The Syndicate

reywaS wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I would have been disappointed if Golden had been lynched yesterday because he is hands down the player in this game who is being forthright and completely honest about his intentions and I believe him. I think he is neutral. I think his actions make sense given that he baited Epi. However, I think despite the fact that Golden is doing whatever he can to lay his heart out there, players are taking advantage of him as an easy target. In contrast, Bass seemed very shifty, and only seemed to give opinions on anything once he was prompted to do so, with the exception of his wacky theory on me which I already told him didn't make sense because he was alleging I said the opposite of what I really said.

Are you saying that you think that everyone that addressed and voted for Golden only did so to take advantage of an easy target? No one's thoughts on Golden were legitimate?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Observation 7: I think JJJ demanding that Bass post reads of ten players or else be lynched was super unfair and put Bass in a very difficult spot. Mafia is about detecting the bad guys, not forcing players to dance for your amusement under threat of death. I don't like it. I don't know if it makes JJJ bad, but I don't like it.

I think this mindset is counter-intuitive. You're right that it put Bass in a difficult spot -- that was the point. Prior to that interaction he had said exactly nothing about players not named Bass or MP; I sought to change that. There were two reasons for this:

1.) His responses might have improved or worsened his standing before I placed my vote. I was toying with a number of votes at that point and Bass was the frontrunner. I needed some way of inspiring content from him that might influence my decision. One response which he was free to make, which I honestly expect from an innocent mindset, is "No, JJJ. I'm not going to post reads for you because X." Somewhat akin to DH's response to MP's request for a rainbow.

He chose to provide responses. The effort was appreciated, but the content of that effort did not make me feel better. I wasn't the only one to feel that way.

2.) In the event of a baddie flip by Bass, having a number of baseline reads from him would have been very useful information post-mortem. I didn't want him to get away with having only established minor links with MP and yourself.

What I find dubious, llama, is that you don't seem willing to grant that what I was doing was directly relevant to "detecting bad guys". I wasn't forcing Bass to "dance for my amusement" at all.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Linki: Does TinyBubbles normally have more significant posts than what she's displayed in this game? Because I think this is the first time I've ever played with her. Even still, the content I've seen would hardly suggest she is "emotionally invested" whatsoever.

Golden wrote:Rey, the answer to your question is:

No, I do not think you are a shitty player, I think you are Azura.

I am going to be lynched today. Everyone will know that those who insist I'm bad are wrong, and then you should examine those people's motives and posts very carefully...

You should note that SVS said 'the civ golden she knows would fight not to get recruited bad' and then ignore the posts that point to me doing exactly that - including me trying to get epi killed. JJJ even outlined it very carefully - how me getting epi killed looks very much like an effort to not be recruited bad (this is definitely one part of my motivation). SVS next post is immediately after. She said she couldn't believe the level of my emotional manipulation, and she is very happy with her vote. She claims to be an expert in my civilian game, but she has been wilfully blind to everything I've given her to see I am playing exactly that game. SVS has mostly seemed sincere before, but she has demonstrated a particular hardheadedness that I'm beginning to find convenient. Her initial suspicion on me I found very easy to believe, but her refusal to hear any rebuttal is something I think everyone should be interested in.

Rey - I'll admit his recent self-vote makes me wonder. He has begun to sound a lot like me, telling me what I should know about him 'full well', which is a favourite of mine when I'm frustrated. Which might be a good sign for him. Nevertheless, his posts should be scrutinised. He found weak reasons to jump on me on both days, and he recently claimed I've been misrepresenting him on the matter of 'motivation' when I've been raising it over and over again for days and he hasn't responded to it once until now. It's hard to misrepresent someone on something when they don't represent themselves on it to begin with. Again, though, his explanation for what he meant by 'motivation' meshes with his actions. Maybe I've been harsh on rey.

Boomslang - I recommend everyone iso him, but particularly JJ. He has been pretty consistent on me, and his logic seems overall sound, but he hasn't talked about a lot else. Take the G-Man kill into account when you read it. Could be nothing, but I think this is very interesting when I did it.

