The Syndicate

soup wrote:whoa sorry I am late, going to catch up when I get off work

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Let me throw this out there and see what people think.

Mathematically, the cult is not much of a threat. Using one of Klaus's auto scum catches on Ishmael would most benefit.....the mafia.

So players expressing extreme unwarranted concern about the cult are somewhat suspicious to me at this point.

Epignosis wrote:Additionally, if "scum is passive" then I'm terrible when I'm Mafia. If you really believe that DDL, then you would be eager to lynch someone who hadn't posted at all at that point (like me or Eloh), but you went for Snow Dog. Why?

Epignosis wrote:What point is that?

Quin wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Quin wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

DrWilgy did the exact same thing in Monkey Island, so I'm taking Snow Dog's post as a jokey reference to that. On no planet is there a person who's seriously played a game where they haven't checked their role. If they're bad then it's a massive kick in the teeth to his/her teammates. Same to any alignment, really.

I find this all to be reasonable.

However, your assertion that nobody would ever do this for realzies stands in stark contrast to Zebra claiming that not reading one's role pm can be a useful for cutting off pressure and causing a townie to not choke, an assertion I find to be quite silly.

Putting SD back on mostly neutral terms unless Zebra ends up flipping mafia.

Now, maybe Zebra has been playing mafia in Opposite Land where lying as a townie to the point where several players consider a policy lynch on you is good strategy but lying as scum is simply not done. I'll reserve full judgement of if this is scummy behavior or just really jarring culture clash until later. It's only D0 after all.

Generally, though, when I see what I consider to be an illogical defense of another player, I assume reasons other than pure logic are at work.

Scotty wrote:

Quin wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:You're watching a guy throw pretzels in the water and a) assuming he's fishing and b) assuming that throwing pretzels in the water will lead to catching fish.

I'm watching the same guy and saying he's not contributing to solving our food shortage.

This guy is gonna give Scotty a run for his money in the metaphor department.

Nah, my job security is airtight. He can do the metaphors. I'll handle the shitty similes. (And the alliterations, aight?) i know that was assonance, you ass

Deal.

@Epi

Hi, there.

I think zebra should try it out for herself next time and see where that gets her. I just think it's pointless and hurts your team in a whole lot of ways.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Four pages all about Snow Dog and Long Con's bad directions.

Snow Dog must feel special.

I won't be voting him Day 1.

Pretty sure you can practically count the number of posts about my bad directions on one hand, so that's not really a true assessment of the game.

I can't point to anything that has been discussed besides those two things.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Additionally, if "scum is passive" then I'm terrible when I'm Mafia. If you really believe that DDL, then you would be eager to lynch someone who hadn't posted at all at that point (like me or Eloh), but you went for Snow Dog. Why?

They are. It's the basic nature of the game. Multi-faction games kind of damp that, but generally, mafias are passive.

The game thread is about finding scum. It's what everyone is either doing, or pretending to be doing. The side that is not doing it is the passive one.

Mafias can do things (like manipulate players to act their way and such), but most of them are just smokescreen so civs don't realize they are not actually doing jack shit. Mafias want the day to end already so they can kill players faster and get to LyLo.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Quin wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Quin wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

DrWilgy did the exact same thing in Monkey Island, so I'm taking Snow Dog's post as a jokey reference to that. On no planet is there a person who's seriously played a game where they haven't checked their role. If they're bad then it's a massive kick in the teeth to his/her teammates. Same to any alignment, really.

I find this all to be reasonable.

However, your assertion that nobody would ever do this for realzies stands in stark contrast to Zebra claiming that not reading one's role pm can be a useful for cutting off pressure and causing a townie to not choke, an assertion I find to be quite silly.

Putting SD back on mostly neutral terms unless Zebra ends up flipping mafia.

Now, maybe Zebra has been playing mafia in Opposite Land where lying as a townie to the point where several players consider a policy lynch on you is good strategy but lying as scum is simply not done. I'll reserve full judgement of if this is scummy behavior or just really jarring culture clash until later. It's only D0 after all.

Generally, though, when I see what I consider to be an illogical defense of another player, I assume reasons other than pure logic are at work.

