The Syndicate

I voted llama because I saw a bandwagon forming and I jumped on it.

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

Well then, I'm going to force you to play

I'm going to vote for you tomorrow, and I am going to campaign for other people to vote for you too.

(I'm also looking at a few other people, and I might post my thoughts later if I can bring them all together. But for right now, this seems like the most fun thing to devote my time too.)

Added: Quiet players get a rougher time because being quiet usually means you are trying to blend in and avoid notice. Something baddies do. It's harder for a bad player to be vocal because they have to bullshit most of the time, and it is only a matter of time before someone calls you on bullshit. Some people are really good and being vocal baddies, but it is a difficult art to master.

I'm reading you as baddie. Perfectly content to sit back and watch everyone else make mistakes while you slide by day by day. Not on my watch.

Added: Novel reasoning Dex.

Snow Dog wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

That may be a little extreme, but I definitely won't be forgetting about him. The idea of a baddie lurking in the shadows and carrying out his evil machinations from the realm of no scrutiny is a scary one.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

That may be a little extreme, but I definitely won't be forgetting about him. The idea of a baddie lurking in the shadows and carrying out his evil machinations from the realm of no scrutiny is a scary one.

Yeah you're right. A bit extreme. But he pretty much looks at us with disdain I'd say.

Mongoose wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

agleaminranks wrote: So those are my thoughts. But I dislike idle speculation, and I especially dislike much of the nonsensical and amateur pseudo-psychological warfare that happens in the mafia threads. I post very seldomly.

One wonders why you agreed to play if you seem to hate the core concept of the game.

Ha, good one, llama.

Sometimes playing it safe is a quite dangerous tactic.

This seems to fit with Lizzy's "anti-establishment" comments and actions. Anarchy is quite threatening eh? Granted, without having played Bioshock, the level of chaos and anarchy in this game so far seems wildly appropriate to me. Welcome to Rapture city.

Zany Dex wrote:I voted llama because I saw a bandwagon forming and I jumped on it.

Really? That's all you got?

Zany Dex wrote:I voted llama because I saw a bandwagon forming and I jumped on it.

Sweet, this bus has wifi.

Gah, this is why I participate in the actual discussion so infrequently. As a player who always keeps on the down-low, the second I open my mouth I'm in the limelight for all the wrong reasons. Not my style. Already been made to talk more than I wanted.

I meant no disparaging remarks towards the people here, it's just that in my experiences, mafia threads can explode with such ferocity over the pettiest of quibbles. Plus, when one's own interests aren't at stake, it's easier to make an unbiased assessment of the situation. Something I'm ill-fit to do now that I've become the antagonist of the day.

He is literally sticking his tongue out at the rest of us.

agleaminranks wrote:it's easier to make an unbiased assessment of the situation. Something I'm ill-fit to do now that I've become the antagonist of the day.

So we should stop talking about you and let you remain above suspicion so that you can better analyze the game (even though you have no intention of posting your analysis for the benefit of the rest of us?)

I'm not in control of what you guys do, I was just giving up my plan of action because people accused it of being baddy-like behavior. Which, as I hope I have clarified, is just how I prefer to play mafia, and is not the result of devious intent.

DharmaHelper wrote:He is literally sticking his tongue out at the rest of us.

So this just goes to show that there actually is an 'establishment'. People's reactions to Kev's (agealmfkf - what's with that name dude, anyway? :P) approach to the game which is not the norm (everyone more or less pretending to be a civ and going for 'educated' guesses and analysis when you basically have zilch. I mean come on, regardless how inexperienced you are, no-one is idiotic enough to make such slips,I would imagine people and especially baddies checking, double checking, triple checking what they've written before posting). I did my share of playing the baddie in civ clothes last time, yeah it was fun for a while, we won, but flying below the radar, or not giving an 'educated' opinion, is just another technique of playing this. Maybe it's a shred thing.

AceofSpaces wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I voted for boo

Care to explain why?

Nope.

You. I like you.

