The Syndicate

ho ture, I didn't know it was wedneesaysday alraedy.

Vompatti wrote:ho ture, I didn't know it was wedneesaysday alraedy.

Well it is k

would you believe me if i told you i'm coming down with a cold q.m.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:ho ture, I didn't know it was wedneesaysday alraedy.

Well it is k

would you believe me if i told you i'm coming down with a cold q.m.

I woudl k

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:ho ture, I didn't know it was wedneesaysday alraedy.

Well it is k

would you believe me if i told you i'm coming down with a cold q.m.

:OoOo I r sorrow. drink a lot of lemon with tea k

Lizzy wrote:

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:ho ture, I didn't know it was wedneesaysday alraedy.

Well it is k

would you believe me if i told you i'm coming down with a cold q.m.

:OoOo I r sorrow. drink a lot of lemon with tea k

I will k. I got some cold medicine earlier so I'm prepared.

I voted for boo

AceofSpaces wrote:I voted for boo

Care to explain why?

AceofSpaces wrote:I voted for boo

Wrong game.

I just want to point out that the civs are at a severe information disadvantage at the beginning of the game. Therefore, any info we manage to acquire through the thread posts or votes benefits the civs more than the baddies. Random trolling and voting for yourself or voting with no stated reason is not helpful to the civ cause.

A Person wrote:

Lizzy wrote:

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:ho ture, I didn't know it was wedneesaysday alraedy.

Well it is k

would you believe me if i told you i'm coming down with a cold q.m.

:OoOo I r sorrow. drink a lot of lemon with tea k

I will k. I got some cold medicine earlier so I'm prepared.

I woudln't trust western medicine on an issue this grave.

thellama73 wrote:I just want to point out that the civs are at a severe information disadvantage at the beginning of the game. Therefore, any info we manage to acquire through the thread posts or votes benefits the civs more than the baddies. Random trolling and voting for yourself or voting with no stated reason is not helpful to the civ cause.

Lizzy Gambit.

Vompatti wrote:

A Person wrote:

Lizzy wrote:

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:ho ture, I didn't know it was wedneesaysday alraedy.

Well it is k

would you believe me if i told you i'm coming down with a cold q.m.

:OoOo I r sorrow. drink a lot of lemon with tea k

I will k. I got some cold medicine earlier so I'm prepared.

I woudln't trust western medicine on an issue this grave.

I'm fresh out of tiger testicles, so I'm going to have to hope for the best.

Epignosis wrote:
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.

Interesting, Epi. I will keep this in mind in the next day.

And, I am voting A Person for the reason I previously stated.

thellama73 wrote:I just want to point out that the civs are at a severe information disadvantage at the beginning of the game. Therefore, any info we manage to acquire through the thread posts or votes benefits the civs more than the baddies. Random trolling and voting for yourself or voting with no stated reason is not helpful to the civ cause.

This ^^. I've played a lot of mafia and I have never been in a game where two people voted for themselves. It's just usually not done for the reason llama pointed out above. I just don't understand the logic that is being used to arrive at the conclusion that voting for yourself is a civv move. Lizzy, are you by chance new to mafia (by new i mean under 5 games)?

Lizzy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just want to point out that the civs are at a severe information disadvantage at the beginning of the game. Therefore, any info we manage to acquire through the thread posts or votes benefits the civs more than the baddies. Random trolling and voting for yourself or voting with no stated reason is not helpful to the civ cause.

Lizzy Gambit.

Are we just gonna call all reckless acts gambits from now on? Actually that sounds fun, we should totally make it a thing. I'm not sure who to vote at this point, I was thinking AP but his self vote gives me pause. I could see myself doing that as a frustrated relative-newbie who can't think of any other way to win trust, but at the same time he's not that new and he did get pretty far in Thomas so he does have some idea of how the game is played. I just don't know at the moment, hopefully I figure it out soon.

Lizzy wrote: Lizzy Gambit.

Interesting. Please explain what the Lizzy Gambit is and what is its primary objective.

Bullz, a gambit is a tactical move with a concrete objective. Not a random act of senseless madness. I'm waiting to see which Lizzy's falls under (but I have a hunch)

Bullzeye wrote: Are we just gonna call all reckless acts gambits from now on?

That's what I do.

That said, I do not recommend the "Look-Behind-You-While-Driving-Your-Dad's-Motorcycle-Into-the-Woods Gambit.

thellama73 wrote:Bullz, a gambit is a tactical move with a concrete objective. Not a random act of senseless madness. I'm waiting to see which Lizzy's falls under (but I have a hunch)

I know what a gambit is. I was joking, should probably have used OT tags in hindsight.

thellama73 wrote:Bullz, a gambit is a tactical move with a concrete objective. Not a random act of senseless madness. I'm waiting to see which Lizzy's falls under (but I have a hunch)

Shoot! I'm rather curious myself.

juliets wrote:This ^^. I've played a lot of mafia and I have never been in a game where two people voted for themselves. It's just usually not done for the reason llama pointed out above. I just don't understand the logic that is being used to arrive at the conclusion that voting for yourself is a civv move. Lizzy, are you by chance new to mafia (by new i mean under 5 games)?