Scotty wrote:

Quin wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:You're watching a guy throw pretzels in the water and a) assuming he's fishing and b) assuming that throwing pretzels in the water will lead to catching fish.

I'm watching the same guy and saying he's not contributing to solving our food shortage.

This guy is gonna give Scotty a run for his money in the metaphor department.

Nah, my job security is airtight. He can do the metaphors. I'll handle the shitty similes. (And the alliterations, aight?) i know that was assonance, you ass

Deal.

@Epi

Hi, there.

I think zebra should try it out for herself next time and see where that gets her. I just think it's pointless and hurts your team in a whole lot of ways.

Weren't you defending SD for doing it a couple pages ago?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:What point is that?

Endgame.

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The only reason I don't want to lynch him actually is because his role flip is equally useless. This kind of player is better dealt with using abilities.

Concerning Snow Dog, DDL said this. Can you explain what you mean a little more clearly? Perhaps give me an example?

This isn't really exact science, but generally, I prefer reserving lynches to players who are more likely to provide information about other player's alignments when they flip, because they talked more with others and posted their own reads. Also, players who engage more with the game and actually have posts that can be analyzed, instead of just OT posts, so the town can analyze them together and hopefully reach a better conclusion that a lone vig would (vigs tend to have terrible aim). For players who do not fit that, killing is better imo because it gets read of a player who needs to be dealt with one way or another eventually without wasting a lynch. Specially in this site, where night deaths do not show roles.

In SD's case, not knowing others alignments would mean half of his worth in terms of revealing other's alignments is null (because he doesn't know his teammates), and he is impossible to read so even all of town working together could do as good a job at it as a coin flip.

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
He could be lying, but we have zero evidence of that. And past games is not evidence. This is mafia, everything can happen.

And, if he is lying, I see that as a way more likely sign of him being bad than otherwise. Lying as a civ is usually a bad move.

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second. I think past games can be used in figuring out someone's alignment.

Epignosis wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:What point is that?

Endgame.

I don't agree that endgame is the time to decide when somebody is good or bad.

Quin wrote:Snow Dog isn't doing it.

Epignosis wrote:
As for Eloh, she doesn't know why a vanilla civilian would lie about having a power role.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Quin wrote:Snow Dog isn't doing it.

Doesn't matter. You are still attacking the merit of doing what SD was saying he was doing, even though you were defending it a couple pages prior. What changed?

Quin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Quin wrote:Snow Dog isn't doing it.

Doesn't matter. You are still attacking the merit of doing what SD was saying he was doing, even though you were defending it a couple pages prior. What changed?

Show me where I ever defended the idea of not reading your role, because all I ever recall doing is suggesting that it's extremely unlikely that Snow Dog was being serious, and once again, stating that I find the strategy offensive.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@LC

On HCRealms, you are allowed to make statements specifically for a lie detector.

There's really no getting around it. There's all sorts of reasons a cop could be wrong but lie detectors are generally bulletproof, putting a scum player in an impossible situation.

I prefer this "no 'I am town plz lie detect'" rule.

Dom wrote:Uhhh

ishmael, given those recent revelations is a huge threat.

a2thezebra wrote:I am a mafia deconstructionist.

In mafia, much less is alignment-indicative than what the average mafia player believes is.

Because of this, unorthodox tactics of finding mafia should not be punished but encouraged.

Your claim that reaction-fishing tactics only help identify aggressive players rather than baddies simply isn't true.

The best way to catch baddies is to spot mafia-motivated tactics in real time. The best way to spot it is to fish for it.

Epignosis wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok, so I read everything. I voted east because I wanted to and am satisfied to see it winning.

That was a lot of pages of discussing Snow Dog's statement about not reading his role card. I thought not reading one's role card would be a foolish personal decision but it wouldn't be a scum tell in my mind. And I didn't find anything particularly useful in the back and forth to help identify any scum either, it seemed a lot more about playstyle influenced conversation than anyone trying to manipulate anything. I think the people who we should look at are probably the people who were reading it and not commenting or committing to any stance. They are the ones much more likely to be scum, because scum love letting civs go after each other over stupid playstyle arguments, it saves them a lot of work.

Just my two cents. Going to work now. Third shift, fun fun fun...