Lizzy wrote:So this just goes to show that there actually is an 'establishment'. People's reactions to Kev's (agealmfkf - what's with that name dude, anyway? :P) approach to the game which is not the norm (everyone more or less pretending to be a civ and going for 'educated' guesses and analysis when you basically have zilch. I mean come on, regardless how inexperienced you are, no-one is idiotic enough to make such slips,I would imagine people and especially baddies checking, double checking, triple checking what they've written before posting). I did my share of playing the baddie in civ clothes last time, yeah it was fun for a while, we won, but flying below the radar, or not giving an 'educated' opinion, is just another technique of playing this. Maybe it's a shred thing.

Hahahaha - whether you can imagine it or not Lizzy, baddies make slips all the time. Even experienced baddies.

Lizzy, you are welcome to play in whatever style you want, but you must understand that it looks suspicious not to talk, because baddies have the most to lose from loose tongues.

This is not an "establishment," it is just a perception of various activities. I consider myself an experimental player and I am not interested in following the "rules" per se, as I demonstrated with the Llama Gambit, but it's unfair to complain when people quite naturally respond to what appear to be illogical or contrary actions. The risk of trying new things is that they may not work. You shouldn't be given a free pass to do whatever you want without scrutiny just because you choose to play in a radical style.

Well this is odd... gleam's anti-establishment ideas are interesting, and it is kind of classic baddie to hide in low participation, but it could actually just be his style (anyone who's played with him, any insight?) so idk. I guess it's good that Aces is putting pressure on him but I personally wouldn't commit to voting for a low poster regardless of alliance -- I need sufficient reason to think someone's bad. But I am just getting gradually more pinged by him the more he says stuff like "I wish you weren't making me talk this much". So it will be interesting to see how this continues.

LOL at Dex's reason for voting. I don't think that's helping your case much dude. He's also on my scrutiny list for tomorrow.

thellama73 wrote:Lizzy, you are welcome to play in whatever style you want, but you must understand that it looks suspicious not to talk, because baddies have the most to lose from loose tongues.

This is not an "establishment," it is just a perception of various activities. I consider myself an experimental player and I am not interested in following the "rules" per se, as I demonstrated with the Llama Gambit, but it's unfair to complain when people quite naturally respond to what appear to be illogical or contrary actions. The risk of trying new things is that they may not work. You shouldn't be given a free pass to do whatever you want without scrutiny just because you choose to play in a radical style.

Absolutely. but I find it very interesting how those who choose this way of playing are immediately targeted and are for some reason under more scrutiny than others, just because they don't follow the norm. I'm also intrigued as to why people jumped on the Matt bandwagon last night, when I also voted for myself. I think that type action can go both ways: I'm either a baddie hiding in plain sight and playing you all with nothing to lose because I have team mates to carry on with this, or just your average civ with again, nothing to lose.

Lizzy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Lizzy, you are welcome to play in whatever style you want, but you must understand that it looks suspicious not to talk, because baddies have the most to lose from loose tongues.

This is not an "establishment," it is just a perception of various activities. I consider myself an experimental player and I am not interested in following the "rules" per se, as I demonstrated with the Llama Gambit, but it's unfair to complain when people quite naturally respond to what appear to be illogical or contrary actions. The risk of trying new things is that they may not work. You shouldn't be given a free pass to do whatever you want without scrutiny just because you choose to play in a radical style.

Absolutely. but I find it very interesting how those who choose this way of playing are immediately targeted and are for some reason under more scrutiny than others, just because they don't follow the norm. I'm also intrigued as to why people jumped on the Matt bandwagon last night, when I also voted for myself. I think that type action can go both ways: I'm either a baddie hiding in plain sight and playing you all with nothing to lose because I have team mates to carry on with this, or just your average civ with again, nothing to lose.

I haven't forgotten about your self-vote. You are also on my list.

nutella wrote:

I haven't forgotten about your self-vote. You are also on my list.

Although, something tells me people might not have the chance to vote for me again.

Lizzy wrote: Absolutely. but I find it very interesting how those who choose this way of playing are immediately targeted and are for some reason under more scrutiny than others, just because they don't follow the norm. I'm also intrigued as to why people jumped on the Matt bandwagon last night, when I also voted for myself. I think that type action can go both ways: I'm either a baddie hiding in plain sight and playing you all with nothing to lose because I have team mates to carry on with this, or just your average civ with again, nothing to lose.

