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

U wot m8? Why wouldn't we try to get two suspected bads to duel? Why leave a suspected civ's life in fate's hands?

Hehe... I was like wth does "utr" mean... Unable to read?

Anyway, I think voting for those who are the most suspicions is the best bet.

Boomslang wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.

Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

What the HELL happened to Night 0?

Glorfindel wrote:What the HELL happened to Night 0?

I don't recall ever having a Night 0. Doesn't it always just go from Day 0 to Day 1?

Quin wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:What the HELL happened to Night 0?

I don't recall ever having a Night 0. Doesn't it always just go from Day 0 to Day 1?

The Story of Creation
1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, 2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. 3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light”—and light appeared. 4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, 5 and he named the light “Day” and the darkness “Night.” Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also,

If I had held my vote long enough, this would have won it for sure.

The years where the diastrous Pictures Administration has let in all the baddies. We need to build a wall. A big beautiful firewall to keep all the baddies out.

Trust me people.


(c) Paid for by Dom/nju 2016

insertnamehere wrote:

Crazy INH

(c) Paid for by Dom/nju 2016.

MovingPictures07 wrote:To clarify and provide input to my own inquiries, I have nothing at the moment. My rainbow list is all yellow. Let's try and fix that.

Pictures always has nothing at the moment ! Sad. We need to vote him out.

(c) Paid for by Dom/nju 2016

Glorfindel wrote:

Quin wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:What the HELL happened to Night 0?

I don't recall ever having a Night 0. Doesn't it always just go from Day 0 to Day 1?

The Story of Creation
1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, 2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. 3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light”—and light appeared. 4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, 5 and he named the light “Day” and the darkness “Night.” Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.

I think that's from a different book. This game is based on a Disney movie I think

Boomslang wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?

Ah, MP, always wanting to talk mechanics :P I can see where you're coming from; if we were able to identify a strong dueling civ, we could put him or her up against the suspect for a better chance at a death. However, and this is important, the rules for warriors say "most likely to win in a duel." It's not a guarantee, it would seem. On the negative side, that strategy would identify good NK targets for the baddies. And if we try to get two baddies in a duel and succeed, one of them is destined for death

However, the civs have many more warriors than the baddies. So picking one from each list (suspected civs and suspected baddies) for each night might actually be a good call.
Linki: Just as JJJ put a little more eloquently.

Putting civilian lives in danger-- what a disgrace!

(c) Paid for by Dom/nju 2016

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm actively trying not to blow this thread up in Day 0. I don't want this massive player list to be filled with lurkers, and nothing inspires people to not bother with a game thread than one that gets away from them before the game even actually starts. I know this is atypical of my usual shtick, but it's what I've decided to do in this game. I am not going out of my way to say things and promote discussion, at least not yet. I'll do that when there's a proper lynch poll.

I approve of this, as I have definitely been overwhelmed out of games featuring JJJ in the past.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?

In the immediate presence I don't think we should worry much about this when making our selections, but it might become more important as the game progresses and we develop a better understanding of players' potential dueling strength.

The two "baddie" factions appear to be the Yellow Turbans and the Nanman. Their dueling prowess is as follows:

Yellow Turbans:
1 leader - d6
2 strategists - d4
(all secrets)

Nanman:
1 leader - d6
4 warriors - d8

Purely from a dueling perspective, the Nanman appear significantly more potent. We'll need to keep that in mind as we proceed. Indeed, it might even be worth considering combining a town read with a baddie read in our voting pattern to try to arrange a winnable duel. That might even amount to people volunteering themselves to enter a duel if there is a consensus suspect present. I hope enough people are able to withhold their votes long enough for those discussions to develop.

The Yellow Turbans don't have the strength in their dice, but all three of them have *secrets* which I am sure are meant to make up the difference somehow.

I think if we get a REEEEALLY strong lead on a Turban this might be good, but I pitting civs against Nanman seems like it would lead to bad things.

Boomslang wrote:Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

The enlarged text is, strictly speaking, true. However, taking two chances at getting a baddie gives better odds of success than one. The more baddies in a duel, the higher chance a baddie dies in said duel. Therefore, we should always try to get baddies in a duel for both positions (Assuming, of course, that we do not know for certain that a player has a given dangerous baddie role with low combat power which we need eliminated.)

Well I'm dead in my other game so now I'd like to be a perfect! Vote for timmer! Oh... never mind!

You are already perfect, timmer.

Golden wrote:You are already perfect, timmer.

Turnip Head wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Quin wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:What the HELL happened to Night 0?

