The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:What he asked you to do, though, was say you were not a robot. Not to discuss the composition of your team. Even asking you to say that may be considered "forced", though, so:

@Hosties avec le mosties~ is asking someone to use a specific phrase considered a forced statement? Like saying to someone:

Player X Wrote: Hey TrickyDick, can you just say, "I am not a crook"?

Would "I am not a crook" be forced, or wold it be checkable? Are team names checkable? Like would "I am not a robot" be checkable?

A robot? That's not a helpful thing to say at all. Are there not good robots? I was a robot dog before.

I said what I considered to be the most comprehensive thing I could say that any host would deem checkable.

Helpful or not, it was the question he asked, and the statement he asked you to make. And since the robot dog is dead, all the remaining robots are baddies, right? Not saying it was helpful or not, just reminding you that the answer you gave was not the answer the soon to be dead insanified person asked for. So you can lighten up on the, "I answered HERE. Remember when I answered HERE? Right HERE?

I am kinda hoping that would be a forced statement, tbh. I don't disagree with Chris on this point, but once the cat was let out of the bag you really can't put it back in.

I don't know who is a robot. I know nothing of Dr. Who. I tried to phrase my sentence as broadly and as checkable as possible.

Roxy and Long Con think this is important, even though they both missed the statement I made that would preclude me from being on EITHER bad team. This means that neither of them are lie detectors.

1. "I am not a baddie" would be more conclusive. Epig didn't say he wasn't a robot, he said he wasn't a role checker, or on a team with a role checker. Maybe he's on the Cyber team who has already lost the role checker at night at some point earlier.

2. Chris, you're right. LD statements are a slippery slope, and they should not be requested. But Roxy and Zeek DID request it, and I find Epig's response to be possibly-just-too-clever and possibly-masterfully-deceptive, when a straightforward answer would have been sufficient.

3. I voted Vulcan because no one else has. I thought someone did due to Star Trek connotations, but I guess that changed.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:What he asked you to do, though, was say you were not a robot. Not to discuss the composition of your team. Even asking you to say that may be considered "forced", though, so:

@Hosties avec le mosties~ is asking someone to use a specific phrase considered a forced statement? Like saying to someone:

Player X Wrote: Hey TrickyDick, can you just say, "I am not a crook"?

Would "I am not a crook" be forced, or wold it be checkable? Are team names checkable? Like would "I am not a robot" be checkable?

A robot? That's not a helpful thing to say at all. Are there not good robots? I was a robot dog before.

I said what I considered to be the most comprehensive thing I could say that any host would deem checkable.

Helpful or not, it was the question he asked, and the statement he asked you to make. And since the robot dog is dead, all the remaining robots are baddies, right? Not saying it was helpful or not, just reminding you that the answer you gave was not the answer the soon to be dead insanified person asked for. So you can lighten up on the, "I answered HERE. Remember when I answered HERE? Right HERE?

I am kinda hoping that would be a forced statement, tbh. I don't disagree with Chris on this point, but once the cat was let out of the bag you really can't put it back in.

I don't know who is a robot. I know nothing of Dr. Who. I tried to phrase my sentence as broadly and as checkable as possible.

Roxy and Long Con think this is important, even though they both missed the statement I made that would preclude me from being on EITHER bad team. This means that neither of them are lie detectors.

If you were a Dalek, you would be the worst teammate ever.

I actually think the role checker role (I am on a roll.... ) is an interesting one for the Cybers. There were several people making assumptions on roles which turned out to be correct. I would like to reread the Made lynch attempt and see who pops up again for me. Dfaraday was clearly not the only one, but I think it was several folks speculating.

