The Syndicate

A Person wrote:

juliets wrote:Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

I understand why people think it makes me look like a baddie, but my interpretation of the civ teams seems to be that they can all win individually, and since each team has members that can night kill it only makes sense to me for them to exercise that power to the fullest as soon as possible. It could mean lives lost in friendly fire but that happens at the beginning of every game even when people try to make educated decisions. Once the game really gets underway it gets easier to make decisions based on facts that aren't wild guesses and people can be more careful. This is a lynch though, and as far as I can see the validity of the reasons people get lynched for can vary wildly. It's probably just my personality, but I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly. Those reasons together make me think it's best to just vote randomly and hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Based on what I've seen from games I've played and paid attention to, the general structure of the game is that there is a culling of players, civilian or otherwise, until individual players start making more of an impact. The winning team also always seems to have had some amount of luck on their side, so that's what I'm hoping for for the civs. I'd also like to say that it could be that I'm just really bad at mafia and only see this because I can't see what people are really doing, so maybe someone can prove me completely wrong.

The problem with a random vote is that you make yourself non accountable. If your vote contributes towards lynching a civ it's nice to see some evidence of why one voted that way rather than...oh I random voted. It gives us nothing. I think I will vote a random voter today. Probably you due to your slip up with the team thing.

Snow Dog wrote: The problem with a random vote is that you make yourself non accountable. If your vote contributes towards lynching a civ it's nice to see some evidence of why one voted that way rather than...oh I random voted. It gives us nothing. I think I will vote a random voter today. Probably you due to your slip up with the team thing.

I will also choose my suspects from the random voters today, purely to try to discourage that behavior/excuse (unless I get a pretty strong ping from someone else. But that's somewhat unlikely until tomorrow)

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

But now that this point has been said to be dead in the water, I just wanted to add my two cents: It's possible that Boats has a team that was all like, "yo dude you can't vote like the rest of us, spread stuffs out" and stuff. Just a possibility. I am more intrigued by TheLlama wanting to squash any talk, though.


Another thing that caught my eye was this potential slip up by A Person. I'm not sure which one I find stranger just yet, but I'll be voting relatively soon. Once I post this I'll check the poll time, but I have limited internet access tonight (I'll be staying with my grandmother tonight), and am working until 4.

OK this ends really quickly after I get out of work. I don't know if we're running errands or anything, so I'm gonna vote now just in case.

*Votes Llama*
I think discusssion squishing is more suspicious than this possible slip up at this point.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

juliets wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Here's my summary of today's events:

I tend to agree with llama on randomizing. I've said my feelings on it ad nauseum however so I won't beat on a dead horse here. I will however say that people who justify randomizing today when there has been a decent amount of discussion (especially the ones who have done so with another 24+ hours to go) definitely ping me.

LT, I'm sorry but I just don't see a case on llama yet. That being said, I'm quite tired right now. So that might be why I feel you're grasping at straws. I will re-read what you said tomorrow and see if my mind absorbs it a bit better.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Nev, I agree with you, but like I said, I've seen this discussion go this route many, many times before. So that's it. I'm done talking about randomizing on Day 1. Some of us won't do it. And some will. End of story.

Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

I know Vomps and talk to him a good deal online outside of here. For the most part he's very inane and a bit crazy, hence why I don't think he would take such a risk as a baddie. Unless he's completely pulling the wool over my eyes, in which case I would congratulate him.

Basically, I don't think the way he randomized warrants more attention from me at this time. Whereas I think some of the other people who have randomized or discussed randomizing (see: A Person) make me question their intent behind it.

I have learned to stop going by how people act normally. Llama always sounds like llama to me. Snow Dog always sounds like Snow Dog to me. Vompatti always sounds like a crazy ass wombat. All regardless of alignment. If someone acts radically different, that's worth considering.

But your sweeping criticism of early random voters followed by your defense of an early random voter in the very same post is contradictory, and rather amusing since there was only one early random voter (Vompatti).

For this reason I am voting birdwithteeth11.

Did anyone notice that G.O.B. slipped in and quietly voted for Vomps without posting?

thellama73 wrote:Did anyone notice that G.O.B. slipped in and quietly voted for Vomps without posting?