DH - Read the number of interactions between DH and I before he declared he was scared of me, and see if any of you think that was a genuine statement. It didn't bother me because DH has said all sorts of random things today, and I took his vote for me as a neutral vote that was no skin off his nose. But then he started going after me for the difference between him being scared and a threat, and the more I pushed him on it, the less sincere I felt he was. Finally the dam burst and we got some honestly from him, which can only be a good thing. But everyone should consider whether any of you were legitimately scared of me killing you when DH said he was, and then consider how little interaction we'd actually had towards each other before then, and wonder what is going on there...

That's all. I think Dom's vote for me was really very genuine. Other votes haven't bothered me at all.

If I have the chance to vote again and think there is a realistic chance of my survival in doing so, then I will. I will say that my self vote is not that I WANT out. I really don't. It's just that I don't have a lot of faith that there is anything I can do to claw this back.

Ricochet wrote:MP, I think Azura forcing votes on Golden is perfectly compatible with the type of "wanting him gone from a distance" you bring up. Also, the more she targeted people who were undecided or opposed to a Golden lynch, the more effective her force would be.

I'm not asking for confirmation (you could only hint at it, after all, but not make any open statement), your reply is duly noted, but I'll also keep in mind my own interpretation. For one thing, this forced viewpoint puts you in a better light, because if you were actually genuine in your crazy cyan mode, that makes me feel worse 'bout you. I have a few other people in mind, as well. For a moment, I thought Golden himself was punished to vote himself, poor guy, but then he didn't stick to it, so his moments of defeatism looks to be confirmed genuine.

DrWilgy wrote:Also I'm no longer a sock. Sorry bro...

unfurl wrote:Bye Golden, I hope you get you wish to comeback to the game

Roxy wrote:I hope people today will act more reasonable. For me yesterdays lynch was rather disturbing and I do not understand some of the way over the top antics that are being employed during this game. It is distracting and for me very unhelpful.

I want to hunt baddies - there have been recruits and there are recruiters. I am done hearing about how Neutrals can be bad. I am sorry but Neutrals are Neutrals. How can you be a bad Neutral? Makes no sense.

If you would like to discuss possible recruiters/recruitees then quote this and list your top two suspects that you feel fit the bill.

I dont trust MP or bwt, I think you know that
I think aapje has dissapear from the map, so I think thats weird, even if he was not trying to hunt baddies he was participating with questions

I dont know if the Golden vs Boomsland, can give us some clues, like where people trying to save Boomslang by votting Golden, or is Boomslang a neutral and he just happend for people to place votes too?

Also rey voted for himself, but before the thread was lock, he changed his vote to Golden making it a tie, something to consider

Boomslang wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Man, I'm always skeptical about the previous-game knowledge thing. If people have distinctive playstyles, that's great for them, but roles are always random. Maybe you tend to remember the conniving liar's FEB roles more vividly, but that's a confirmation bias; lying can be used just as effectively to promote the civ cause. So going after someone based on "reputation" alone just doesn't seem right.

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Boomslang wrote:Now that we've got this MP/Llama stuff, can be return to talking about Golden? The whole "I baited the baddies into a making the kill for me" line seems... unlikely to me. How could he have known that Epi was on the baddie team opposite from the one making the kill, unless he himself was on the baddie team making the kill?

Boomslang wrote:Been away for most of today, and don't have time to catch up completely. However, I noted that Dr. Wilgy finally came through on the explanation and seemed to do a good job of it. Briefly looking at things, I'm really very pinged by G-Man changing votes to Bass despite claiming that this change "has very little to do with any suspicion of Bass." I'm more pinged by him saying this move is to "keep Golden around." As I'm already suspicious of Golden, this claim makes me want to ensure that Golden doesn't stick around. *votes Golden*

linki: Heh, Dr. Wilgy is on call all day every day.

Boomslang wrote:

reywaS wrote:Facts: Golden expressed sincere desire to see Epignosis killed. Epignosis is killed on night 1 by Azura.