Alright MP, I will quote (properly) and address everything I feel necessary.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------ He interacts with and quotes Enrique's posts more than anyone else by far. Just a few examples (and others permeating throughout this recap):
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 940#p85940
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 981#p85981
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 178#p86178
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 179#p86179

Over the Day 5 phase, yes, you might be right. Not many people were discussing, and I happened to catch Enrique at the tale end of the day. I was trying to get as much interaction with him as I could before he might die in case it might help my knowledge later on.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------------- He said he thought my interaction with Dana to be strange, when she defended Enrique after I went after him:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 195#p85195

Actually, thank you very much for bringing this up again. Here's yet another piece of the Dana-MP-Enrique puzzle.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------------- He wanted answers from zeek regarding N1 poll and implied that he was bothered when he didn't get them, but doesn't really say zeek is bad:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 206#p86206

I voted zeek the following day, and he gave me a sufficient answer at the time. Next.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------------- First real suspicion post, D2 he says he's going to vote Sabie or Elo, then votes Elo, and explains it was due to D1 vote when I questioned later:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 605#p86605
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 678#p86678

It wasn't a real suspicion, but it did happen.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------------- Despite that, he notes here that "not a single player I feel good about lynching right now" and says it was the primary reason he voted for Elo:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 672#p86672

There ya go.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------ D3, thinks survived NKs are fishy, states he has been getting civvie vibes from me in general:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 404#p87404

I was getting civvie vibes from you, and have for most of the game. Maybe I'm just not good at reading you though. Anyway, I found your explanation for surviving the NK to be acceptable.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------ D3, thinks DF had some sound points and agrees with me on a couple of quiet players, then contrasts it... reads kind of odd but IDK what if it means anything now:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 736#p87735
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 736#p87736

Just a matter of responding to one post before reading another, hence the bizarre sequence.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------ D3, suddenly he has a lot to say about Dana and thinks she should be lynched:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 834#p87834

I'd pointed Dana out a couple times before, but finally put together a case (kind of like your post here on me, actually). But yes, it was a result of keeping an eye on her and then suddenly realizing that her behavior read very go-alongish.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------ D3: Here's where it gets weird, SVS points out Made's behavior is different and MM flip flops, then tries to get me to vote Made even though he would prefer a Snow Dog lynch... this is definitely some of MM's most suspicious behavior:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 108#p88108
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 115#p88115
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 122#p88122
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 137#p88137
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 154#p88154

That was indeed a choice I've been wondering about since that time. I do not regret the fact that Snow Dog was lynched, even though he was civ, but I do regret that Made was not lynched (effectively). But It was a bad predicament to begin with. I could have easily left my vote on Dana and walked away, but I wasn't happy with the fact that everyone's votes were so scattered. ELEVEN players received votes that day, and that's only including the final tally. It was late in the day, so I decided to take it upon myself to put my vote in a more apt position. I tried justifying it, but I had only a few minutes for that. Just after I do that and place my vote on Made you and Dana happen along and place your votes on Snow Dog (within 2 minutes of the deadline I might add). Since I was more convinced about Snow Dog than Made, it was a dream come true. But that wasn't the case. Snow Dog was good, Enrique immediately began pointing fingers (which you forgot to mention THAT interaction), and I thought I was a dead duck. But now I think differently.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------ D4, he self-votes... and then he says he "thought about voting for Enrique but decided not to". Really suspicious considering what happened that day... and just sort of odd.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 903#p88903
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 903#p88904
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 156#p89156

MovingPictures07 wrote:------- D5: Says he explained his vote from D4... but IMO his explanation is just not much of one
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 399#p89399

I hope you drop this whole bit. Like I tried to explain in one post, I was in the car and didn't have the capacity to read and respond and make an educated vote. While I did want to vote Enrique, I decided not to because I didn't have the ability at the time to justify it. Not because I there was no reason to vote him, but because service was not good in the area. You try playing mafia in the middle of the high deserts of Oregon.