Yeah, I noticed after A Person posted he was voting Vomps, but hasn't yet. Not sure why, but waiting to see if that's his vote. Frankly, from one previous game A Person's behavior doesn't seem different, but spent an entire game questioning him only to finally lynch him as civ, so feeling a little cautious now.

A Person wrote:Also, voting for vomps for anything he says seems pointless, because he's patently insane.

Snow Dog wrote:

A Person wrote:

juliets wrote:Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

I understand why people think it makes me look like a baddie, but my interpretation of the civ teams seems to be that they can all win individually, and since each team has members that can night kill it only makes sense to me for them to exercise that power to the fullest as soon as possible. It could mean lives lost in friendly fire but that happens at the beginning of every game even when people try to make educated decisions. Once the game really gets underway it gets easier to make decisions based on facts that aren't wild guesses and people can be more careful. This is a lynch though, and as far as I can see the validity of the reasons people get lynched for can vary wildly. It's probably just my personality, but I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly. Those reasons together make me think it's best to just vote randomly and hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Based on what I've seen from games I've played and paid attention to, the general structure of the game is that there is a culling of players, civilian or otherwise, until individual players start making more of an impact. The winning team also always seems to have had some amount of luck on their side, so that's what I'm hoping for for the civs. I'd also like to say that it could be that I'm just really bad at mafia and only see this because I can't see what people are really doing, so maybe someone can prove me completely wrong.

The problem with a random vote is that you make yourself non accountable. If your vote contributes towards lynching a civ it's nice to see some evidence of why one voted that way rather than...oh I random voted. It gives us nothing. I think I will vote a random voter today. Probably you due to your slip up with the team thing.

And voting for a random voter makes you accountable how exactly?

If there are 10 random voters, and none is more suspicious then the others, and you vote for a random voter, then logically you have to randomize between those 10. Thereby making yourself a semi-random voter.

By your logic, I can say I will vote for a someone who votes for a random voter, and if more then one person does that, vote randomly between those people, and because my vote is still semi-semi random, it too is not a vote that is accountable.

And on and on that chain could go, until every single person voted for someone for voting for someone. It's a bad idea that has no accountability on your end is what I'm saying, so your argument rings false.

thellama73 wrote:Did anyone notice that G.O.B. slipped in and quietly voted for Vomps without posting?

I sure did!

boo wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

A Person wrote:

juliets wrote:Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

I understand why people think it makes me look like a baddie, but my interpretation of the civ teams seems to be that they can all win individually, and since each team has members that can night kill it only makes sense to me for them to exercise that power to the fullest as soon as possible. It could mean lives lost in friendly fire but that happens at the beginning of every game even when people try to make educated decisions. Once the game really gets underway it gets easier to make decisions based on facts that aren't wild guesses and people can be more careful. This is a lynch though, and as far as I can see the validity of the reasons people get lynched for can vary wildly. It's probably just my personality, but I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly. Those reasons together make me think it's best to just vote randomly and hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Based on what I've seen from games I've played and paid attention to, the general structure of the game is that there is a culling of players, civilian or otherwise, until individual players start making more of an impact. The winning team also always seems to have had some amount of luck on their side, so that's what I'm hoping for for the civs. I'd also like to say that it could be that I'm just really bad at mafia and only see this because I can't see what people are really doing, so maybe someone can prove me completely wrong.

The problem with a random vote is that you make yourself non accountable. If your vote contributes towards lynching a civ it's nice to see some evidence of why one voted that way rather than...oh I random voted. It gives us nothing. I think I will vote a random voter today. Probably you due to your slip up with the team thing.

And voting for a random voter makes you accountable how exactly?

If there are 10 random voters, and none is more suspicious then the others, and you vote for a random voter, then logically you have to randomize between those 10. Thereby making yourself a semi-random voter.

By your logic, I can say I will vote for a someone who votes for a random voter, and if more then one person does that, vote randomly between those people, and because my vote is still semi-semi random, it too is not a vote that is accountable.