But it's not "just because you don't follow the norm." In many ways, being a low poster is the norm. It's because your actions lead us (some of us. I didn't think AP was bad) to suspect you.
If a player opens a chess game with pawn to h4 and ends up losing, it is not because he was picked on for deviating from the norm, it is not because the chess establishment doesn't like people who don't play e4, it is because it turned out to be a bad move.

Lizzy wrote:

nutella wrote:

I haven't forgotten about your self-vote. You are also on my list.

Although, something tells me people might not have the chance to vote for me again.

Meaning?

thellama73 wrote:

Lizzy wrote: Absolutely. but I find it very interesting how those who choose this way of playing are immediately targeted and are for some reason under more scrutiny than others, just because they don't follow the norm. I'm also intrigued as to why people jumped on the Matt bandwagon last night, when I also voted for myself. I think that type action can go both ways: I'm either a baddie hiding in plain sight and playing you all with nothing to lose because I have team mates to carry on with this, or just your average civ with again, nothing to lose.

But it's not "just because you don't follow the norm." In many ways, being a low poster is the norm. It's because your actions lead us (some of us. I didn't think AP was bad) to suspect you.
If a player opens a chess game with pawn to h4 and ends up losing, it is not because he was picked on for deviating from the norm, it is not because the chess establishment doesn't like people who don't play e4, it is because it turned out to be a bad move.

Rook 4?

And the other Q4?

I still am used to the old notation. Has more beauty.

Snow Dog wrote:

Lizzy wrote:

nutella wrote:

I haven't forgotten about your self-vote. You are also on my list.

Although, something tells me people might not have the chance to vote for me again.

Meaning?

I WILL KILL YOU ALL before we get to the next lynching. Or is it the other way around...?

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Lizzy wrote: Absolutely. but I find it very interesting how those who choose this way of playing are immediately targeted and are for some reason under more scrutiny than others, just because they don't follow the norm. I'm also intrigued as to why people jumped on the Matt bandwagon last night, when I also voted for myself. I think that type action can go both ways: I'm either a baddie hiding in plain sight and playing you all with nothing to lose because I have team mates to carry on with this, or just your average civ with again, nothing to lose.

But it's not "just because you don't follow the norm." In many ways, being a low poster is the norm. It's because your actions lead us (some of us. I didn't think AP was bad) to suspect you.
If a player opens a chess game with pawn to h4 and ends up losing, it is not because he was picked on for deviating from the norm, it is not because the chess establishment doesn't like people who don't play e4, it is because it turned out to be a bad move.

Rook 4?

And the other Q4?

I still am used to the old notation. Has more beauty.

Fine, Rook 4, but e4 is K4 for white, not Q4.

I guess it is just what you are used to.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Lizzy wrote: Absolutely. but I find it very interesting how those who choose this way of playing are immediately targeted and are for some reason under more scrutiny than others, just because they don't follow the norm. I'm also intrigued as to why people jumped on the Matt bandwagon last night, when I also voted for myself. I think that type action can go both ways: I'm either a baddie hiding in plain sight and playing you all with nothing to lose because I have team mates to carry on with this, or just your average civ with again, nothing to lose.

But it's not "just because you don't follow the norm." In many ways, being a low poster is the norm. It's because your actions lead us (some of us. I didn't think AP was bad) to suspect you.
If a player opens a chess game with pawn to h4 and ends up losing, it is not because he was picked on for deviating from the norm, it is not because the chess establishment doesn't like people who don't play e4, it is because it turned out to be a bad move.

Rook 4?

And the other Q4?

I still am used to the old notation. Has more beauty.

Fine, Rook 4, but e4 is K4 for white, not Q4.

I guess it is just what you are used to.

I guess. I wasn't criticising you btw. Just smalltalk......perhaps too small.

Well, enough game deconstruction for today. :P Back to analysing other affairs.

Snow Dog wrote:
I guess. I wasn't criticising you btw. Just smalltalk......perhaps too small.

