The Syndicate

Anyways, I don't think any of this changes my opinion on you of this game at all.

fingersplints wrote:The lynch post says you were a baddie.

https://i.imgflip.com/mlz5e.jpg

I am not trying to use past games against you. YOU brought up your past games. Not me. I was wrong that you were bad in Gameshow, but my other 'facts' that I was 'trying to use against you' are in fact right because we were talking about different games.

You presented two situations where you were emotional to compare to your behavior now, only you didn't mention you were bad in one of those games. Although I was wrong and it wasn't Gameshow you were bad in, this statement is true. I think it's sketchy that you were trying to make 'emotional you' seem like typical civvie play by omitting the fact that you were bad - and you apparently didn't even think I had access to that that game so no one would have known you were bad in that game.

fingersplints wrote:I am not trying to use past games against you. YOU brought up your past games. Not me. I was wrong that you were bad in Gameshow, but my other 'facts' that I was 'trying to use against you' are in fact right because we were talking about different games.

You presented two situations where you were emotional to compare to your behavior now, only you didn't mention you were bad in one of those games. Although I was wrong and it wasn't Gameshow you were bad in, this statement is true. I think it's sketchy that you were trying to make 'emotional you' seem like typical civvie play by omitting the fact that you were bad - and you apparently didn't even think I had access to that that game so no one would have known you were bad in that game.

What conclusions do you draw from the vote analysis, G-Man?

Yep, the Nash role definitely appears to be dead. What do you think, Golden?

Look at G-Man making interesting points.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Look at G-Man making interesting points.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yep, the Nash role definitely appears to be dead. What do you think, Golden?

Don't you wonder what I think anymore? :o

No. I'm intrigued.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:No. I'm intrigued.

If this in response to me, I thought you were Nash for a while. It seems likely it was DDL now.

fingersplints wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yep, the Nash role definitely appears to be dead. What do you think, Golden?

Don't you wonder what I think anymore? :o

I do of course. Sorry my comments are just arbitrary tidbits right now. At work and using phone.

I addressed Golden specifically because he and i talked about something related earlier.

JJ, I don't have personal evidence that Nash's contests were visible every day. Do you? It would be interesting to see if any are visible tomorrow. I think it would be really useful if Nash was alive to ensure that any contest is visible. I know that ours turned up at night, and so did the G-Man/MP one, but splints/aether was during the day, and those are the only three I've seen.

If we had a way of knowing DDL was Nash, this would make me feel a lot better.

Hang on, let me think about this...

Would DDL being nash and dying have stopped his contest PM going through yesterday?

I'm not sure whether its in the rules to talk about whether or not we were targetted yesterday night by nash or not.

If we had some host clarification...

Check DDL's history for "Nash". There's more subtle evidence. I can't get it on my phone.

Also i lied earlier. Everyone in LyLo is still a perfectly valid suspect and all avenues should be explored when the time comes.

Are you talking about when DDL kept saying he liked Nash?

Golden wrote:Hang on, let me think about this...

Would DDL being nash and dying have stopped his contest PM going through yesterday?

I'm not sure whether its in the rules to talk about whether or not we were targetted yesterday night by nash or not.

If we had some host clarification...

I didn't get in any trouble when I talked about it.

Golden wrote:JJ, I don't have personal evidence that Nash's contests were visible every day. Do you? It would be interesting to see if any are visible tomorrow. I think it would be really useful if Nash was alive to ensure that any contest is visible. I know that ours turned up at night, and so did the G-Man/MP one, but splints/aether was during the day, and those are the only three I've seen.

If we had a way of knowing DDL was Nash, this would make me feel a lot better.

Also, I think mine was during the day because we posted all day and then, I assumed Nash, had the night to decide who won. How long did you guys have to submit the raps and songs?

Got two posts from DDL, one theorising that splints was competing with g-man, which was for me a big contributing factor in placing the nash role in a particular place. But then that turned out to be wrong, splints was competing against aether.

It didn't tell me a lot, but it could have been a hint.

fingersplints wrote:

Golden wrote:Hang on, let me think about this...

Would DDL being nash and dying have stopped his contest PM going through yesterday?

I'm not sure whether its in the rules to talk about whether or not we were targetted yesterday night by nash or not.

If we had some host clarification...

I didn't get in any trouble when I talked about it.

In that case - I did not get targetted by Nash last night.

@splints - we had a day phase to write them, and I've been assuming it was decided by public vote but I'm not sure we were told that, so it could have been an assumption.

Well if you guys had the days to decide it seems a pretty similar set up then. Days for competiting. Nights for judging.

It was just my guess that Nash was deciding. Since you guys had a poll it could be that the posting one was decided by a third party.

If DDL was Nash, what would have caused him to miss the first few nights? That seems out of character from what I have seen from him this game to just miss a night action like that.

