The Syndicate

Made wrote:GG wink winks

S~V~S wrote:I am sitting here on the bus. Screaming, "a herring a herring" at my phone. I looked up and all the bus people were as far from me as they could get. I am crazier than the bus people.

thellama73 wrote:Hey, I got that second practice question right. I said Graham Chapman and you said I was wrong. :P

I needed his Role - Arthur not his rl name

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

Made wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

we COULD just kill someone who didn't show up to the challenge ...real talk tho wink winks, how many of you guys were there and how many of you saw the movie?



Also, I'd say chat's pretty irrlevant because everyone (probably) wanted to win.....assuming there aren't any team of 3+. and even if there was, avoiding the chatroom all together makes more sense than sabotage.


3 fucking brag linkis really?

Bullzeye wrote:

Made wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

we COULD just kill someone who didn't show up to the challenge ...real talk tho wink winks, how many of you guys were there and how many of you saw the movie?



Also, I'd say chat's pretty irrlevant because everyone (probably) wanted to win.....assuming there aren't any team of 3+. and even if there was, avoiding the chatroom all together makes more sense than sabotage.


3 fucking brag linkis really?

There were about 6 or 7 of us in our chat, I think some of us had seen the film. AP posted a link to a youtube playlist of the entire film as well as the script, so we were pretty well prepared.

And you know you'd be bragging if you won. I've played one game and a bit with you and I feel confident in saying you would :P

Made wrote: We had 4 people, 2 posters, and 1 person who saw the movie. We had scripts, but no youtube. And yeah probably bullz lol, but the lost was fustrating more than anything.

Enrique wrote:@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Also, Made. Voting the non-participants is what we used to do back in the glory days of LP Survivor hosted by my dear friend Bullzeye. Of course it's not the same here given that there's probably specific roles we should be trying to lynch, but, our info is limited enough that lynching inactive users may not be a terrible idea. It's a silly game after all, we're all running blind

Buuut there's definitely space for suspicious behavior in chatrooms. So, I don't know, I'll hear you guys out if you think anybody deserves death more than others or if there was some rolehinting going on or whatever. I have no problem going with the flow on this one.

Enrique wrote:@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Also, Made. Voting the non-participants is what we used to do back in the glory days of LP Survivor hosted by my dear friend Bullzeye. Of course it's not the same here given that there's probably specific roles we should be trying to lynch, but, our info is limited enough that lynching inactive users may not be a terrible idea. It's a silly game after all, we're all running blind

Enrique wrote:Buuut there's definitely space for suspicious behavior in chatrooms. So, I don't know, I'll hear you guys out if you think anybody deserves death more than others or if there was some rolehinting going on or whatever. I have no problem going with the flow on this one.

Made wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am sitting here on the bus. Screaming, "a herring a herring" at my phone. I looked up and all the bus people were as far from me as they could get. I am crazier than the bus people.

You could of posted from your phone :P

Enrique wrote:@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Made wrote:also, with host permission, i'll post logs on pastebin.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Most gracious co-host, may we change our votes after placing them in this game?

Enrique wrote:And no, nothing on my mind, as far as I'm concerned the game just started but there's the possibility someone else knows something. I'm just trying to generate discussion.

Made wrote:Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....


(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Made wrote:"The Current Job #2"....oh no.....

That's a good thing. Trust us.

Mafia, it's fun. Trust

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Don't sweat it, Dana. I've seen way worse newbie mistakes before. :P

Name four.

Well, the first three I thought of were:

1. When Yossarian declared he had to consult with his "teammates" in thread in his first game ever.

2. When Mongoose PMed me in Bioshock targeting someone who was not in the game.

3. When my team (In my first game ever) had a one-time recruit and we recruited the person who was gunning HARD after me (Dom) and it was a total disaster.

I'm sure I could think of more.

What game was that? I vaguely remember it. I was suspicious of a few people on your team, but was going after you really hard.

juliets wrote:I didn't see anything suspicious out of the people who were there. We were all focused on the game and how it worked and finding the answers. For the people who didn't come, I know one had work interference and I suspect others had the same or school, but i don't know that for sure.