I did actually place my vote on Enrique before changing my mind. That's why Chris made that post, and that's why I very briefly explained what had happened, and that's also why Enrique responded strangely. It was Dom's "random" vote all over again.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------- D5: This post is really suspicious to me, the way it's worded and the fact that he wonders if Enrique is throwing his teammates under the bus even though MM has thought I'm civvie all game is just weird, especially since he felt the need to clarify in the second post:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 533#p89533
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 534#p89534

Well, considering you are one of the suspects, it's no wonder you don't like this piece here.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------- D5: Attempts to revisit Dana particularly after Enrique's posts switching his opinion on her... but I think this focus is odd because he never responds to the fact that I explain why I think she's good, at all, and he completely dropped her from that post on D3 where he found her pretty suspicious until just after Enrique died again.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 671#p89671

Enrique's change of opinion makes no sense. He blames Dana for setting him up. Dana didn't make a single post Day 5, and did not voice a single suspicion of him before that. So that's a load of horse poo. He blames you for setting him up too, but he was already set up before you had anything to do with it today. Like I said, I'm convinced it was hardcore XXX uncensored distancing.

I wasn't around Day 4, so I could hardly revisit anything.

MovingPictures07 wrote:------- N5: Doesn't really address my intense defense of Dana and says he thinks Dana is bad and I'm not because she was not trying to actively lynch Enrique... but most of the game, I wasn't either. Then he throws in that he's reconsidering me and drops the Enrique distancing theory again:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 675#p89675

Thanks for posting this MP, you now have me convinced that you and Dana are on Enrique's team.

Cat town, here we come.

Not really caught up enough to make an informed decision on this poll so I voted for the coolest sounding planet

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. So here's the deal. I literally just got home from work. I go back in early in the morning (off at 11 and back in at 8 w00t!), and I'm utterly exhausted. The last thing I have the time or energy for right now is making a night post, a lynch poll, and sending out PMs. So I apologize for this, but the night post probably won't be coming until around 6PM EST tomorrrow, unless bea manages to throw one up before then. I apologize to everyone for this, but I can't handle it right now due to lack of energy. Also, if you did not send in a PM, this does NOT mean you have an extension of time. I will still only count PMs and votes that came in before the deadline.

I will catch up tomorrow and get back on track then, but for now I just need to sleep. Sorry everyone!

I don't know why people make such a big deal out of lie detector roles. Even if someone lies and the LD finds out, it's not like the LD can tell anyone, they'd have to try building a case like anyone else would.

Having said that, it is a bit odd to me that Epi seemed to go to great lengths not to say the thing everyone kept asking him to say.

DFaraday wrote:I don't know why people make such a big deal out of lie detector roles. Even if someone lies and the LD finds out, it's not like the LD can tell anyone, they'd have to try building a case like anyone else would.

Having said that, it is a bit odd to me that Epi seemed to go to great lengths not to say the thing everyone kept asking him to say.

And it can be hard getting info to the thread without being dumpy~ in one game, I want to say Muppets, at TP, I was the LD, and no matter how hard I pushed, people did not really buy it without a good thread based case. And trying hard puts a big old target right over your heart. I know when I am bad, I look for the blocker & ninja first unless there is an LD or a role checker, to try to get rid of them. It's a hard role to have.

The main value of it, I think, is the fear factor it induces in that baddies are afraid to make bold statements.

So... how 'bout dat night post?

(I hope I don't regret asking for it...)

MM, I really appreciate your responses. I don't know why you won't consider my explanation for Dana being good though and why you won't address its content. She is not bad. And neither am I, so... you're wrong. :P

Also, I've already had tons of heat on me, and Dana has had some throughout the game, so why do you seriously think Enrique would throw his teammates under the bus like that? It makes no sense. It makes much more sense that he's been defending Dana and me all game because he thought we were civvie (it benefits baddies to defend civvies, you know), and then switch on us to try and direct away from his actual teammates so that we waste a few lynches. This works perfectly in combination with the fact that Enrique was all 'MM is super suspicious and I'm going to vote for him for sure!' and then dropped it immediately, so... even more so on you, sir.

And don't sweat it, BWT, I've been there many times myself, so I understand.

It makes the most sense if Enrique named two Civvies and one teammate, actually.