And on and on that chain could go, until every single person voted for someone for voting for someone. It's a bad idea that has no accountability on your end is what I'm saying, so your argument rings false.

No. As I said I will be probably voting for A Person for his slip up more than anything. That reason supersedes his random voting. And if I don't vote for him, and choose another random voter without any other reason, you can question my tactics.

Okay LT. I re-read your case against llama and the only part that sticks out to me is the "pointing fingers" comment. That definitely strikes me as attempting to squash discussion.

I have to vote in the next few minutes, but I will be going for either llama for that comment, or for A Person for this comment:

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

Have to vote now, because I get off work about 45 minutes after the poll ends, and I don't want to have to rush it. I think I could go either way with llama or A Person, but I'm going to go with llama this time.

Votes llama

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that.

I got some Maytag blue cheese today.

If you are a civ, this is certainly not true. Out of thirty-six players, only eight are baddies (ten if you count the indies.) So the odds are you will vote for someone on your own team if you vote randomly. Unless you are bad, or an indie, in which case, we should probably lynch you.

But from what I understand most teams seem to win as long as their not dead. That's a civvy win in my book :P

Ok. After catching up this statement regarding randomizing pings me... A lot. Specifically rationalizing that randomizing gives you better odds of voting for an enemy. If you are a civy this would not be the case... Vomps' coin toss hurts my brain more than it pings me.

Linki: Lizzy: I don't have a huge problem with randomizing when there is nothing to go on. It's the reasons given that sometimes bug me.

Linki: Llama: I agree with this statement, however, this is Day 1 and there is almost nothing to go on. It is almost impossible to make an educated guess.

Ok I am going to have throw in my vote now because I am super busy today!!
I believe that I brought up A Person's slip up first but whatever. Referring to the first part of my quote above I am voting for A Person.

*votes A Person*

thellama73 wrote:Yes, the civ teams CAN win by themselves, but they are less likely to win if they kill each other off rather than the ones who are actively trying to kill them-the baddies. I am quite disturbed by your cavalier attitude towards lynching civilians.

What do you mean "I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly."? What do you base your votes on then? Actions made privately that you have no way of knowing about?

I mostly don't like voting at all, which is probably why I miss so many of them.

Snow Dog wrote:

A Person wrote:

juliets wrote:Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

I understand why people think it makes me look like a baddie, but my interpretation of the civ teams seems to be that they can all win individually, and since each team has members that can night kill it only makes sense to me for them to exercise that power to the fullest as soon as possible. It could mean lives lost in friendly fire but that happens at the beginning of every game even when people try to make educated decisions. Once the game really gets underway it gets easier to make decisions based on facts that aren't wild guesses and people can be more careful. This is a lynch though, and as far as I can see the validity of the reasons people get lynched for can vary wildly. It's probably just my personality, but I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly. Those reasons together make me think it's best to just vote randomly and hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Based on what I've seen from games I've played and paid attention to, the general structure of the game is that there is a culling of players, civilian or otherwise, until individual players start making more of an impact. The winning team also always seems to have had some amount of luck on their side, so that's what I'm hoping for for the civs. I'd also like to say that it could be that I'm just really bad at mafia and only see this because I can't see what people are really doing, so maybe someone can prove me completely wrong.

The problem with a random vote is that you make yourself non accountable. If your vote contributes towards lynching a civ it's nice to see some evidence of why one voted that way rather than...oh I random voted. It gives us nothing. I think I will vote a random voter today. Probably you due to your slip up with the team thing.

That's my point, there's no point to voting with reason if other people can glean information from it.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Have to vote now, because I get off work about 45 minutes after the poll ends, and I don't want to have to rush it. I think I could go either way with llama or A Person, but I'm going to go with llama this time.

Votes llama

I don't like where this poll is headed.

I explained that my comment about pointing fingers was not meant to stifle discussion, but to point out an eagerness to attack very early on, which I found strange. As I said, in my first game, I was overly eager on Day 1 (not Day 0) and people came down really hard on me for it. I'm surprised no one finds Boats' hurry to convict people odd at all.

