The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Hello my busy bees, has everyone checked in yet?

Don't think bea, BWT, Canuck, Dom and Eloh did, except if some of them are among the ones you're looking to replace.

Since Canucklehead signed so last-second, I don't think she would ask to be replaced so soon afterward.

So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

timmer wrote:So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Huh?

timmer wrote:So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Mine too... Forever alone.

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Huh?

From the recent host post:

"Azura Nokomis stood over a map of the realm, carefully arranging the ornate pieces that represented the concentration of the forces of various factions. A polished scrying stone stood to her left, and as she turned to gaze deep into it, she could see Ubzargan the Ruthless clasping hands with a shadowy new ally. "So, cyborg," she hissed. "You too are recruiting powerful allies to your faction!" She grinned evilly - the only kind of grin anyone ever saw on her face. "Your pathetic brutes cannot hope to stand against my mastery of the very elements that compose our existence! And my own new ally will be particularly... useful."

So we've had at least two recruitments, already.

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Huh?

From the recent host post:

"Azura Nokomis stood over a map of the realm, carefully arranging the ornate pieces that represented the concentration of the forces of various factions. A polished scrying stone stood to her left, and as she turned to gaze deep into it, she could see Ubzargan the Ruthless clasping hands with a shadowy new ally. "So, cyborg," she hissed. "You too are recruiting powerful allies to your faction!" She grinned evilly - the only kind of grin anyone ever saw on her face. "Your pathetic brutes cannot hope to stand against my mastery of the very elements that compose our existence! And my own new ally will be particularly... useful."

So we've had at least two recruitments, already.

It's possible we've already had as many as four, given BR requested picks from all the leaders near the beginning of day zero.

Black Rock wrote:

Official Announcement

All PM's must now be directed to both hosts (the other one being Long Con) as I am leaving for work soon and he will be home.

ALL Leaders please submit a list of three players for options of your first recruit.

There will be 4 by days end. We are just waiting on something before the recruits will be officially told.

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

Sure! Sometimes I make jokes when I think something is silly.

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

Sure! Sometimes I make jokes when I think something is silly.

O

G-Man wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Position 1 because if you ain't first you're last.

What color is that supposed to be- pontificating purple?

It's no-rhyme no-reason purple

And this is responsive royal fuchsia.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

I challenge this. What year was this?

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

I challenge this. What year was this?

March of '09

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

I challenge this. What year was this?

January 2008.

Turnip Head wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Position 1 because if you ain't first you're last.

What color is that supposed to be- pontificating purple?

It's no-rhyme no-reason purple

And this is responsive royal fuchsia.

And this is tawdry turnip, the color all of my posts should probably be.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

I challenge this. What year was this?

March of '09

A World Apart

You and LC have twin brains, as of March of 09'

Although I don't know if there was an earlier case on LP. I just knew LC taught me.

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

I challenge this. What year was this?

January 2008.

Well damn Dom, knows everything.

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Fun Fact: The classic "The Story So Far" thingy on the front page of every game? That dates back to Fringe Mafia on STV, the first game hosted by Aces and myself. We created that. You're welcome.

I think we did this on LP as well..

I am voting Three... why not?

If you did, it was because of myself and Aces :P

I challenge this. What year was this?

January 2008.

rekt m8

Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much-- we're gonna hit them all eventually. It'll matter more later in the game, I think.

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Those numbers are so different from my beneficial numbers, I don't even

Why must you destroy my happiness.

Dom wrote:

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much-- we're gonna hit them all eventually. It'll matter more later in the game, I think.

True, but it'd be nice to start out on a more civvie-friendly position if at all possible.

Neither Position 2 or 4 can win given the votes remaining to be cast. Position 3 can only tie Position 1. Who knows what that could bring. In light of all this, I shall vote for Position 5.

DharmaHelper wrote:Why must you destroy my happiness.

You can just choose to ignore reality. Ignorance is bliss.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Those numbers are so different from my beneficial numbers, I don't even

Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

DharmaHelper wrote:Why must you destroy my happiness.

I voted 5 since 1 was taking a lot of votes already. I still don't think it will do much good to overthink this one.

G-Man wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Alright, so I went through each role's positions and did my best to determine which position for each role was the most beneficial to the civvies. Here's what I came up with:

Position 1 = 7
Position 2 = 15
Position 3 = 9
Position 4 = 6
Position 5 = 10

Even though there's some scary stuff in Position 2, it looks to me like that bad stuff is countered by some strong potential civvie stuff. The numbers don't equal the number of roles because some roles are equally bad or good across all their positions.

Thoughts?

Those numbers are so different from my beneficial numbers, I don't even

Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.

This is true. My analysis is only worthwhile today. Your's will probably be a better guide after the recruiting starts. That being said, your analysis is limited as well. Some of the powers in your Negative Effects column could be powerful tools in the hands of civ-recruited players. Vote manipulation, phase ending, and blocks may seem negative but they are only truly negative if they were in the hands of a baddie. In the hands of a civvie, Position 3 or 4 could actually be the most potent for civs if they can get their hands on the negative powers. It's all relative to how the recruitment turns out.