Long Con wrote:It makes the most sense if Enrique named two Civvies and one teammate, actually.

Exactly, but the post MM is using Enrique only names me and Dana, one of whom I know to be civvie and the other one practically just as much.

And that's precisely why, in conjunction with other evidence I presented before, I firmly believe MM is the teammate. I pointed out some of this to Enrique yesterday, but just look at this. These are all chronological:

Enrique wrote:I'm definitely looking at you tomorrow, MM. I've been following the thread for a while, talking when I have something to say, and guess what? I had something to say about you.

Enrique wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:
Ok, so of the Made voters many seem fairly uninvolved in this game and came in and voted earlier. But the snow dog votes came in quite last minute, but from the more active players is that right? Has MM been suspecting someone other than Snow dog?

Grr I just made a post on my phone but it logs me out every time I try to submit. OK I'm on laptop now.

Just a couple minutes before the lynch was over, MM was begging MP to vote for Made. He said he'd much rather have Snow Dog lynched, but they needed to vote Made together to protect MP. Does that make sense to you? If they both voted for Snow Dog, that would have tied the poll, which I think is a more ideal result for what MM claimed to want. No. I think he realized a Made lynch wasn't obvious anymore, freaked out, and did his best to ensure he got lynched. I don't know if he did this to protect Snow Dog, Hedge, or something else, but it makes so little sense from the perspective he's trying to claim.

Enrique wrote:

juliets wrote:I see Epi - thats what I mean about things slipping through that seem small that add up to something bigger. I'll be interested to see what Enrique has to say about your observation.

I can tell you I thought all 3 were bad at the time, and that I really didn't expect a Snow Dog lynch to actually happen that day (or Epig at the time I voted for that matter). I've chosen poorly but considering all 3 of you got lynched it's not exactly like I'm the only one.

And, yeah, tbh Epig is right in that I'm looking at an MM vote tomorrow. Of course there's still a lot of time for things to develop, but if the deadline was right now, that'd be where I'd place my vote.

NOW after this, I searched through all of his posts, and the only times he mentions MM are these:

Enrique wrote:Just woke up. I look pretty screwed. I'll catch up in a bit.

Lying about what? Snow Dog would literally follow anyone's lead, vote, then ask someone completely different who he should vote for. That's a thing that happened. Exactly the kind of thing Epig would call moving around.

Chris, the reason I don't think it was a save is because there were SO many lynch candidates, and SD didn't start getting votes until the end. Plus, I think at least MP, Dana and zeek are civvie. MM's vote was sketchy as hell and I have no idea about Gotrees, but I definitely don't think the entire lynch was a "save."

Enrique wrote:

zeek wrote:

Enrique wrote:

zeek wrote:

Enrique wrote:Plus, I think at least MP, Dana and zeek are civvie.

Setting up a few more civvie lynches when you Dusty Spoon bad King of Hearts see.

I'm sorry are these not opinions I've maintained through the whole game? Have I not been seeing eye to eye with each of you for days now?

I'm gonna flip civvie, so you have nothing to worry about anyway.

Beside the point, MP is the only one getting votes. No need in grouping the four of us witworm.

Can I ask for your own thoughts on the SD lynch? Do you honestly think he got 6 votes because there was a save going on? Might be something to MM, but I really don't think any of the other voters were trying to save anyone. There would've been much easier ways to go around that, what with all the vote spread, I'm pretty sure.

Enrique wrote:sabie, Made survived that lynch because SD got more votes than him, not any sort of secret power. I still don't get why you stopped voting for him though?

@TH: On that last point, to be fair, I have no idea what MM was doing and I questioned him on it too. He thought SD was likelier to be bad, but still wanted himself and Alex to vote for Made together instead of causing a tie. I don't know what he could've been trying to accomplish but I think it's fair to at least question him on it.

I also forgot that MP had voted for SD before, then switched it a couple times (or at least I'm assuming that happened? I remember his final vote being in the final minutes, he's too calm in the post you quoted). The Polls thread doesn't keep track of vote switches so it can be really hard to follow.