I urge the rest of you to reconsider and not bandwagon votes against me, because I will flip civ. I was probably going to vote Hedgeowl or G.O.B for his non-explained vote, but now I regret that I have to hold my vote for self-defense.

boo wrote: And voting for a random voter makes you accountable how exactly?

If there are 10 random voters, and none is more suspicious then the others, and you vote for a random voter, then logically you have to randomize between those 10. Thereby making yourself a semi-random voter.

By your logic, I can say I will vote for a someone who votes for a random voter, and if more then one person does that, vote randomly between those people, and because my vote is still semi-semi random, it too is not a vote that is accountable.

And on and on that chain could go, until every single person voted for someone for voting for someone. It's a bad idea that has no accountability on your end is what I'm saying, so your argument rings false.

I can't speak for snow, but certainly never intended to vote for a *random* random-voter.
I have yet to ever see ten people be "equally suspicious"', so I'm afraid I don't buy your hypothetical as being relevant.
Saying 'nobody is suspicious' would be unreasonable, but saying 'there are a few I suspect, and one of them voted randomly, so I'll vote for him' is not.

I'm likely to vote A Person or for one of the people that didn't explain their vote but I would rather see what develops during the day before voting. I'm not used to games where everyone votes so early (except for work reasons).

indiglo wrote:Some interesting discussion so far. I just got home - saw Man of Steel tonight and then played a spirited game of Dominion. My brain is not at its best. I plan to do a bit more watching, waiting, and reading. Fortunately there's plenty-o-time for that!

omg I love dominion <3

thellama73 wrote:Did anyone notice that G.O.B. slipped in and quietly voted for Vomps without posting?

hmm, odd. I don't think I've played with GOB before, is he usually super quiet?

thellama73 wrote: I explained that my comment about pointing fingers was not meant to stifle discussion, but to point out an eagerness to attack very early on, which I found strange. As I said, in my first game, I was overly eager on Day 1 (not Day 0) and people came down really hard on me for it. I'm surprised no one finds Boats' hurry to convict people odd at all.

you mean me, not Boats, I believe



I think at this point I'm most likely to vote A Person. I'm a bit concerned that his excuse about the civvie "teams" may be genuine, but his overall defense had a definitely weird vibe to it. The case on llama is on my mind as well but I keep waffling back and forth on him.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Have to vote now, because I get off work about 45 minutes after the poll ends, and I don't want to have to rush it. I think I could go either way with llama or A Person, but I'm going to go with llama this time.

Votes llama

I don't like where this poll is headed.

I explained that my comment about pointing fingers was not meant to stifle discussion, but to point out an eagerness to attack very early on, which I found strange. As I said, in my first game, I was overly eager on Day 1 (not Day 0) and people came down really hard on me for it. I'm surprised no one finds Boats' hurry to convict people odd at all.

I urge the rest of you to reconsider and not bandwagon votes against me, because I will flip civ. I was probably going to vote Hedgeowl or G.O.B for his non-explained vote, but now I regret that I have to hold my vote for self-defense.

I don't know why people would've come down on you for starting discussion but I don't think pointing out potentially suspicious actions on day zero is a bad thing if you can find them. That's not to say I'm voting for you, at least not necessarily. I think A Person is probably more suspicious at this point because some of the stuff he's said just doesn't add up unless he's bad. Vomp also caught my eye for his really early vote. I don't have a problem with randomizing as a concept, I think it's a fine last resort but to use it when you're not even half way through the day is a little odd in my opinion.

nutella wrote: you mean me, not Boats, I believe

Oops. Yes, sorry. There are a few people here I haven't played with before and I'm still getting used to the names.

Bullzeye wrote:Vomp also caught my eye for his really early vote. I don't have a problem with randomizing as a concept, I think it's a fine last resort but to use it when you're not even half way through the day is a little odd in my opinion.

It is a little odd. It is extremely odd, but Vomps is an extremely odd person and odd behavior does not necessarily equal bad behavior. I can't se a good reason for a baddie to do what Vomps did unless he is really clever.

I don't think zany Dex gave a reason at all for his vote. I'll go back and look, but I don't remember him posting anything previously.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Vomp also caught my eye for his really early vote. I don't have a problem with randomizing as a concept, I think it's a fine last resort but to use it when you're not even half way through the day is a little odd in my opinion.