Do we know they were missed, or did he simply graduate to 'public' contests? And I was wondering what happens to the contest if nash targets the person who dies that night as well, maybe it doesn't go ahead.

I agree that DDL would not have missed nights.

There were almost certainly contests early in the game. They probably weren't public until he realized it'd be advantageous.

G-Man wrote:

Spoiler: show

G-Man wrote:

Spoiler: show

G-Man wrote:

Spoiler: show

G-Man wrote:

Spoiler: show

G-Man wrote:

Spoiler: show

G-Man wrote:

Spoiler: show

Literally me.

Also, would you believe me if I told you that I too wasted some of my butter and guns on a night kill protection?

I don't think it's fair to say I conveniently waited until late to vote on Day 6 and 7. I usually vote late unless agitated into voting early. And it's not as if either day my vote was not known well before. It would be kind of suspicious if I was waffling before that IMO but it was obvious where I was going. I don't think it is suspicious to want to allow no room for vote manipulation when that is what the baddies need at this point. If there is anything specific you would like me to address please let me know

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Are we allowed to discuss items in the game thread?

Sure, why not.

Vomps - anyone who makes a claim about something I have no evidence of, I take it with a grain of salt. That goes for you, G-Man, or anyone else. I do take tone into account, I put it in the context of everything else I've seen in the game. Some claims are more likely to bear evidential fruit than others.

I think your question may have been aimed specifically at G-Man, not generally, but in any event. I am more likely to trust such a claim from someone I trust for other reasons. But I'd still give it only a certain amount of weight.

I'm quite busy again but here is my plan over the next while...

Provide a view on G-Man's tinfoil hat theories, because I do think someone should.

Then go back over each NK and consider each living person and why would they make that vote. Happy for others to then have their input as well especially in respect of why I might make that vote (I'm going to try and give as fair and honest answer as I can, but, I'm biased when it comes to myself). I'm not intending to analyse the TB kill because I think the reason for that is already clear, but if any of you think otherwise and that's it is still worth doing then I will.

G-Man's tinfoil hat theories.

My first comment on them is that they are based entirely on voting analysis only. I think that has inherent weaknesses, and I'd rather see a tinfoil hat theory which took into account how much thread effort was put into each of those votes too, but it's ok.

With splints, I do know her well but one thing I can't say is that I remember from game to game whether someone votes 'early' or 'late' as a matter of course. I've read her voting approach in recent days as very genuine and I think voting late when you don't feel confident in the outcome and allowing maximum possible time to consider as much possible info. The only votes that stand out for me for splints was her day 2 BR vote followed by her day 3 aether vote, which at the time I thought was shady and led me to my roxy/splints theory.

I'm feeling pretty good about splints generally but I concede that little patch in the game is the one thing which gives me pause.

I won't comment too much on mine except it would be interesting to know what you mean by 'it is the most frustrating to do a tinfoil read on'. One other thing I will say is that I had no design in any inference you can draw from how my behaviour meshes with BWT. I had no opportunity to talk to him about his own thoughts, and I had too many other things to do to catch up with the game to do a read back on BWT until quite a bit later, so I didn't know how similar or different my own suspicions would be to his.

Also, I know you say in this theory that 'close lynches tell us more than blowouts'. Now, I put quite a bit of thinking into this. I didn't put it all into the thread. I really wanted to think through what is the best outcome for us? I mean, in one way, a close lynch between a civ and the last remaining mafia could both reveal who the mafia is AND potentially waste some of their vote manipulation, so on the surface it looked ok. But when I thought more deeply about it, here is what I thought. Lets say yesterday when there were 6 left. 3 players vote x, 3 players vote y. X is civ, and has vote subtractions, he removes votes from himself. Player y has vote additions, he adds votes to player z. Player z dies. What do we learn? For me, when there are only so many people I believe can be bad and enough lynches to take them all out if we are careful, I didn't want to risk that one of those lynches ended up being, for example, a lynch of JJ. That is why I personally decided that keeping a wide margin is better than having a close lynch.

JJJ - Based on voting record alone, you might claim that JJ's record is 'too clean' and actually you've argued that really well and I can see where you are coming from. The problem comes when you combine that voting record (especially the earlier days) with what he has actually said in the thread. You've talked about JJ's thread content on some days 'going where the wind blows' when it's negative... but I think that overlooks his thread content in respect of the people who actually were bad.

Vomps - I don't even know what to say about vomps, and I can't add anything insightful to your tinfoil hat theory - except that vomps has actually started trying in the last couple of days and I await the outcome of JJ's 'test'.

Also - I knew who G-Man was from STV. In fact, I revered him a little, it was sort of my first internet forum experience and there were some people there that seemed like Gods to me and G-Man was one of them. I really didn't know that, in forums, people got known just by being around a lot and thats what made them seem important.