How Golden and his new cheerleader MovingPictures come off to me:

"Hey, guys, look I know that I/Golden am/is responsible for Azura (A confirmed baddie) killing Epignosis when literally the only person going after Epig was Golden, but he's getting a bad rap and I think everyone just needs to trust the guy. I promise he's not bad. You're crazy for going after him. Actually, you read as bad to me because you aren't giving Golden a free pass."


It's insanity. lol

THIS.

Boomslang wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Boomslang!

Vote Boomslang

aapje is going to murder me

I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to defend my points on Golden when the guy is literally asking to be lynched. That's all I needed to know for today, honestly.
*votes Golden*

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:@rey - exactly. That's why I find it very hard to see BWT as coming from a genuine place. I am, however, very familiar with being a popular day one target for suspicion from baddies, they love to find semantic ways of getting votes on to me.

linki @epi - ok. I'm not responding to you any more. I do not agree that you are shooting straight. It takes a special kind of cajones to have a lie as the fundamental basis of your accusation and call it shooting straight.

I will not be responding to any more of your posts until you acknowledge that you actually understand that 1) SVS never asked why I would recruit and 2) that is not the question I was answering.

linki 2 BWT - ok, that I can kind of read as genuine and understand.

linkie to everyone enjoying epi vs golden. Last time it happened, I was good and epi was bad. Then I get into it with LC. LC is bad, golden is good. When people get into it like this with me, anyone who still is pretending to genuinely believe they think I'm bad is worth lynching imo. Epi knows full well he is wrong. He is enjoying it as much as you.

I have had many run ins with you in the past. You read as civvie Golden that I remember. BWT, Epig I'm on the fence. I have been away from mafia for almost a year now, so there's that.

reywaS wrote:

Roxy wrote: I can see why he is worked up - been there so many times myself. Being suspected for bs reasons sucks especially if they are using twisted logic - "like it has nothing to do with the question - it is how you answered the question" silly Day 1 stuff as per normal. Honestly would be better off just randomizing a vote.

suspecting someone because of how they answered a question is using twisted logic? I disagree.

Golden wrote:@dom - Not uncomfortable, but yeah I prefer to vote people I think could be bad. I do think epi could be bad.

But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point. So there is no value to me in epi living past today. I do not think he is civ. I think he has done some things which could mean he is bad. I think there are also neutral explanations for his behaviour. I don't mind seeing him lynched be he bad or neutral.

And, I see why you are confused because my response to JJ looks weird, it's because I read his question wrong. I thought he asked for motives that were not anti-town, hence my response to him about 'if epi was neutral'.

As for mafia motives, can think of two possibilities. One, he was thinking of recruiting me given we worked well together in Guess Who and creating distance first was a tactic to achieve it. Two, he was not thinking of recruiting me and so why not cast suspicion on me.

I'll be honest, I suspect the real reason epi won't back off his suspicion is much simpler. He has been busy with work starting up, lord of the realms, helping Simon with Angry Birds. I think he misread SVS question in the first place. But he is not the kind of person to back off because he misreads (or to admit he read something wrong), and so he just finds other ways to justify his suspicion.

Others can decide for themselves, I just don't have fun when people make up bs to accuse me of being bad. Lynching epi would restore balance to the force, and make the game more fun for me right now. That's my primary motive.

But my secondary motive is that, yes, I think he has given some cause to think he is bad. Particularly the post where he responded to me suggesting that everyone vote for either him or me, just after he voted for me and said we needed to 'end it'. He backtracked something chronic with that post. Called my tactics mafia 101, said I was setting some kind of trap, but wanted everyone to 'vote with their conscience' and not feel they had to vote for me, the person he thinks is bad?

Whatever comes, my original hope for today was that a lynch stop is used so no-one dies. But if epi gets the most votes, I think the lynch should be allowed to go through. Same for BWT. Those two have both given me reasons to think they could be bad.

linki @ SVS - you are completely right that I have made no entry into the contest to be recruited as a baddie and will not do so. SVS has had experience in the past of my warning baddie teams outright that if they recruit me I'll bus them all, which is a pretty effective tool to prevent baddie recruitment I can assure you. In a game called recruitment mafia I think doing something like that is not in the spirit of the game, so I will be the best I can of whatever I will be, but I will be far more excited to be recruited civ than bad.