Enrique wrote:I've continued to mention MM in my posts, sorry if I'm not as convinced about him as you.

See how he backed off and then tried to turn it around on me once he flipped on me and Dana?

This is the post MM is talking about:

Enrique wrote:Oh man what? I thought I'd already responded today. Sorry, so many naps and dreams confuse the brain.

Well I'm fucked for today, that's clear for all to see. How many of these votes do you think are just trying to blend in? Alex wanted to steer you guys away from him, and he did it. There's no way all these people thought I was bad, or that I was their prime suspect.

I was set up by MP+Made, possibly Dana. Just remember that.

It's plainly obvious to me that Enrique was trying to get away from MM (who is his teammate) and push two other people (who are not) to the spotlight.

In fact, I'm 99% certain I will be voting MM tomorrow.

But I can also envision a scenario where you are the teammate, and that whole description you just posted was planned by you and Enrique in a rough way before Enrique's first post in the series. WIFOM by definition, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I still believe you're civ for reasons I stated earlier, but I just thought I'd share another point of view.

Long Con wrote:It makes the most sense if Enrique named two Civvies and one teammate, actually.

Why's that? I don't think the pattern of the alignments are as important here as the relationships between the players before such a statement.

Linki: Okay, I see you're open to interpretation. If you think MP is civ, why'd you vote him Day 3?

Epignosis wrote:I am not a role checker, nor am I on a team with a role checker

Can't believe I have to break this down to someone who has hosted as many games as you have.

This statement is uncheckable.
"I am not a rolechecker" could be a true statement
"nor am I on a team with a rolechecker" could be a false statement
So the sentence is uncheckable completely.
Including both means you knew it already and hoped no one would listen to me.

Roxy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I am not a role checker, nor am I on a team with a role checker

Can't believe I have to break this down to someone who has hosted as many games as you have.

This statement is uncheckable.
"I am not a rolechecker" could be a true statement
"nor am I on a team with a rolechecker" could be a false statement
So the sentence is uncheckable completely.
Including both means you knew it already and hoped no one would listen to me.

That's not true... if one part is true, and one part is false, then the entire statement should return as false. That's how I would play it as a host. I guess our hosts could see things as you do though... but I wouldn't reject it as uncheckable. Even getting rejected is a result of sorts. If it's not "true!" then it's something else.

Roxy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I am not a role checker, nor am I on a team with a role checker

Can't believe I have to break this down to someone who has hosted as many games as you have.

This statement is uncheckable.
"I am not a rolechecker" could be a true statement
"nor am I on a team with a rolechecker" could be a false statement
So the sentence is uncheckable completely.
Including both means you knew it already and hoped no one would listen to me.

Eh? Knew what already?

Consider the statement: "A or B"

For that statement to be true, only one of the two scenarios (A or B) would have to be true. If they are both false, the statement as a whole is false.

"I am not a role checker, nor am I on a team with a role checker."

If I am a role checker, then my entire statement is false. If I am on a team with a role checker, then my entire statement is false.

You are hounding me over something I swiftly and willingly did, making my statement as broad as possible to include multiple scenarios. Had I just said, "I am not a role checker," then it could still be true that I am on a team with a role checker, and the sentence would come back as true. Had I just said, "I am not on a team with a role checker," then it could still be true that I myself am the role checker, and the sentence would come back as true. Instead, I included both clauses in one sentence.

Addendum: What he said.

This is a post that I started to write late last night, but went to bed before I bothered to finish it. I found it sitting open in a tab and finished it up. There has been some similar talk since, so not all my concepts will seem original.

DFaraday wrote:I don't know why people make such a big deal out of lie detector roles. Even if someone lies and the LD finds out, it's not like the LD can tell anyone, they'd have to try building a case like anyone else would.

Having said that, it is a bit odd to me that Epi seemed to go to great lengths not to say the thing everyone kept asking him to say.