But I can confirm I've never actually gotten to play mafia with him. I think he stopped playing just before Grease when I started. I myself was looking at the STV archive just on the weekend, trying to find a game g-man played in to see if we did cross over at all, but we definitely didn't. I also remembered how there were a couple of games in a row where we caught the baddie team dead to rights at the very start of the game

(G-Man, my biggest blow up that I am ashamed of in mafia was also at ObscureAllure.)

This ends up being primarily 'tinfoil hatting' as well, but I think it's a good thought exercise.

Why kill DDL?

G-Man - going reasonably hard after G-Man
vomps - DDL has him higher in his lynch list than most others left in the game
JJ - competitor for controlling the thread
splints - his last statement on her was that he thought she was town, which is a good point to kill him without reflecting poorly on her
golden - his analysis of my meaningful connections with bass meant he read me as neutral or slightly town only

(I thought I'd remember more and this would be easier. Each one might take a bit of work, I was sort of expecting I could at least do the most recent ones from memory). And please do feel free to add alternate explanations.

Oh, I also meant to add a general read to each one, like, why would any person kill them.

Anyone - DDL was a strong contributing member to the thread.

And I wonder if it's useful to look at this backwards too, like why would the person NOT kill them. But when I do think that way it's mostly the exact opposite of what I just said, eg for splints and me 'his most recent read was town' so I don't intend to do that.

Why kill TH?

All - because TH was an awesome civ who buried three mafia, remaining mafia likely perceived him as a threat to success chances. Also, because TH's last statement was encouraging everyone to vote aether.

G-Man - before his final statement on aether, G-Man was his top suspect
Vomps - Because he hadn't expressed much of a view on vomps, no connections to find
JJ - because the reason everyone would (can't find any specific reason other than that). TH did trust JJ, I can't find any indication that TH suspected JJ in the slightest.
splints - he still harboured some suspicion towards splints
golden - I was his tinfoil hat baddie at the time he died

TH did not have any suspicion on me before he died. I'm looking through his posts again and I see nothing to indicate. why do you think he suspected me when he died?

fingersplints wrote:TH did not have any suspicion on me before he died. I'm looking through his posts again and I see nothing to indicate. why do you think he suspected me when he died?

Yeah, that was poorly worded. He read you as town. What I meant was this quote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'm looking forward to splintsy's current thoughts, I don't think we've heard from her yet this phase. I was thinking there was a good reason MP dropped his suspicion on her, and I've been feeling good about her lately, but I agree her Day 3 vote still stands out.

So, a better way to have worded that would be: TH was currently reading splints as town, but she could have been wary that he still harboured suspicion towards her.

I don't see anything after that post where he discusses you again.

Do you have a role in mind for TH?

Why kill MP?

All: He appeared to be a high performing civilian.

G-Man - GMan was in MPs dogpee mafia team.
Vomps - reading vomps as civilian, an opportunity to avoid negative connections
JJ - had a neutral and wary read on JJ, even suggested he could see himself voting JJ before vomps
splints - he had just made an abrupt move in favour of seeing her as civ, a good opportunity to keep his views frozen in time
golden - he had expressed some suspicion of me, had me as a middling read.

And that's all I have time for before the night ends so if I die, someone please pick this up.

fingersplints wrote:Do you have a role in mind for TH?

Yes. I think we all do. But after the warning earlier I've decided to imply it rather than say it outright.

Golden wrote:Hang on, let me think about this...

Would DDL being nash and dying have stopped his contest PM going through yesterday?

I'm not sure whether its in the rules to talk about whether or not we were targetted yesterday night by nash or not.

If we had some host clarification...

I'll refer you to Rule 3, which prohibits discussing anything you didn't learn in the thread. So for example, if your name appeared in a poll in thread, that's fair game. If you were in a private contest, it's best to kept to yourself.

Post incoming.

Golden wrote:I won't comment too much on mine except it would be interesting to know what you mean by 'it is the most frustrating to do a tinfoil read on'.

Golden wrote:Also, I know you say in this theory that 'close lynches tell us more than blowouts'. Now, I put quite a bit of thinking into this. I didn't put it all into the thread. I really wanted to think through what is the best outcome for us? I mean, in one way, a close lynch between a civ and the last remaining mafia could both reveal who the mafia is AND potentially waste some of their vote manipulation, so on the surface it looked ok. But when I thought more deeply about it, here is what I thought. Lets say yesterday when there were 6 left. 3 players vote x, 3 players vote y. X is civ, and has vote subtractions, he removes votes from himself. Player y has vote additions, he adds votes to player z. Player z dies. What do we learn? For me, when there are only so many people I believe can be bad and enough lynches to take them all out if we are careful, I didn't want to risk that one of those lynches ended up being, for example, a lynch of JJ. That is why I personally decided that keeping a wide margin is better than having a close lynch.