I suppose you could call it new, won 2 out of 3, but last time I pretended and lied so much it now seems boring as hell, strategy wise at least. And I'm actually disappointed that people are not opened to new approaches. I personally find the game more entertaining this way. Alas, you can finish me anytime if it's against the establishment.

Lizzy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Bullz, a gambit is a tactical move with a concrete objective. Not a random act of senseless madness. I'm waiting to see which Lizzy's falls under (but I have a hunch)

Shoot! I'm rather curious myself.

juliets wrote:This ^^. I've played a lot of mafia and I have never been in a game where two people voted for themselves. It's just usually not done for the reason llama pointed out above. I just don't understand the logic that is being used to arrive at the conclusion that voting for yourself is a civv move. Lizzy, are you by chance new to mafia (by new i mean under 5 games)?

I suppose you could call it new, won 2 out of 3, but last time I pretended and lied so much it now seems boring as hell, strategy wise at least. And I'm actually disappointed that people are not opened to new approaches. I personally find the game more entertaining this way. Alas, you can finish me anytime if it's against the establishment.

There is no "establishment" in mafia. People change things all the time. I'll just chalk this up to you being new.

Russtifinko wrote:

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 I understand things right, Cohen and the splicers can win with any team, including baddies, if he has all the pictures he needs. I think I may have misunderstood Fontaine's win condition, thinking he only needed to off Ryan to win. However, it still benefits the baddie teams to kill civs in the early stages of the game. The ADAM people need to be last ones standing, but Dr. Tenenbaum can also win with any team. In short, infighting only benefits the baddies once they've already killed off the civvies, at least in my interpretation.

I think I'm going to vote Zany, as I haven't gotten a response, and if he had real world stuff, he would have defended his choice with the single post.

I don't feel like AP has the civvies best interests in mind, at the least. And some of AP's responses have been downright shady, so... *votes A Person*

Also, I didn't get the feeling that Llama was trying to squash discussion. I'm a bit leery of how many are bringing him up.

Wow that was a lot of posts to catch up on! *Disclaimer for those who don't know me, I am an entomologist and I spend my summers doing a lot of traveling and surveying meaning there is a great deal of time I can't be near a computer (and I don't have a smart phone for internetting while in the field) so if I go stretches of time without posting, that is probably the reason why!*

So both A Person and Lizzy have voted for themselves in some sort of gambit to prove they are civvies?

A Person wrote:

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.

While there are a lot of roles that have the ability the kill, the chance of success is low and I am sure there will be many other things in play that will lower those kill-chances even further (e.g. plasmids). So I think the civvies main strength still lies in our numbers in lynches. So voting is important.

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?

If you are truly a civvie (and Lizzy too) then I think you are doing yourself and the rest of the civvies a disservice by self-voting. As I just mentioned, our primary power is our current ability to outnumber the mafia.

thellama73 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I voted for boo

Care to explain why?

Nope.

As far as day 1 cases go, the ones on A person and llama are as well made as they can be.

Before the self vote, I was thinking that the case on A Person was stronger than the one on llama. Now AP's self vote has me scratching my head. It feels like a desperate attempt, but I am unsure of if it's a desperate civ attempt or a desperate baddie attempt.

Did boo really vote for aces thinking he was in the other game? cuz that vote has me scratching my head as much as Dex's does.

linki - ok - so boo did vote for aces intentionally and not wanting to say why.

Ya'll make my head hurt.

ebwop - ok - aces voted boo. I need caffine. :l

Oh! Thank you so much to whoever said there were only 3 hours left. I still have the site on European time, so I thought it wasn't ending for a while. I'd better vote.

I'm also going with Zany Dex. A Person has very much pinged me as well with his erratic behavior, but as I said before, Dex knows better. He's posted since his vote, which means he's following along, but still didn't give any explanation.

Linki: Then again, AceofSpaces also seems to really want votes right now. What is going on today? 2 self-votes and 2 players determined not to explain votes. I'll stick with my Zany Dex vote, but those other 3 have my eye in a big way.

Randomized Ace.

Boomslang wrote:
I think I'm going to vote Zany, as I haven't gotten a response, and if he had real world stuff, he would have defended his choice with the single post.

Zany Dex wrote:

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

Was this the response you were looking for Boomslang?

Russtifinko wrote:Oh! Thank you so much to whoever said there were only 3 hours left. I still have the site on European time, so I thought it wasn't ending for a while. I'd better vote.