Spacedaisy's point of view here mirrors my own.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Town's cause is to lynch scum.
Scum's cause is not to lynch scum.

Town is active. Scum is passive. Scum plays by stalling and not actually doing things. If someone is not trying to scum, they are more likely to be bad. Because that's the bread and butter of bads.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Two pages after his first post and I already think Sig looks fishy.

Must... not... lynch... Sig... again.

Golden wrote:I don't agree with all of her points, though, exactly. I don't really feel as though 'town doing something scummy to elicit reaction' is a great strategy, because you are just as likely to elicit reaction from townies as opportunistic baddies and how do you sort the two?

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I am a mafia deconstructionist.

In mafia, much less is alignment-indicative than what the average mafia player believes is.

Because of this, unorthodox tactics of finding mafia should not be punished but encouraged.

Your claim that reaction-fishing tactics only help identify aggressive players rather than baddies simply isn't true.

The best way to catch baddies is to spot mafia-motivated tactics in real time. The best way to spot it is to fish for it.

This, I couldn't agree with more! Every word.

You don't even need to find it in real time. Create it in real time, and you can find the motivation later.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Town's cause is to lynch scum.
Scum's cause is not to lynch scum.

Town is active. Scum is passive. Scum plays by stalling and not actually doing things. If someone is not trying to scum, they are more likely to be bad. Because that's the bread and butter of bads.

If I am bad in a game with two baddie teams, I'll be scum-hunting, not stalling.

Why do you think scum would not be genuinely scum-hunting when they have a whole team out there to find?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Additionally, if "scum is passive" then I'm terrible when I'm Mafia. If you really believe that DDL, then you would be eager to lynch someone who hadn't posted at all at that point (like me or Eloh), but you went for Snow Dog. Why?

They are. It's the basic nature of the game. Multi-faction games kind of damp that, but generally, mafias are passive.

The game thread is about finding scum. It's what everyone is either doing, or pretending to be doing. The side that is not doing it is the passive one.

Mafias can do things (like manipulate players to act their way and such), but most of them are just smokescreen so civs don't realize they are not actually doing jack shit. Mafias want the day to end already so they can kill players faster and get to LyLo.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Also when I say "passive", it's not about number of posts. A player can make 100 posts a day and still not do anything. The scariest baddies are the ones who can do exactly that and still be hard to read, imo.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Only the Sith blah blah.

I hear you guys lynch on Day One round here.

When do people start deciding who they think is bad?

insertnamehere wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Additionally, if "scum is passive" then I'm terrible when I'm Mafia. If you really believe that DDL, then you would be eager to lynch someone who hadn't posted at all at that point (like me or Eloh), but you went for Snow Dog. Why?

They are. It's the basic nature of the game. Multi-faction games kind of damp that, but generally, mafias are passive.

The game thread is about finding scum. It's what everyone is either doing, or pretending to be doing. The side that is not doing it is the passive one.

Mafias can do things (like manipulate players to act their way and such), but most of them are just smokescreen so civs don't realize they are not actually doing jack shit. Mafias want the day to end already so they can kill players faster and get to LyLo.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Also when I say "passive", it's not about number of posts. A player can make 100 posts a day and still not do anything. The scariest baddies are the ones who can do exactly that and still be hard to read, imo.

So, really, "passive baddies" equals people whose cases DDL doesn't agree with?

This just feels very subjective, and not warranting grand statements like calling it the "basic nature of the game."

DDL, when you are bad, do you not try to play as closely to your civ game as possible? Thinking that "aggressive" = civ, and "passive" = scum, wouldn't you try to be as aggressive as possible regardless of alignment?

It feels like a system where you'll always be townread, regardless of actual alignment.

insertnamehere wrote:I think DDL's generalizations are a little bit disconcerting. Anyone who says definitively how scum and civ players act is just asking to be contradicted.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The only reason I don't want to lynch him actually is because his role flip is equally useless. This kind of player is better dealt with using abilities.

Concerning Snow Dog, DDL said this. Can you explain what you mean a little more clearly? Perhaps give me an example?