It is a little odd. It is extremely odd, but Vomps is an extremely odd person and odd behavior does not necessarily equal bad behavior. I can't se a good reason for a baddie to do what Vomps did unless he is really clever.

Maybe so, I don't think I've ever played with him before so I don't know what to expect. It's just a weird thing that caught my eye because it didn't make sense to me.

Matahari wrote:I don't think zany Dex gave a reason at all for his vote. I'll go back and look, but I don't remember him posting anything previously.

You're right I couldn't find anything either. So Zany Dex and G.O.B what were your reasons for voting?

Have to vote now, sorry A Person.

I'm really sorry I haven't been able to pay as much attention to this game as it deserves. Real life has been getting in the way. Please give me a day or two, and I promise I will try to be more useful. For today, unfortunately, I have to do something that I usually hate doing, voting random. It's bed time for me, and I won't be up by the time the poll closes.

Votes Elohcin

(quotes snipped for space)

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

juliets wrote:
Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

Basically, I don't think the way he randomized warrants more attention from me at this time. Whereas I think some of the other people who have randomized or discussed randomizing (see: A Person) make me question their intent behind it.

But your sweeping criticism of early random voters followed by your defense of an early random voter in the very same post is contradictory, and rather amusing since there was only one early random voter (Vompatti).

For this reason I am voting birdwithteeth11.

This is a line of reasoning that makes sense to me. I understand thinking randomizers are either suspicious or NOT suspicious - but to think that SOME randomizers are suspicious while others aren't seems awfully convenient and muddled to me.

I am debating voting for either BWT or APerson today. This is my thinking on BWT - it just seems like faulty logic to me.

As for A Person, we have already what could be a possible "slip up", and couple that with this latest response...

A Person wrote: That's my point, there's no point to voting with reason if other people can glean information from it.

This response pings me. It seems to me that the only people who want to hide with their vote are mafioso, since civs don't have anything to hide. In fact, our main influence on the game is our vote - so why would a civ choose to NOT use that main influence on the game? And rather choose to throw it away in order to hide? That just doesn't make logical sense to me either.

For this reason I am debating a vote for A Person today.

SO MUCH DISCUSSION. You guys really make it brutal on jet-lagged players trying to catch up. On the other hand, lots of discussion means more well-developed suspicions, so I'll take the good with the bad.

Snow Dog wrote:

A Person wrote:

juliets wrote:Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

I understand why people think it makes me look like a baddie, but my interpretation of the civ teams seems to be that they can all win individually, and since each team has members that can night kill it only makes sense to me for them to exercise that power to the fullest as soon as possible. It could mean lives lost in friendly fire but that happens at the beginning of every game even when people try to make educated decisions. Once the game really gets underway it gets easier to make decisions based on facts that aren't wild guesses and people can be more careful. This is a lynch though, and as far as I can see the validity of the reasons people get lynched for can vary wildly. It's probably just my personality, but I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly. Those reasons together make me think it's best to just vote randomly and hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Based on what I've seen from games I've played and paid attention to, the general structure of the game is that there is a culling of players, civilian or otherwise, until individual players start making more of an impact. The winning team also always seems to have had some amount of luck on their side, so that's what I'm hoping for for the civs. I'd also like to say that it could be that I'm just really bad at mafia and only see this because I can't see what people are really doing, so maybe someone can prove me completely wrong.

The problem with a random vote is that you make yourself non accountable. If your vote contributes towards lynching a civ it's nice to see some evidence of why one voted that way rather than...oh I random voted. It gives us nothing. I think I will vote a random voter today. Probably you due to your slip up with the team thing.

Thank you for this!! As I've said before and apparently will have to say every mafia game I play, randomizing is primarily bad because it gives us less info to work with later when reading people's motivations. Whether it's better or worse than voting suspicions on Day 1 is irrelevant to me because it's a clear losing strategy in the long run.