Enrique wrote:Well, given we are running blind, is that bad of an idea? We don't know the roles, we don't know the teams. We are gonna lynch someone after all, doesn't it make the most sense to lynch someone who isn't contributing?

Made wrote:Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....


(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)

Epignosis wrote:

Enrique wrote:Well, given we are running blind, is that bad of an idea? We don't know the roles, we don't know the teams. We are gonna lynch someone after all, doesn't it make the most sense to lynch someone who isn't contributing?

It's a terrible idea.

Those who participated are a microcosmic snapshot of the entire game. I would bet my last coconut (and therefore have to walk or take the bus with S~V~S ) that a bad guy was an eager participant in the quiz hoping to bring home a benefit for the team.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Not sure how I feel about anyone using non-participants or anything in the BTSC as an actual way to suspect anyone -- seems to me that regardless of the alignment, anyone would have wanted to help contribute to their team winning.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Woah tons of linki, posting anyway

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Not sure how I feel about anyone using non-participants or anything in the BTSC as an actual way to suspect anyone -- seems to me that regardless of the alignment, anyone would have wanted to help contribute to their team winning.

I completely agree with you here that everyone would want to help their team win regardless of alignment, and I am not in favor of *GASP* going after non-participants.

HOWEVER

There was one interesting post in the Nudger chatroom that seemed to me to indicate that a certain someone had BTSC with a player on Winker team. It might have been a slip, it might have been nothing. I intend to follow it if nothing better comes along.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Woah tons of linki, posting anyway

Don't ignore my linki, MP. Mine is important.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Enrique wrote:And no, nothing on my mind, as far as I'm concerned the game just started but there's the possibility someone else knows something. I'm just trying to generate discussion.

In that case, what is your stance on political campaign contributions?



What, you said you wanted to generate discussion. You're welcome. :P

But really, I have no idea where to start. There hasn't really been any serious game-related discussion yet.

Linki

S~V~S wrote:

Made wrote:Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....


(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)

No we can't ignore it, but trying to lynch people based solely on the challenge has zero to do with who is bad and who is good. When I played Roxys previous game with a very similar challenge, I was very participatory, and so were ALL of my teammates. And we manipulated the civvies hard into turning on each other for false loyalties.

No we can't ignore them. But I intend to watch for that sort of manipulation, for sure. It works. Ask Juliets

MovingPictures07 wrote: Why aren't you in favor of it?

MovingPictures07 wrote: Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Why aren't you in favor of it?

Not feeling it today. I don't think we are any more likely to fnd a baddie in a non-participant than anywhere else, and I would rather go by actual pings if we have them. There has been a lot more posting than on most Day 0s even if most of it has been off topic, so we have little excuse for randomizing or going after low posters in my opinion.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?

I'll elaborate. I'm not scared. Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

To me, this looked like a slip, indicating that he knew what the other team was up to, followed by an attempt to cover it up.

Bonus, if we lynch Made and I am right, we can narrow down his teammate to one of the six or seven people active in the Winker chat.

thellama73 wrote:
Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

thellama73 wrote:Damn it, MP, whenever you agree with me this much you always turn out to be bad. I really hope you are not though, because you are such a great thread partner to bounce ideas off of. :P

Made wrote: few things wrong with that.

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.
My memory is that all your posts came rapidly in a row with no one else talking in between. But memory is fallible.

2. from what i understand, implying i do know what the other team was doing probably would be considered BTSC.

3.You're assuming their are only Mafia Teams.
I'm not assuming that, which is why I said it looked like you had BTSC, not it looks like you are mafia. Still, if you're going to take that route, what evidence can we ever use to lynch somebody? It is a more reasonable assumption to make that "X has BTSC, so is probably mafia" than "X has BTSC, but we don't know anything about the mafia this game, so let's leave him alone." In a game with so little information, we have to make a few reasonable assumptions.