Re: Epig - that is my concern.

Re: Lie Detector, yes! I feel the same way about role-checkers. I have seen a lot of stuff in Mafia in the past while where people are just completely against rolecheckers in a game because infodumping is too much of a problem. My opinion is that the rolechecker and the lie detector have a responsibility to themselves to play it cool and just find a way to make a case. They need to avoid outing themselves because the baddies will kill them. It's the balance of nature in Mafia.

Not to mention, how about this: when you know someone is a baddie from checking them or their lie, don't out them. Be a detective. Watch them all game with your secret knowledge, and let them lead you to the rest of their team! That's higher-level Mafia.

bea wrote:Quick update guys - Because this is a lynch poll, I'm going to wait till tonight and I'll be around to help Teefies with the night stuff. I don't want to screw up the times and have that wonky thread voting stuff again. I know it's super confusing for everyone. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

It's no problem Bea and BWT! I will be patiently awaiting your guys' post. I know how crazy life can get.

And with regard to the lie detector thing I'm confused. I thought only that one character who is the lie detector could check and then they would know. Of course I guess then they would be able to make a case against someone but how does anyone else benefit? When I looked they don't have btsc with anyone and admitting they know something would be admitting their role. Or am I wrong? Does their knowledge get shared with the group as a whole like in a post? or is it only shared with that one person?

Epi, zeek did not ask if you were a role checker. He asked you to say you were not a robot. So you did not answer swiftly since you still have not answered at all.

Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

sabie12 wrote:

bea wrote:Quick update guys - Because this is a lynch poll, I'm going to wait till tonight and I'll be around to help Teefies with the night stuff. I don't want to screw up the times and have that wonky thread voting stuff again. I know it's super confusing for everyone. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

It's no problem Bea and BWT! I will be patiently awaiting your guys' post. I know how crazy life can get.

And with regard to the lie detector thing I'm confused. I thought only that one character who is the lie detector could check and then they would know. Of course I guess then they would be able to make a case against someone but how does anyone else benefit? When I looked they don't have btsc with anyone and admitting they know something would be admitting their role. Or am I wrong? Does their knowledge get shared with the group as a whole like in a post? or is it only shared with that one person?

sabie you are correct that only one character, the LD, checks the statement and gets back the result - either true or false. So as the LD you have to be really careful what statement you check. They cannot share this info with anyone, not even to say "I know DH is a baddie but I can't tell you how I know" because that's info-dumping. They are expected to make a case in the thread against that person using thread evidence. Or they can support someone else in the thread who has made a case against the person. There may be other things they can do but I'm not able to come up with anything right now. The most important thing is they can't info-dump.

Now the role checkers are different. They are on the baddie teams and check someone's role. They are allowed to tell the other baddies on their team whether the person was bad (from the other team or maybe a SK) or civ, or indy.

Hope this helps.

S~V~S wrote:Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

Dun dun dunnnn.....

S~V~S wrote:Epi, zeek did not ask if you were a role checker. He asked you to say you were not a robot. So you did not answer swiftly since you still have not answered at all.

What I said was more than enough to clear me from either team. You don't have to like it. I didn't realize Mafia was about making people say what you want them to say.

S~V~S wrote:Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

Yes.

sabie12 wrote:

bea wrote:Quick update guys - Because this is a lynch poll, I'm going to wait till tonight and I'll be around to help Teefies with the night stuff. I don't want to screw up the times and have that wonky thread voting stuff again. I know it's super confusing for everyone. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

It's no problem Bea and BWT! I will be patiently awaiting your guys' post. I know how crazy life can get.

And with regard to the lie detector thing I'm confused. I thought only that one character who is the lie detector could check and then they would know. Of course I guess then they would be able to make a case against someone but how does anyone else benefit? When I looked they don't have btsc with anyone and admitting they know something would be admitting their role. Or am I wrong? Does their knowledge get shared with the group as a whole like in a post? or is it only shared with that one person?