I'm also going with Zany Dex. A Person has very much pinged me as well with his erratic behavior, but as I said before, Dex knows better. He's posted since his vote, which means he's following along, but still didn't give any explanation.

Linki: Then again, AceofSpaces also seems to really want votes right now. What is going on today? 2 self-votes and 2 players determined not to explain votes. I'll stick with my Zany Dex vote, but those other 3 have my eye in a big way.

I don't want votes. If I wanted votes I would have voted for myself, and then refused to explain it.

Flyin' High wrote:If you are truly a civvie (and Lizzy too) then I think you are doing yourself and the rest of the civvies a disservice by self-voting. As I just mentioned, our primary power is our current ability to outnumber the mafia.

Yeah, it rings a little "Thou dost protest too much" by voting for oneself.

Russtifinko wrote:Oh! Thank you so much to whoever said there were only 3 hours left. I still have the site on European time, so I thought it wasn't ending for a while. I'd better vote.

I'm also going with Zany Dex. A Person has very much pinged me as well with his erratic behavior, but as I said before, Dex knows better. He's posted since his vote, which means he's following along, but still didn't give any explanation.

Linki: Then again, AceofSpaces also seems to really want votes right now. What is going on today? 2 self-votes and 2 players determined not to explain votes. I'll stick with my Zany Dex vote, but those other 3 have my eye in a big way.

I've seen Aces work hard to earn votes. This isn't how he goes about doing it. (Flashes back to GTA Mafia on RM )

I'm going to go ahead and vote.

I think A Person slipped up and then maybe tried to cover that up with the convoluted explanation that civvies shouldn't vote because that reveals information to the mafia. And the self-vote doesn't help the civvies in any way other than possibly to reveal he is telling the truth which won't get us far. And that just leads to my brain bleeding in confusion. So *votes A Person*

Something about Lizzy voting herself after AP does it bothers me. Is she being an in our faces baddie? What I mean is, she couldn't possibly be bad right? She voted herself and a baddie wouldn't do that right? Or maybe wrong and we fall for it.

But then there is AP. His slip up about teams still preys on my mind. And his self vote? Is he and Lizzy on the same team?

Well, I was considering a vote for llama today, but A Person just seems to keep digging a hole that he is struggling to get out of. The self vote could be seen as giving up... there again, maybe he really is a civvie newbie without the understanding of the extreme close scrutiny words are given in a mafia game...

However, even though I would like to give him BOTD, I recall several games where the same sort of slip ups have happened and they were, indeed, baddie slip ups.

Not sure what to make of Lizzy's self vote

*votes A Person*

Mongoose wrote:

Flyin' High wrote:If you are truly a civvie (and Lizzy too) then I think you are doing yourself and the rest of the civvies a disservice by self-voting. As I just mentioned, our primary power is our current ability to outnumber the mafia.

Yeah, it rings a little "Thou dost protest too much" by voting for oneself.

I actually wasn't going to vote for AP because I think it's really unlikely that a baddie would put a vote on themselves, but I've also noticed there are two baddies whose votes don't actually count at the beginning of the game. If a baddie's vote wasn't worth anything I could totally see them voting for themselves as a way of making people think twice about them, and with that in mind:

*Votes A Person*

Hedgeowl wrote:

Boomslang wrote:
I think I'm going to vote Zany, as I haven't gotten a response, and if he had real world stuff, he would have defended his choice with the single post.

Zany Dex wrote:

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

Was this the response you were looking for Boomslang?

That's a little less... eloquent than I would have hoped. That only furthers my suspicions, tbh.

Flyin' High wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Oh! Thank you so much to whoever said there were only 3 hours left. I still have the site on European time, so I thought it wasn't ending for a while. I'd better vote.

I'm also going with Zany Dex. A Person has very much pinged me as well with his erratic behavior, but as I said before, Dex knows better. He's posted since his vote, which means he's following along, but still didn't give any explanation.

Linki: Then again, AceofSpaces also seems to really want votes right now. What is going on today? 2 self-votes and 2 players determined not to explain votes. I'll stick with my Zany Dex vote, but those other 3 have my eye in a big way.

I've seen Aces work hard to earn votes. This isn't how he goes about doing it. (Flashes back to GTA Mafia on RM )

I'm going to go ahead and vote.

I think A Person slipped up and then maybe tried to cover that up with the convoluted explanation that civvies shouldn't vote because that reveals information to the mafia. And the self-vote doesn't help the civvies in any way other than possibly to reveal he is telling the truth which won't get us far. And that just leads to my brain bleeding in confusion. So *votes A Person*

Yes I agree. I will vote AP also but keep Lizzy in mind for later.

Votes A Person

Boomslang wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:

Boomslang wrote:
I think I'm going to vote Zany, as I haven't gotten a response, and if he had real world stuff, he would have defended his choice with the single post.