Oh, I know you weren't criticising. And I enjoy the small talk. I think you have a point about the beauty of the old system, but in my opinion it is compensated for by the clarity of the new one. It is easier to visualize moves if each square has a consistent number, instead of being relative to the other pieces. That's just my opinion though.

Lizzy wrote:Well, enough game deconstruction for today. :P Back to analysing other affairs.

Good thinking, Lizzy. I'm over here being sad about James Gandolfini. Seems apropos to mention him in a Mafia game.

RIP, AP. We hardly knew ye.

Snow Dog wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

That escalated quickly. I mean, give him an , but don't start the bandwagon quite yet. I think it's good to push a little more participation out of him, though.

Matahari wrote:

Zany Dex wrote:I voted llama because I saw a bandwagon forming and I jumped on it.

Agreed. A bandwagon with two people? A few wheels short of a wagon, imo.

Maybe it was a band-bicycle.

AceofSpaces wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

Well then, I'm going to force you to play

I'm going to vote for you tomorrow, and I am going to campaign for other people to vote for you too.

(I'm also looking at a few other people, and I might post my thoughts later if I can bring them all together. But for right now, this seems like the most fun thing to devote my time too.)

Added: Quiet players get a rougher time because being quiet usually means you are trying to blend in and avoid notice. Something baddies do. It's harder for a bad player to be vocal because they have to bullshit most of the time, and it is only a matter of time before someone calls you on bullshit. Some people are really good and being vocal baddies, but it is a difficult art to master.

I'm reading you as baddie. Perfectly content to sit back and watch everyone else make mistakes while you slide by day by day. Not on my watch.

Added: Novel reasoning Dex.

Just wanna say something because this is what gets me frustrated at almost every single mafia game. Just because a player is quiet does not mean they are bad. Yes, baddies do sometimes lay low to avoid attention. But baddies also can be talkative in a game. Play style does not dictate affiliation on either the good or the bad teams. Just ask MP. He is always one of the most vocal people in every game and just because he is vocal does not make him a civilian every single time, just as someone being a quieter player does not make him or her a baddie. The problem with these games, as Kev (agleaminranks) pointed out, is that the antics that happen in each game most of the time consists of someone throwing out some bullhonkey accusation that seems to stick with everyone else for some reason and then that person ends up getting killed. There is never any concrete evidence and the whole game plays out as more of a guess-and-check type deal and the people that win are the people that happened to get luckier than everyone else. As mattchu pointer out earlier, the things that would incriminate someone happen outside of public knowledge in the thread, and the reasons people get lynched is usually for some reason that has nothing supporting it, just some half-hearted accusations that cant necessarily be proved or disproved, just people hop on board with it. "BADDIES DO THIS, YOU MUST BE BADDIE" is not a reason to kill someone, nor is "I READ YOU AS A BADDIE YOU MUST BE BAD EVERYONE VOTE HIM" Point is, play style does not make someone bad, good, or anything for that matter. It's like saying someone cant write good literature because they are left handed.

^ Defending a teammate?
You do have a very good point, though.

Spacedaisy wrote:Maybe it was a band-bicycle.

>SpaghettiEverywhere wrote: Just wanna say something because this is what gets me frustrated at almost every single mafia game. Just because a player is quiet does not mean they are bad. Yes, baddies do sometimes lay low to avoid attention. But baddies also can be talkative in a game. Play style does not dictate affiliation on either the good or the bad teams. Just ask MP. He is always one of the most vocal people in every game and just because he is vocal does not make him a civilian every single time, just as someone being a quieter player does not make him or her a baddie. The problem with these games, as Kev (agleaminranks) pointed out, is that the antics that happen in each game most of the time consists of someone throwing out some bullhonkey accusation that seems to stick with everyone else for some reason and then that person ends up getting killed. There is never any concrete evidence and the whole game plays out as more of a guess-and-check type deal and the people that win are the people that happened to get luckier than everyone else. As mattchu pointer out earlier, the things that would incriminate someone happen outside of public knowledge in the thread, and the reasons people get lynched is usually for some reason that has nothing supporting it, just some half-hearted accusations that cant necessarily be proved or disproved, just people hop on board with it. "BADDIES DO THIS, YOU MUST BE BADDIE" is not a reason to kill someone, nor is "I READ YOU AS A BADDIE YOU MUST BE BAD EVERYONE VOTE HIM" Point is, play style does not make someone bad, good, or anything for that matter. It's like saying someone cant write good literature because they are left handed.

