The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Don't bother reading Ulysses. I did it last year and it was deffo not worth it.

linki Made: Lol

It's sitting on my desk right now I'm gonna at least give it a shot, and if it's really dumb, i'm just gonna throw it across the room mid sentence,

That won't be hard, since half the sentences in there are fifty pages long. To me it's one of the most blatant cases of the emperor not having any clothes.

*leans forward with interest* There's naked people?

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Don't bother reading Ulysses. I did it last year and it was deffo not worth it.

linki Made: Lol

It's sitting on my desk right now I'm gonna at least give it a shot, and if it's really dumb, i'm just gonna throw it across the room mid sentence,

That won't be hard, since half the sentences in there are fifty pages long. To me it's one of the most blatant cases of the emperor not having any clothes.

*leans forward with interest* There's naked people?

Yes, but not the good kind like you want.

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Don't bother reading Ulysses. I did it last year and it was deffo not worth it.

linki Made: Lol

It's sitting on my desk right now I'm gonna at least give it a shot, and if it's really dumb, i'm just gonna throw it across the room mid sentence,

That won't be hard, since half the sentences in there are fifty pages long. To me it's one of the most blatant cases of the emperor not having any clothes.

I'm on page 730 and probably haven't understood most of what's going on, which is slightly worrying because I wrongly assumed reading this first would make Finnegans Wake easier.

Yo, just a quick thought i want to get out while i'm thinking about it. Does talking about a player play style/tendencies this early in the game kinda taint possible future "AHH GOTCHA" moments later in the game?


k back to homeowrks

Made wrote:Yo, just a quick thought i want to get out while i'm thinking about it. Does talking about a player play style/tendencies this early in the game kinda taint possible future "AHH GOTCHA" moments later in the game?

I don't understand, explain more.

Oh fuck me, I missed the first vote and didn't even realize it (I checked the poll time this afternoon and was a bit confused as to why we had until Tuesday to vote. I see the day has restarted?). Apologies to the hostess and my fellow players.

I am so sorry, but I'm going to have to catch up tomorrow. I spent the day redoing my resume and job mess and just spent too much time in GoC reading and making cases and doing other stuff, and I really need to get off the computer to rest also I'd like to finish watching How to Train Your Dragon 2 because I'm a little kid in a grown woman's body and I love cartoons so sue me so I will be back. With thoughts and stuff.

nijuukyugou wrote:Oh fuck me, I missed the first vote and didn't even realize it (I checked the poll time this afternoon and was a bit confused as to why we had until Tuesday to vote. I see the day has restarted?). Apologies to the hostess and my fellow players.

I am so sorry, but I'm going to have to catch up tomorrow. I spent the day redoing my resume and job mess and just spent too much time in GoC reading and making cases and doing other stuff, and I really need to get off the computer to rest also I'd like to finish watching How to Train Your Dragon 2 because I'm a little kid in a grown woman's body and I love cartoons so sue me so I will be back. With thoughts and stuff.

Are you changing jobs? Move to DC and I will buy you a drink.

Ricochet wrote:I longed for many years to own a copy of Finnegans Wake, but when I finally had a chance, I hesitated and didn't buy it. People tended constantly to lower my expectations of it.

i've never heard anything good about it from people who've (tried to) read it

Long Con wrote:

Made wrote:Yo, just a quick thought i want to get out while i'm thinking about it. Does talking about a player play style/tendencies this early in the game kinda taint possible future "AHH GOTCHA" moments later in the game?

I don't understand, explain more.

Like Hawthorne effect kinda.

So let's say it's agreed that I'm a very outspoken player, unafraid to offend. If I'm meek and submissive, then that's a ping against how I normally play. If the game starts and everyone's like "Yeah man, Made, he's such a feisty one" Baddie Made would attempt to play to his feisty tendencies more than he might otherwise. Through this we'd lose an opportunity to spot a baddie Made.

Glad to see bwt's lynching didn't take! Way to not die, dude!

MP: to respond to your incredulity at my vote for you, I just felt like your posts had a very over-explainy/over-clarifying vibe to them. I didn't really mean that you backed down from your positions in the sense that you curled up into a little ball and let people kick you (which seems to be how you interpreted my accusation/vote rationale), but more like you talked and talked and explained and clarified to the point where what was once a bold statement (witch hunts and all that jazz) became much more watered down and conciliatory. That was my impression. Not sure yet if I will repeat my vote for you Day 1.2, but you're definitely still a candidate for me. Sorry!

So sorry I missed the first day, hostess! I was out of town over the weekend and didn't really check in. I will catch up tomorrow, which is apparently Day 1, Version 2.0.