I'm ok with DH talking about his poop, provided it is in nauseating brown. I understand unfurl's frustration with the lack of OT green.

you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Linki: Golden, am I reading through the lines of your post correctly when I say that you'd like to lynch Epi because it would make the game more fun for you? Seriously dude, think about that for a second and then realize that it's not a good strategy to follow.

In a game where 30 of us are still neutral, why is taking out another person who I do not believe is civ and do not believe I will ever be on the same team as a bad strategy?

How could you possibly be so sure of this?

reywaS wrote:I always hunt baddies as indy/neutral

reywaS wrote:or appear to lol

Typhoony wrote:

Golden wrote: Put it this way, boomslang. Epi being on my team will not stop me killing him if I have the chance. Anyone who chose to recruit us both to the same team is making an error.

What if that happens accidentally?

reywaS wrote:Golden is being willfully ignorant of that possibility it seems, Typhoony.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:
might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.

reywaS wrote:

Roxy wrote:Kadaj aka Cabbage posted in our thread!!!! He is suspicious of the nub aapje - we should all vote aapje

jk


Teeth's non lynch - I totally get the reasons for the votes he got - but tbh he often plays slightly wacky and different than other players - Idk if I would have voted him but prob not. So The Judge ended the day early. But have we determined why no one was not lynched? I may have not gone back far enough in my catch up

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry I went quiet. I'm at a baseball game right now Go Reds!

But yeah, fairly disappointed about going out on Day 1 in my first game back. Not much I can do about it though. Good luck civs!

Here before lynch end Teeth says "Good Luck Civ's" - is it meant to be a mindfuck or he is hinting at being recruited? If he is implying he was recruited I would venture to say he was prob recruited as a baddie - him saying "Go Civs" just feels unnatural at this stage of this game.

Golden/Rey - I do not get Rey's points about Golden and tbf they read as forced. You say you did not call him bad but then what is this:

Reywas wrote:might could be

Reads that you think he "might could be" bad. Ergo he is bad - is the point I got when catching up. You also said he did not seem sincere - does that in and of itself make him bad Rey? Please elaborate more than you have - use little words so I can be sure to understand

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

forced? How? You are implying that I forced myself to share my opinion on Golden? So, I saw Golden's ideas, and rather than the opinion being genuine I forced myself on day one to go after him? To what end? Why in the world would I, after nearly a year long hiatus from playing mafia, force myself to go after Golden?

If you quote me with more specific posts that feel forced to you, I will respond to them in kind. You went the really broad and vague route, so that's how I responded.

As for the "might could be" post. I heard that phrase on The Wire, and I like using it whenever I can. lol. I was NOT (obviously) saying that Golden is bad. If I was saying, in that post, that Golden WAS bad, I would have said something more along the lines of "Golden is bad". "Might could be" meaning that I'm not ruling it out.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:Can someone please recruit G-Man? He deserves it.

@rey - I agree it's the motivation, not the action, that matters. That's why I kept asking why does it make me bad? You've claimed I've done certain things, but you haven't provided any motivation for why I would do them when bad. You've just said they don't read genuine. But why would I lie about those things?

That's also why I went back to epi setting out the exact thought process behind the post where he claimed I gave four different answers to what I would do when recruiting. Epi did not seem interested in motivation either, even though the obvious motive for me even starting that particular conversation was to see if we could narrow down the field of potential baddie recruits so as to better find a baddie, but he also declined to provide any motive for why it would be a bad thing to do.

But whatever. Sometimes people tunnel in on you and you don't think it is entirely logical. When I really understood where you were coming from, I found your suspicion on me genuine. I can't disagree that in trying to get you to see what I was saying, I was skimming over some of the points you were trying to raise, because I was trying to get you to see that there was no baddie motivation for your allegation. But nm.

for what it's worth, I'm not interested in voting for you at current.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:golden do you really think MP was civ recruited already?

Bass, I really think you haven't.

I was just looking for a yes or no.