I think our consternation comes more with it being a fairness issue. Our allegiances notwithstanding, we are having to put ourselves out there. The more we say, the more there is to analyze, and the more analyzing makes us more likely to be targeted, despite our actual culpability. It's not that his/her method puts her at a disadvantage because s/he is "lefthanded" but it puts all of us at the disadvantage (in perhaps in an "unfair" - for lack of a better word - manner).

I personally don't know how I feel about how agleaminranks is playing. I can't say he's been in any games I've played before. And I never live long enough to get to know anyone's playing style really

In any case he doesn't ping me that much yet.

As much as I agree with you, Spaghetti, it isn't so much Gleam's low participation that pings me, but his response to being called out. He seems annoyed by having to defend himself.

I too am furious at being called out. So angry

Zany Dex wrote:I too am furious at being called out. So angry

lolol you are quite zany.

Amazing. RIP wotsit. I just played this part of the game a few hours ago.

RIPIYWG, may you watch over the thread in death just as you did in life. Silently.

RIP agleamingranks.

Well... interesting.

Personally, I saw what gleamin was saying as basically an explanation of how DP plays as well. It's their game regardless of alignment.

I think Aces reacting to that discussion in a "you play quietly, so I'm voting you" instead of a "you play quietly, your explanations specifically in this game make you seem baddie, so I'm voting you" makes very little sense.

Probably going to be voting him again today, because just about everything he has done so far is coming across as bizzaro baddie, which is more then I can say about anyone else at this point.

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Aces is shortly behind him for voting for a similar reason, and then saying he isn't going to bother explaining his reason for his vote. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the weirder games I've played so far.

Linki: That's why I'm looking at him as well, DH. It's not so much the reasons behind it, but rather the "if you're going to be quiet, I'm voting you". There's no logic behind it.

Linki2: We will sacrifice ourselves so that you might live. #Based #TYBG

AceofSpaces wrote:By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.

How fatalistic of you. And on a furhter note, i'lll be looking at you

Snow Dog wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

Yes. Let's just lynch players because they play quiet and are honest about it. I'm looking at you, Snow Dog.

Is what lizard tongue man said very strange? Yeha, I think so. he basically said don't look at me I Don't like being looked at. That's not quite the way I would play, or how I think most civvies would play, but I don't think it made him bad. Now you're saying, let's lynch him no matter if he's civvie or not.

That's very bad, SD. It's basically saying that we should lynch people who don't like to talk because they aren't contributing. And that's something baddies like to do because they usually don't fight back too much because they are... by definition of the plan, quiet.


LINKI: Boo

Same opinion as you on Aces. Not as convinced he's abd as you seem to be, but I do think he's being strangely suspicious.

R.I.P agleaminranks

Boo's reason for wanted to vote for me makes no sense. He's made no sense this entire game. I was going to vote for agleaminranks because he point blank said "I will not contribute the the civie cause. I will let you all die while I watch without giving you any chance to examine me". Or something to that effect. That doesn't strike you as suspicious Boo?

Boo voted for me specifically because I voted for him. Now he is suspicious of me. Did I strike a nerve yesterday Boo? Are you so threatened by one vote?

AceofSpaces wrote:R.I.P agleaminranks

Boo's reason for wanted to vote for me makes no sense. He's made no sense this entire game. I was going to vote for agleaminranks because he point blank said "I will not contribute the the civie cause. I will let you all die while I watch without giving you any chance to examine me". Or something to that effect. That doesn't strike you as suspicious Boo?

Boo voted for me specifically because I voted for him. Now he is suspicious of me. Did I strike a nerve yesterday Boo? Are you so threatened by one vote?

I would have voted for you after you voted for anyone and felt you were above giving a reason for it.

I gave a reason, see below. Does knowing that in any way change the impact of my vote? Nope.

AceofSpaces wrote:By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.