I know G.O.B. in real life, and I'll say his unexplained vote almost definitely gives no info about his alignment. This is his first ever game, and he probably doesn't know the etiquette. If someone sees him online maybe they could post quickly to let him know that posts are expected with votes? Zany Dex, on the other hand, should probably explain his vote, since he's experienced and knows better.

I agree with Eloh and others about not seeing the case on llama yet. That may be partly because I agree with him the Lizzy and A Person have behaved suspiciously. I get that quashing discussion is bad, but I also thought it was another unwritten rule or etiquette thing that people don't talk suspicions too much until Day 1 starts, so I don't understand why llama is getting heat for enforcing that.

I agree that A Person may have slipped up about being on a small team (and thus not being likely to vote a teammate when randomizing), so I'll be eyeing him very closely.

Lizzy, at the top of page 6 you seem to voice support for voting randomly in every lynch poll, which seems suicidal to me. Is that really what you meant? I'm just asking out of curiosity.

Zany Dex wrote:votes llama

Yep, that's the first post from Zany in this topic. Very pingy to explain nothing about it, it seems. Ajira has real world stuff, and I can appreciate that, but with the discussion we had earlier about "random" possibly not being random, I'm going to look a bit more at Elohcin, see if something slipped through.

Boomslang wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I realize we have the randomizing argument every game, and it really comes down to a difference in play style, so it doesn't really ping me about the randomizers. I still think they are wrong though, but I'll leave it at that.

Well, this game is a bit unique in that there are so many different win conditions. Usually, randomization is going to kill a civvie, as there are more of them than there are baddies. Here, however, there are effectively three teams of equal size: Ryan, Morally Ambiguous Civs (MACs, for short), and Fontaine/ADAM/Cohen (baddies). There's a lot of individual differences, but I believe I am correct in saying that each of these groups would be happiest if the other two groups were dead. Infighting can happen among the baddies, but it's not going to get them closer to victory than killing civs would. Long story short, I don't think randomization is as bad a way to go for the first vote this game than in other ones. However, I'd prefer to be more informed.

Boomslang, I wanted to ask you about this since you seem to have understood the win conditions differently from me. Doesn't infighting among the baddies get them closer to winning, since they need each other dead to win? And isn't Cohen's team indie and able to win with anyone for now? As long as Cohen doesn't get 5 votes at any time, if I remember correctly.

Epignosis wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:
Also, sorry I didn't check in sooner! I'm moving back to the US on Tuesday, so things have been a bit hectic. My participation will be very limited until Wednesday, but after that I'll be all in.

Moving sucks. I've moved four times in the past ten years. Where are you moving from and where are you moving to?

All Eloh talks about is rabbits. I told her that if we can work up a stake, we'll get us a nice place with lots of rabbits and she can feed them alfalfa from the garden.

Eloh, thanks for asking! I moved from Gothenburg, Sweden back to Cincinnati, Ohio, to do a Master's degree.

And Epi, was your post a reference to Of Mice and Men? If so, jolly well done!

Linki: Boomslang, I also think Nev's post about random voting possibly disguising very UNrandom voting was insightful. I'll also be looking more closely at the randomizers.

If this is G.O.B.'s first game ever then I agree it could be that he just doesn't know the etiquette. With that, my vote is narrowed down to either Zany Dex (who someone pointed out does know the etiquette) or A Person.

I'm voting A Person due to the possible slip many of you have referenced/analyzed.

Voting a little early because I will be leading a book discussion on Devil in the grove : Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the dawn of a new America this afternoon.

Ok, I've decided to vote A Person too, but I'm watching Dex out of the corner of my eye.

juliets wrote:Ok, I've decided to vote A Person too, but I'm watching Dex out of the corner of my eye.

Easy blendy lynch vote anyone? Sure I'll take one thanks for asking..

bea wrote: Epi - you don't drink wine while you play video games? It's like I don't even know you.

No, I meant that my character doesn't drink in the game. The wine is actually watered down (for real- it's part of the story) and even so, it doesn't help you unless you have the right genetic tonic.

indiglo wrote:As for A Person, we have already what could be a possible "slip up", and couple that with this latest response...

A Person wrote: That's my point, there's no point to voting with reason if other people can glean information from it.