Sabie - maybe this might help some? I'm OTIng it because it's a different game and because it's only marginally game related.

When I first started playing, I was a civ role checker in BDH's Dr. Who game (a funny coincidence). I never dumped that I was the role checker or who was what role because to me that's what infodumping was. BUT I was REALLY obnoxious with the "My gut think..." "Srrsly you guys! My gut is on FIRE this game...." So much so that it was pretty blatantly obvious that I was the civ role checker. I did this to a baddie player in my excitement over having found a baddie. Threw the whole lynch I said it loudly and lots of times. "My gut is amazing and it thinks that so and so is the baddest of bad." That's impossible for someone to defend against. And it's not fair. I didn't really understand what I did was wrong or how it was wrong at the time, but it was. I never built the thread based case and because I never did that there was literally NOTHING the player could defend against. It's that sort of behavior that makes some players sketchy about *any* role that gets *any* kind of info. I hope that helps to clear some of the confusion as to where what lines are?

In this game, the lie dector is a civ role without BTS. So, I'm sure that player is trying to get their info into the thread without doing what I did up there. Does that make more sense? linki - or What JC said much more succinctly. Let me know if you have any other questions.

juliets wrote:

sabie12 wrote:

bea wrote:Quick update guys - Because this is a lynch poll, I'm going to wait till tonight and I'll be around to help Teefies with the night stuff. I don't want to screw up the times and have that wonky thread voting stuff again. I know it's super confusing for everyone. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

It's no problem Bea and BWT! I will be patiently awaiting your guys' post. I know how crazy life can get.

And with regard to the lie detector thing I'm confused. I thought only that one character who is the lie detector could check and then they would know. Of course I guess then they would be able to make a case against someone but how does anyone else benefit? When I looked they don't have btsc with anyone and admitting they know something would be admitting their role. Or am I wrong? Does their knowledge get shared with the group as a whole like in a post? or is it only shared with that one person?

sabie you are correct that only one character, the LD, checks the statement and gets back the result - either true or false. So as the LD you have to be really careful what statement you check. They cannot share this info with anyone, not even to say "I know DH is a baddie but I can't tell you how I know" because that's info-dumping. They are expected to make a case in the thread against that person using thread evidence. Or they can support someone else in the thread who has made a case against the person. There may be other things they can do but I'm not able to come up with anything right now. The most important thing is they can't info-dump.

Now the role checkers are different. They are on the baddie teams and check someone's role. They are allowed to tell the other baddies on their team whether the person was bad (from the other team or maybe a SK) or civ, or indy.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. That makes more sense now. So the benefit in checking people's statements does not directly help the group, it just helps that person to know they are making a case against the right person.

If Epig is the rolechecker himself, then his statement is false. If he was on a team with a rolechecker at the time he made the statement, then his statement is false.

If he is on the Cyberman team and the rolechecker is already dead, then his statement is true AND he is a baddie. That's the loophole I can see. So, let's see if it's possible.

bea wrote:The story so far:

Day 0 host post: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/postin ... 60&p=84311
Day 1 - Bea and Teefies Die. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 240#p85052
Day 1 - JC is lynched - She was River Song. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 680#p85811
Night 1 - TH and MR are killed. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 880#p86093
Day 2 - Epignosis is lynched. He was K9. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 480#p86996
Night 2 - MP is not killed by the Cybermen. Elo is not killed by Strax. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 720#p87355
Day 3 - Snowy is lynched. He was Mickey Smith. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p88182
Night 3 - Splints was killed by daleks - enrique was not killed by the Master - http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... ead#p88524

Ok, so the Cyberman rolechecker checks each night. TH and MR could have been the rolechecker, but would the hosts have given the team the rolechecker results the night the rolechecker is killed? I'd love a solid answer to that question.

Night 2 no one died, so that wouldn't affect the statement either way. Night 3 Splints died. Was she the rolechecker? Was Epig's statement made before or after Splints died?