SVS, you asked why I had a problem with role analysis. I don't. I have a problem with LC's one. Period. Here it is again (below).

Give me one comment which made you actually think about things and somehow progressed the game. There is not one. And again, had I not said a thing, no one would have said a thing. Everyone just ignored that post because it basically said nothing. Now, if you're all going to tell me that his role analyses are never helpful, I might back off, but to me, the fact that it is not helpful combined with the fact he chose to focus on all the people who might turn out to be harder to lynch because they have BTSC or something like that and not on any role that is actually worth talking about, that comes very close to a baddie behaviour. And LC. I saw that you said you're done talking about it. I am only trying to get to the bottom of this. I'm sorry if it's pissing you off.

Long Con wrote:Well, since I'm on late at night, and not many people are around, I'll go through the roles and make some comments about them. That's always fun.

George Cukor wrote:American Director of Classic Comedies. Can target a player to reference a romantic comedy in each post they make.

Hilarious. Total window-dressing role, it doesn't affect the game too much. Perhaps we could increase this role's value to the Civs by having George target people he suspects.

Jean Luc Godard New Wave Director: Can send one message every day period to protege Truffaut.

François Truffaut New Wave Director: Can send one message every night period to mentor Godard.

Cool, limited BTSC. Between these guys and Tarantino and Rodriguez, we should have four Civs that are slightly more safe from lynching than the rest. These four are very valuable Civs.

Darren Aronofsky Another auteur who can find BTSC with David Lean using math, a common theme in his films.

Interesting. This role could probably benefit from some creative ways to use math, another BTSC Civ pair would be very useful.

Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.

This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.

Cecil B Demille Known for his flamboyant showmanship, he also successfully made the transition from silent to sound. Each night he searches for Howard Hawks. If he finds him, they gain BTSC.

Another opportunity to strengthen the Civs. It would be nice to be able to devise a way to help him find Howard, but I don't know any way that wouldn't simultaneously put Howard in grave danger.

[Orson Welles Excess and the demise of Don Quixote left the former prodigy weak. However, in his early days, he is stronger. For the first 5 votes, his vote will count as 2. And 0 thereafter.

Unfortunate, because it's in the mid to late game that the extra votes really start to make more of a difference.

Ingmar Bergman Evocative Swedish film director who often had religion as a theme in his films. May grant amnesty to a player 3x, which will result in his/her removal from the lynch that day.

Is this something that gets used the night before? Or can Ingmar remove someone from the poll mid-day?

Mafia - The Brotherhood (BTSC). Odd Night Kill.

Coen Bros. Jewish brothers who often use the same actors in their films. Can call upon the Golem to protect a player.

Duplass Bros. Mumblecore creators. Inspired by Cassavetes, their super-realism shows the nuances of every day life.

Wachowskis. Siblings known for their multi-part storytelling.

These baddie teams are somewhat weak, unless there are secrets, it looks like Duplass and Wachowski are pretty vanilla. And these guys seem to have the only protector role in the game, will they protect only themselves, or try to protect someone else to push suspicion on them? Probably the latter in earlier game, and the latter, later.

Mafia - The Hacks (BTSC). Even Night Kill.

Michael Bay Known for explosions over plot, this director, can distract civs and turn their minds off (role block).

Uwe Boll Known for video game adaptations, he can twice lock the thread when his work gets criticized.

Roland Emmerich Natural disaster movie guru, his over the top films do not garner much critical acclaim.

A roleblock and a thread-locker. Thread locking seems really annoying. What does it mean, no one can post until the Day or Night is over? I think it would take some skill to do this at the right time to gain a baddie advantage.

Looks like it's going to be, as advertised, mostly a down-to-earth straight-up Mafia game with few surprise angles from the roles... but the number of events may shake that up. Prizes and results of events could be the real bread and butter of this game, with the team that wins gaining a real advantage.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, I understand spurring on-topic discussion is most favorable, but I don't want to harbor an environment where players are afraid to post OT in Day 0 because they fear it will get them lynched the following day. I just hate the idea of that. I know that if I'm super excited about a theme, and there's at least someone else to discuss it with, I have fun doing so.

All I know is I won't be casting a vote for Llama today. It's too soon, and at least he threw a theory out there.

Bass, I do agree that MM's self-vote is odd. I know he's done it before, but I still fail to see how it makes sense for civilians to do this. If you're a civilian, chances are you are the only person you know is 100% civilian. Why risk putting a vote on yourself when you at least have some chance of hitting a baddie with someone else? So what if you start a bandwagon? It's better than risking your own life, which YOU know is 100% civilian. Just seems silly to me. Always will.