This response pings me. It seems to me that the only people who want to hide with their vote are mafioso, since civs don't have anything to hide. In fact, our main influence on the game is our vote - so why would a civ choose to NOT use that main influence on the game? And rather choose to throw it away in order to hide? That just doesn't make logical sense to me either.

For this reason I am debating a vote for A Person today.

This game has lots of people with night killing ability on all teams, it makes more sense to only use those since they're not public and don't "out" you as a civ.

Russtifinko wrote:
Lizzy, at the top of page 6 you seem to voice support for voting randomly in every lynch poll, which seems suicidal to me. Is that really what you meant? I'm just asking out of curiosity.

Worry not Russti, I'm just employing various techniques see how long I can last, not to mention the fact that it keeps me interested and entertained. ^___^

Also, for those who are not familiar with Vomps and A Person, the wombat is just your average parasitic communistic absurdist genius, while AP is just being his usual cynical self. For now, to me at least, they're just as guilty or innocent as the next person. For now...

It is true I'm overly cynical and paranoid. Given the circumstances, I think I'll try to further prove my theory that educated guesses are often wrong by voting for myself, lynches result in the lynched person's identity being revealed, don't they?

Lizzy wrote: Also, for those who are not familiar with Vomps and A Person, the wombat is just your average parasitic communistic absurdist genius, while AP is just being his usual cynical self. For now, to me at least, they're just as guilty or innocent as the next person. For now...

Nothing AP has said this game has made the slightest bit of sense to me, so you may be right about it just being personality. However...

A Person wrote:It is true I'm overly cynical and paranoid. Given the circumstances, I think I'll try to further prove my theory that educated guesses are often wrong by voting for myself, lynches result in the lynched person's identity being revealed, don't they?

Why? How does that accomplish anything or give anyone useful info? I'm not sure if you're a baddie, but you're certainly not interested in helping the civs win.

A Person wrote:It is true I'm overly cynical and paranoid. Given the circumstances, I think I'll try to further prove my theory that educated guesses are often wrong by voting for myself, lynches result in the lynched person's identity being revealed, don't they?

DON'T DO IT IT'S A TRAP!111

thellama73 wrote:Why? How does that accomplish anything or give anyone useful info? I'm not sure if you're a baddie, but you're certainly not interested in helping the civs win.

It won't I guess, but the die is cast, so defending myself is useless, but I can still prove I'm good by dying. But then again, it's less about voting for the right people than it is making sure you're not the person being voted for.

Vompatti wrote:

A Person wrote:It is true I'm overly cynical and paranoid. Given the circumstances, I think I'll try to further prove my theory that educated guesses are often wrong by voting for myself, lynches result in the lynched person's identity being revealed, don't they?

DON'T DO IT IT'S A TRAP!111

I might as well, I have a majority of votes so far, and wasting my vote on me seems more prudent than voting randomly in this position.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

A Person wrote:It is true I'm overly cynical and paranoid. Given the circumstances, I think I'll try to further prove my theory that educated guesses are often wrong by voting for myself, lynches result in the lynched person's identity being revealed, don't they?

DON'T DO IT IT'S A TRAP!111

I might as well, I have a majority of votes so far, and wasting my vote on me seems more prudent than voting randomly in this position.

But there are still more than 20 (twenty) votes left.

You have an awfully fatalistic attitude for someone with four votes when there are still 25 left to be cast.

linki: Vomps

'Educated' guesses are still guesses, regardless of the nice wrapping that gives the impression of substance. And I very much agree with AP, since both civvies and baddies can kill, what's the use of me as a civ, baddie or neutral, protecting people that are not on my team? Sure, there is a risk of going after a team mate if I don't know who they are, but that can happen whether you randomise or have the 'educated' guess. Say, I'm Andrew Ryan, why should I want to protect the other civvie team when a lot of them would want me dead, because they cannot win with my being alive and vice versa?

:O what was that? I'm getting bad vibes from the above paragraph. :O Votes Lizzy.

I made an educated guess. I may be wrong though.

Yes, but only 3 hours remain, so it's quite possible for me to maintain a lead.