Long Con, I went through the posts and Epi made that statement about not being the role checker etc. on Night 4 so that would have been after fingersplints was killed.

Thank you juliets. I was hoping for Epig's sake that it was going to turn out airtight.

If Epig is lynched and found to be Cyber, then we can probably cross the rolechecker Splints off the list too. Big 'if' of course.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Epi, zeek did not ask if you were a role checker. He asked you to say you were not a robot. So you did not answer swiftly since you still have not answered at all.

What I said was more than enough to clear me from either team. You don't have to like it. I didn't realize Mafia was about making people say what you want them to say.

S~V~S wrote:Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

Yes.

Epi, why is okay for you to use adverbs to improve your rhetoric, but when others do it's a sign of baddieness?

S~V~S wrote:Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Epi, zeek did not ask if you were a role checker. He asked you to say you were not a robot. So you did not answer swiftly since you still have not answered at all.

What I said was more than enough to clear me from either team. You don't have to like it. I didn't realize Mafia was about making people say what you want them to say.

S~V~S wrote:Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

Yes.

Epi, why is okay for you to use adverbs to improve your rhetoric, but when others do it's a sign of baddieness?

I am the king of Romans and above grammar.

Epig can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought his qualm was with a specific adverb, "clearly", insofar that in actual fact, hardly anything at all is anywhere near being clear in this game, especially when it comes to one's innocence. Is that right, Epig? You aren't just arbitrarily mad at adverbs?

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Epi, zeek did not ask if you were a role checker. He asked you to say you were not a robot. So you did not answer swiftly since you still have not answered at all.

What I said was more than enough to clear me from either team. You don't have to like it. I didn't realize Mafia was about making people say what you want them to say.

S~V~S wrote:Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

Yes.

Epi, why is okay for you to use adverbs to improve your rhetoric, but when others do it's a sign of baddieness?

I am the king of Romans and above grammar.

keys56000000000 wrote:Epig can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought his qualm was with a specific adverb, "clearly", insofar that in actual fact, hardly anything at all is anywhere near being clear in this game, especially when it comes to one's innocence. Is that right, Epig? You aren't just arbitrarily mad at adverbs?

I'm intrigued to see how Epig will respond to this.

Sure, that would be way more interesting and useful than if he responded to what I said.

Is this some distraction technique for Epig, Dom?

I'll let Epig answer first, LC. But I find it interesting that he's ramping up the adverb use.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Epi, zeek did not ask if you were a role checker. He asked you to say you were not a robot. So you did not answer swiftly since you still have not answered at all.

What I said was more than enough to clear me from either team. You don't have to like it. I didn't realize Mafia was about making people say what you want them to say.

S~V~S wrote:Aren't "swiftly" & "willingly" adverbs?

Yes.

No, I don't have to like it. But you DO have to stop saying you answered the question posed to you because you did not do so. You answered *a* question; you did not answer zeeks question. And the distinction is an important one, especially since the Cybermen are the ones who killed zeek.

Is this what mafia game have turned in to?

Cause I gotta tell ya, this shit is crazy!

And I like it.

Also, is night over? Are we in a limbo between night and day right now?

Basically, can I be night killed still?

Chris wrote:Also, is night over? Are we in a limbo between night and day right now?

Basically, can I be night killed still?

We are in limbo. Night is over - no new PM's were accepted. There was a miscommunication between myself and teefies last night and I don't want to do things now because I don't want to eff up the times. As I can only make polls in whole days, I don't want to get going into a day vote this weird thing where the times on the poll are messed up and people either a) think they have more time to vote than they really have or b) have to thread vote as we all saw how awesome that turned out.

We appreciate your patience with us.

But yes - to answer your basic question, if you ain't been nightkilled already, you ain't gonna be.

Dawn post

MP is literally asking us to lynch him. He's then astounded we still want to. It's not just WIFOM, it's wine stuck right in my face, and I don't like the vintage. I'm calling his bluff, if I'm still alive to do so.