I don't recall ever having a Night 0. Doesn't it always just go from Day 0 to Day 1?

The Story of Creation
1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, 2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. 3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light”—and light appeared. 4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, 5 and he named the light “Day” and the darkness “Night.” Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.

I think that's from a different book. This game is based on a Disney movie I think

Just in case you genuinely thought this, this game is based on Chinese history, disney have no part in it what so ever

Boomslang wrote:Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right.So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

This made little sense to me, because even if we pick a 'high quality' baddie to put up for the duel it doesnt necessarily mean they will lose said duel and then thats us losing a townie especially if the baddie is say for example a Nanman warrior because they will probably have an equal chance to win then.
So surely it would be better to find two baddies to put up for the duel?

Guys. This setup is based on a novel. It says that right in the first line of the thread.

I'm willing to state an early town read on Boomslang. I understand people's doubts about his strategic mindset right now, and those doubts are probably valid -- but Boomslang came upon this idea quite similarly to me and I appreciate the synergy of our mindsets. The best course of action is probably to just keep it simple and pit suspects against each other, but I don't think Boom has an ulterior motive in his proposal.

I would like to see Wilgy and JaggedJimmyJay in a duel. Who wouldn't?

DrWilgy wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:Jay, why did you vote for yourself?

Because he skipped the rules section on page one. Lol

The rules say that self-voting is permitted, but it doesn't seem like a very Jay thing to do to give himself a potential reward.

Little Jay has to get a grip!

Hi Dom. U bad again?

I have a test for this.

Hey Dom, how's it going?

Hi Mac.

I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

And I asked earlier who hadn't checked in... no one responded. So I looked at the lynch poll and I think the following players have been absent so far. Someone correct me if I'm wrong:

Bubbles
DisgruntledPorcupine
LoRab
rabbit8
Soneji
S~V~S

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hi Mac.

Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

And MovingPictures is giving me the heebie jeebies with his page 7 list of green skittles like he has a real read on people enough to give green skittles and no red ones. Where are the red ones brah? Everybody knows it's easier to get pings earlier in the game than good vibes. What are you so freakin' positive that you have anti hunting power that I don't have? Get real.

Rule 1 - MovingPictures is always bad. That's my rule 1 at least.

Where's Matt?

MacDougall wrote:Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

U shook mate?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I just don't want to see, 5 cycles from now, someone going "I trust Jay. He had been leading town since the start!" Because that is where the danger lies.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I'd like to see the inspirations for these reads, just briefly.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.

The guys MP is civ reading are in my opinion, pretty much just the most active people in the thread right now. I don't like it.

I'll let MP talk before I freak out. I do think a lot of people are often too chicken town read each other early in a game.

MacDougall wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hi Mac.

Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

And MovingPictures is giving me the heebie jeebies with his page 7 list of green skittles like he has a real read on people enough to give green skittles and no red ones. Where are the red ones brah? Everybody knows it's easier to get pings earlier in the game than good vibes. What are you so freakin' positive that you have anti hunting power that I don't have? Get real.

I said they were GTHs. Don't hate on me for contributing.

And re: bolded/underlined, since when?

Russtifinko wrote:Agreed, JJJ.

Hey, I REALLY like the idea of the "whoever does ____ first, gets my votes" posts. They prevent people from finding excuses to give votes to baddie teammates. So I'm gonna do one too, and would suggest others do the same (even though it's an itsy bit late for a few).

The first two people to post pictures or emojis of platypi earn my votes.

DDL brought this post up and I think his concerns were valid. Russ, it appears here that you are attributing a meaningful strategy to what I would perceive to be typically arbitrary Day 0 behavior. This method removes the responsibility from your votes and increases the likelihood that they will be given to people who are in deliberate pursuit of power for whatever motive. Indeed, the two respondents to your platypi request were INH and I -- both eventual prefects.

I'd like for you to talk about this, please.

Quin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.

Why don't you ask then instead of trying to antagonize me?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Quin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.

Why don't you ask then instead of trying to antagonize me?

Well, that was me asking.

I think we should vote people who we believe to be mafia to duel. I think maybe later in the game if a civ wants to volunteer then that's their choice but early game I believe we run the risks of losing civs that could help us later in the game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

Do you have a mafia reads yet, even just something that pinged you?

Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?

Yes, absolutely. The former option is obvious and easy, the latter is not.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?

Yes, absolutely. The former option is obvious and easy, the latter is not.

I mean I agree one is easy and one isn't but I feel like a good mafia player would push for the civ against mafia option.