I have no particular view as to the likelihood of MP being civ. It's not why I was setting out to save him. I just didn't like the way he took three votes for what I see as poor reasons very early in the day.

@SVS - thank you I just wanted to know either way. And I do know you <3 me and I you, but I honestly don't blame anyone if they were mad at me about epi, because I feel guilty about it myself.

I can understand why having acted roguish might make people feel uncomfortable (especially people who know me well). I feel like it's how all neutrals are probably playing, and I'm just overt about it.

Wait, so now you feel guilty about it? You have seemed pretty confident that it was in your best interest to make that move up until now. Why do you feel guilty now?

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt after the bold move on day 1, but you keep saying things that set off my bad-dar.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

This type of attitude is a big reason why I don't trust you, Golden. You admittedly make this big, bold move to Epignosis killed on Day 1, and then you act like everyone is being unfair to you by not trusting your intentions. Do you really see the scrutiny on you as unfair?

reywaS wrote:"Out of reywaS' 124 posts, I'd reckon 60% of them are about Golden (I'm guesstimating). I would expect it very easy and safe to tunnel into one person for a time"

A response to this particular snippet from Scotty's earlier post. You are right. I have been focusing on Golden a lot. I tend to get tunnel vision in mafia games when someone's posts get stuck in my head. In the past it can be a flaw of my game play style. But, I'm not always wrong when I get fixated on someone. A particular RM game comes to mind...Reality TV Mafia. I remember having a particularly over the top case of tunnel vision in that game, but I did sniff out DharmaHelper and Golden as 2 of the 4 mafiosos in the game...but for every time that I am correct in that case, there are a few instances where I was just flat out wrong. I realize this. This is why I tempered my suspicion of Golden in between Days 1 and 2, but he reignited my suspicion with the things he said in the 2nd half of Day 2. Right or wrong that is the only way I know how to play when I am not on a baddie team. I tend to have a lot more trouble when I am because in my head everything I think to write just sounds forced. A handful of people in this game know this about me. Golden is one of those people, which is why the 2 "no u's" he's flung at me in this game don't ring true to me. In Zany Dex's Superman game on RM, this dynamic was on display where I was Clark Kent and Golden was independent and eventually merged with the mafia team (and won). I got tunnel vision in that game too. I think I was wrong in that case, but regardless I got a lot of flack in that game for it.

reywaS wrote:

Scotty wrote:

reywaS wrote:"Out of reywaS' 124 posts, I'd reckon 60% of them are about Golden (I'm guesstimating). I would expect it very easy and safe to tunnel into one person for a time"

A response to this particular snippet from Scotty's earlier post. You are right. I have been focusing on Golden a lot. I tend to get tunnel vision in mafia games when someone's posts get stuck in my head. In the past it can be a flaw of my game play style. But, I'm not always wrong when I get fixated on someone. A particular RM game comes to mind...Reality TV Mafia. I remember having a particularly over the top case of tunnel vision in that game, but I did sniff out DharmaHelper and Golden as 2 of the 4 mafiosos in the game...but for every time that I am correct in that case, there are a few instances where I was just flat out wrong. I realize this. This is why I tempered my suspicion of Golden in between Days 1 and 2, but he reignited my suspicion with the things he said in the 2nd half of Day 2. Right or wrong that is the only way I know how to play when I am not on a baddie team. I tend to have a lot more trouble when I am because in my head everything I think to write just sounds forced. A handful of people in this game know this about me. Golden is one of those people, which is why the 2 "no u's" he's flung at me in this game don't ring true to me. In Zany Dex's Superman game on RM, this dynamic was on display where I was Clark Kent and Golden was independent and eventually merged with the mafia team (and won). I got tunnel vision in that game too. I think I was wrong in that case, but regardless I got a lot of flack in that game for it.

Thanks for the response, yo!

Asa follow up: What is your opinion of Golden now? Is he still your main lynch candidate?

Yes, but I'm not married to it. I'm going to force myself away from being fixated on him to see other points of view. If I don't have new suspicions or if Golden doesn't convince me that I'm wrong, I will vote for him again on Day 3 by default. But I'm not reserving myself to that outcome.