My kindle doesn't like to let me post from work. Posting from my phone before my break ends just to say I decided to go with position 1

Death on Day 0. Good-bye my love.

Boomslang wrote:The whole adverb thing is ridiculous. I don't see why it would be relevant for the theme (in terms of being a requirement for a given role). I also think generalizing that baddies use adverbs as a form of distancing or overexplaining is spurious at best. Also, MP clearly has a few sentences that don't use adverbs, so he's not even completely consistent.

Another person who needs to be schooled in the ways of the Adverb-Hunter.

G-Man wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.

This is true. My analysis is only worthwhile today. Your's will probably be a better guide after the recruiting starts. That being said, your analysis is limited as well. Some of the powers in your Negative Effects column could be powerful tools in the hands of civ-recruited players. Vote manipulation, phase ending, and blocks may seem negative but they are only truly negative if they were in the hands of a baddie. In the hands of a civvie, Position 3 or 4 could actually be the most potent for civs if they can get their hands on the negative powers. It's all relative to how the recruitment turns out.

I didn't count early phase endings as negative, because I don't recall meeting them in any mafia toolkit; same as with restarting phases. Of course, such an ability could misfire just as much as a lockdown could, if the vote tally at the point when the phase ends will result in a mislynch. But whereas the lockdown sounds more like something you would plot (especially since one of the lockdowns belongs to the Ubzork), both phase endings belong to a Children representative, so the mafia would have to recruit and corrupt him in order for the ability to turn anti-civ-ish.

I don't think I counted blocks as inherently negative, either, although they usually tend to get shared between civ and mafia toolkits.

I counted any vote manipulation as negative impact-wise, because they'll always be an additional concern to how the flow of the lynches will go.

I agree, though, it's relative.

I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

DharmaHelper wrote:Why must you destroy my happiness.

♪ ♫ Let's start at the very beginning end of the fucking number line! ♪ ♫♪♫ ♫

#Five4life

G-Man wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.

Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.

This is true. My analysis is only worthwhile today. Your's will probably be a better guide after the recruiting starts. That being said, your analysis is limited as well. Some of the powers in your Negative Effects column could be powerful tools in the hands of civ-recruited players. Vote manipulation, phase ending, and blocks may seem negative but they are only truly negative if they were in the hands of a baddie. In the hands of a civvie, Position 3 or 4 could actually be the most potent for civs if they can get their hands on the negative powers. It's all relative to how the recruitment turns out.

This is a very good point. We have to be careful in this game to avoid thinking about traditionally "baddie" powers as bad, because the players who have them could go to any team. I think we should be most concerned about death effects. Increasing the pace of deaths reduces the amount of information that the players as a collective can create, which hurts the civ effort.

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

For those of us who haven't, care explaining why? What's wrong with picking the position you believe in?

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

Okay, so now either Position 1 will win outright or there will be a tie between Positions 1 and 5.

Boomslang wrote:

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

For those of us who haven't, care explaining why? What's wrong with picking the position you believe in?

Ahh, the Erlatz Eleven.

If I am remembering this correctly, in a previous recruitment game it was determined that those who had voted the winning option on Day 0 had become a pool of potential recruits for one of the leaders, and it became a witch hunt.

OMG the Erlatz Eleven!!! That was R2, wasn't it?

Ahh the Erlatz 11

Erlatz Eleven was the first recruitment game. Our very own DH was the one who was recruited from that pool and talked himself out of lynches for quite some time.

Erlatz team 4 life funny or die

Erlatz 11 was Recruitment 1. RM3 had the Ultramorph Nine. Not sure what happened in RM2. I've been going through the old RM3 thread to see if it got mentioned over there - good times

Wasn't there a something nine, as well?

In fact, three of my amazing purple jello Erlatz teammates are playing: DH, Canuck, and TH. The others were bleag and PenguinJosh. Good times.

Despite all the absolutely amazing games I've played over more than 5 years now, that game still holds my favorite spot. Thanks in part to that team.

G-Man, the trouble with your thought process is that you assume that everyone will be playing civ-friendly from the beginning of the game, which I think is a dangerous assumption. The vast majority of players are neutral at this point--and are not necessarily going to play for the civ side. Especially knowing that most of us will be recruited at some point in the game, and not necessarily by the good guys. The roles themselves are not civ-friendly or not--they benefit the player and what side that player is playing for.

Boomslang wrote:

Tranq wrote:I'm ok with Position 1.

But i'm voting Position 3. Having played the previous Recruitment games, i'd rather not vote for the option that ends up winning a Day 0 poll

For those of us who haven't, care explaining why? What's wrong with picking the position you believe in?

As LA said, in one of the other Recruitment games, there was essentially a witch hunt based on which players voted a certain option (the day 0 options were tied to the recruiters). If I recall, something similar happened in the other recruitment game, as well.

Ahh, there it is. lol

Also, voting 3.