This isn't really exact science, but generally, I prefer reserving lynches to players who are more likely to provide information about other player's alignments when they flip, because they talked more with others and posted their own reads. Also, players who engage more with the game and actually have posts that can be analyzed, instead of just OT posts, so the town can analyze them together and hopefully reach a better conclusion that a lone vig would (vigs tend to have terrible aim). For players who do not fit that, killing is better imo because it gets read of a player who needs to be dealt with one way or another eventually without wasting a lynch. Specially in this site, where night deaths do not show roles.

In SD's case, not knowing others alignments would mean half of his worth in terms of revealing other's alignments is null (because he doesn't know his teammates), and he is impossible to read so even all of town working together could do as good a job at it as a coin flip.

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
He could be lying, but we have zero evidence of that. And past games is not evidence. This is mafia, everything can happen.

And, if he is lying, I see that as a way more likely sign of him being bad than otherwise. Lying as a civ is usually a bad move.

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second. I think past games can be used in figuring out someone's alignment.

I was talking about the matter of things being "impossible in mafia games because nobody has ever done them before".

No play is too crazy that some player wouldn't attempt it.

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The only reason I don't want to lynch him actually is because his role flip is equally useless. This kind of player is better dealt with using abilities.

Concerning Snow Dog, DDL said this. Can you explain what you mean a little more clearly? Perhaps give me an example?

This isn't really exact science, but generally, I prefer reserving lynches to players who are more likely to provide information about other player's alignments when they flip, because they talked more with others and posted their own reads. Also, players who engage more with the game and actually have posts that can be analyzed, instead of just OT posts, so the town can analyze them together and hopefully reach a better conclusion that a lone vig would (vigs tend to have terrible aim). For players who do not fit that, killing is better imo because it gets read of a player who needs to be dealt with one way or another eventually without wasting a lynch. Specially in this site, where night deaths do not show roles.

In SD's case, not knowing others alignments would mean half of his worth in terms of revealing other's alignments is null (because he doesn't know his teammates), and he is impossible to read so even all of town working together could do as good a job at it as a coin flip.

Elohcin wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
He could be lying, but we have zero evidence of that. And past games is not evidence. This is mafia, everything can happen.

And, if he is lying, I see that as a way more likely sign of him being bad than otherwise. Lying as a civ is usually a bad move.

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second. I think past games can be used in figuring out someone's alignment.

I was talking about the matter of things being "impossible in mafia games because nobody has ever done them before".

No play is too crazy that some player wouldn't attempt it.

I don't think any of those quotes actually belong to me.

Sorsha wrote:Does anyone have the day zero poll that they'd be willing to share?

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Two pages after his first post and I already think Sig looks fishy.

Must... not... lynch... Sig... again.

Fishy how.

Elohcin wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Does anyone have the day zero poll that they'd be willing to share?

Curious as to what your thoughts are for wanting this.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Also the Nacho dude looks like he is blending. I recall him commenting on a lot of subjects but never got too involved.

Scotty wrote:Day 0 reads: JoH is bad and INH is his teammate.

Do I win?

insertnamehere wrote:

Golden wrote:I don't agree with all of her points, though, exactly. I don't really feel as though 'town doing something scummy to elicit reaction' is a great strategy, because you are just as likely to elicit reaction from townies as opportunistic baddies and how do you sort the two?

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I am a mafia deconstructionist.

In mafia, much less is alignment-indicative than what the average mafia player believes is.

Because of this, unorthodox tactics of finding mafia should not be punished but encouraged.

Your claim that reaction-fishing tactics only help identify aggressive players rather than baddies simply isn't true.

The best way to catch baddies is to spot mafia-motivated tactics in real time. The best way to spot it is to fish for it.

This, I couldn't agree with more! Every word.

You don't even need to find it in real time. Create it in real time, and you can find the motivation later.

The second post feels like an endorsement of the sentiments that Golden protested against in the first.

Is this contradiction intentional, or is Golden simply waiting to see how people react to it?

If the latter is true, I hope me pointing it out was what you were hoping for.

Golden wrote:First read - zebra is town. I love the way she is deconstructing DDL and Jacks arguments around Snow Dog, despite the much easier route being to do what I did and say 'Snow was not 'lying', he was just engaging in referential banter'.