Zany Dex wrote:

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

Was this the response you were looking for Boomslang?

That's a little less... eloquent than I would have hoped. That only furthers my suspicions, tbh.

I agree. I would have hoped for something more. The list of suspects is quite long today, but I don't know what to make of AP and Lizzy. Having mistakenly voted AP off as civ recently I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Llama I think just got caught up in first day suspicions, but his actions don't ping me so far.

votes Zany Dex

I really don't see why everyone is jumping on a kill matt (A Person) bandwagon so soon for something that is being dubbed as a "slip-up" and people saying they don't understand what he is saying. I understand perfectly what he is saying and it makes a lot of sense. It is all very logical; would someone try to correct me if I said that as long as your team is alive, you win? No. And in this game, is there not a couple different teams of civilians AS WELL as baddies? So him saying that he is likely to not vote his team by randomizing (which, granted, could be one of the civilian teams OR bad teams) does not necessarily place him on either side. And he is definitely right about why someone should be voted for. Why would a baddie post anything that could potentially make him a target for the next vote? The things that would incriminate someone happen outside of the game, outside of the knowledge of all the civilians. In my mind, I'm definitely looking more at people who vote without explanation as opposed to people like A Person, who at least say they are voting randomly. Which is why I will be voting for Dex.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't think he should be killed because nobody understands what he is saying. That is all.

I disagree with almost everything you just said, Spaghetti, but I too am not sold on A Person being bad. I think Lizzy is a more likely candidate, but for today I have decided to give my vote to Dex. In my opinion, he saw a bandwagon forming against me and saw it as an excuse to jump on board without comment. He just got unlucky that the tide turned as it has.

Votes Dex

Voting Aces... and apparently I don't need a reason for it (although if it isn't obvious, you're a big a nub as he is).

DFaraday wrote:I don't feel like AP has the civvies best interests in mind, at the least. And some of AP's responses have been downright shady, so... *votes A Person*

Also, I didn't get the feeling that Llama was trying to squash discussion. I'm a bit leery of how many are bringing him up.

I agree with this post 100%

Of everything that has been discussed today I feel most suspicious of A Person because his comments seemed a bit like they might have been a slip up. I can see how Llama's comment, when taken out of context of the situation, looks like he was trying to squash discussion. But honestly when you consider it ine context, it seemed more like he thought LA's comment was weird than anything else, and to be honest I felt both she and bwt were kind of stretching a bit where Boats' comment was concerned.

Anyway, I currently feel most comfortable with a vote for A Person.

I find the discussion on BWT to be interesting. I also just discovered that I didn't have daylight savings on so I thought the poll ended an hour before it actually did. :/

AP also has been extremely weird. I don't really understand why he's acting the way he is. Is he new? Did we discuss that already Ican't remember

Bullzeye wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Flyin' High wrote:If you are truly a civvie (and Lizzy too) then I think you are doing yourself and the rest of the civvies a disservice by self-voting. As I just mentioned, our primary power is our current ability to outnumber the mafia.

Yeah, it rings a little "Thou dost protest too much" by voting for oneself.

I actually wasn't going to vote for AP because I think it's really unlikely that a baddie would put a vote on themselves, but I've also noticed there are two baddies whose votes don't actually count at the beginning of the game. If a baddie's vote wasn't worth anything I could totally see them voting for themselves as a way of making people think twice about them, and with that in mind:

*Votes A Person*

Ooh nice catch. The more AP has tried to defend himself the more anti-civvie he sounds. *Vote AP*

Bullzeye wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Flyin' High wrote:If you are truly a civvie (and Lizzy too) then I think you are doing yourself and the rest of the civvies a disservice by self-voting. As I just mentioned, our primary power is our current ability to outnumber the mafia.

Yeah, it rings a little "Thou dost protest too much" by voting for oneself.

I actually wasn't going to vote for AP because I think it's really unlikely that a baddie would put a vote on themselves, but I've also noticed there are two baddies whose votes don't actually count at the beginning of the game. If a baddie's vote wasn't worth anything I could totally see them voting for themselves as a way of making people think twice about them, and with that in mind:

*Votes A Person*

Oh see, I hadn't even noticed that! Nice catch there! (Add another reason to why one should thoroughly read the roles from the get go. )

I was leaning more towards a BWT vote at the beginning of the day, truth be told, but after everything that has transpired and AP's weird "defense"... I feel more comfortable voting that way now.

*votes A Person*

I'm not sure i understand the zany Dex and aces unexplained votes. Maybe this is a new trend, but I hope it doesn't catch on. I'm going to vote a person, because if almost seemed like he was kind of a asking for votes, or daring, maybe?
votes A Person

I was wondering if Aces' vote could have been forced but I don't see any force votes in the roles unless I'm missing something (or it's secret).