Sorry folks, should have included all this in my previous post as well. Got "Submit" button happy. :P

Well, voting someone else right off the bat didn't work out for me last time.

Ricochet wrote:The only thing I can trace back in the thread regarding MM's self-vote was that there was a lot of irony regarding MM being lynched again on D1, he excused himself for going on a boat trip, even more ironies about lynching him followed, to which he just said fine, I'll vote for myself, because I'll be away. He also voted himself knowing the vote is not changeable, judging from his post. It is an odd vote, indeed, but perhaps this whole thing can at the same time be considered to be completely ironical?

I did not know that I couldn't change my vote until after I voted. I was sharing the game mechanic with others because Mongoose had not yet said so.

The reason I voted is because often hosts will penalize players for missing votes. Since I was going to be gone all weekend, I voted early.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

Thats the old school way. You don't vote for nubs on Day One. They never come back if you do, lol. And being right in one game is trumped by getting a new cultist...um, player in the long term. Yeah. Plus it's just polite. It's one of those things like not voting for the silenced or insanified.

Then perhaps you should talk to Mongoose and tell her not to make consecutive Day 1's.

MovingPictures07 wrote:- I appreciate the reasoning for not voting MM, but I still HATE self votes. If I wanted to avoid suspicion on D1, I could just say, "self-voting, really busy, see you guys later!" And I already explained the logic for why it makes no sense for a civilian to do it, ESPECIALLY at this stage (later on, as a tactical emotional move, OK, but still). Anyway, I'm not sure on MM, which is why I didn't end up voting for him, but I think I'd rather see him go at this point of MM, Llama, and BWT.

I don't feel right placing my vote randomly, even on Day 1. I don't feel any other player deserves to receive my vote, which could be easy prey for other players later on in the day. If you're wondering about my previous Day 1 vote, I made all my explanations in that game, so look over there. And yes I have recently self-voted in a game, but that was Oblique Mafia, which I think is excused from any meta-gaming.

MP, why don't you come and address MattMatt's self-vote?

Sorry I haven't been around guys! I was taking my social work license exam and I had to do a lot of last minute studying, but it all paid off!! I passed!

sabie12 wrote:Sorry I haven't been around guys! I was taking my social work license exam and I had to do a lot of last minute studying, but it all paid off!! I passed!

Don't buy into the fiction that you need permission from the government to earn a living.

RIP BWT. But welcome back to the land of the living! Way to go, Stanley!

When I get more time (I have to leave for class in just a few minutes), I'm going to look back at the D1 voting results and posts and see what I can find. I honestly think there might be a baddie in at least one of BWT's voters, but I'm sure there's at least one baddie who threw off and made a meaningless vote as well. Just will have to see if I can find anything notable.

A Person wrote:I remembered to vote with literally 5 minutes left, realized my vote can't change the results unless there is a crazy amount of votes for one person, and self voted.

Dom wrote:
If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

Canucklehead wrote:Glad to see bwt's lynching didn't take! Way to not die, dude!

MP: to respond to your incredulity at my vote for you, I just felt like your posts had a very over-explainy/over-clarifying vibe to them. I didn't really mean that you backed down from your positions in the sense that you curled up into a little ball and let people kick you (which seems to be how you interpreted my accusation/vote rationale), but more like you talked and talked and explained and clarified to the point where what was once a bold statement (witch hunts and all that jazz) became much more watered down and conciliatory. That was my impression. Not sure yet if I will repeat my vote for you Day 1.2, but you're definitely still a candidate for me. Sorry!

Oh, okay, this makes a lot more sense. I was confused by your wording then.

Well, I can respond to that and just say that what you're describing: That's just me. I do that all the time, regardless of mafia or not. I tend to overexaggerate or misrepresent what I'm saying, people are like, 'Huh?', then I have to try to explain what exactly I meant. Of course, that doesn't happen in every occurrence ever, but it has happened to me enough.

If you think that makes me a baddie, by all means.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:- I appreciate the reasoning for not voting MM, but I still HATE self votes. If I wanted to avoid suspicion on D1, I could just say, "self-voting, really busy, see you guys later!" And I already explained the logic for why it makes no sense for a civilian to do it, ESPECIALLY at this stage (later on, as a tactical emotional move, OK, but still). Anyway, I'm not sure on MM, which is why I didn't end up voting for him, but I think I'd rather see him go at this point of MM, Llama, and BWT.

I don't feel right placing my vote randomly, even on Day 1. I don't feel any other player deserves to receive my vote, which could be easy prey for other players later on in the day. If you're wondering about my previous Day 1 vote, I made all my explanations in that game, so look over there. And yes I have recently self-voted in a game, but that was Oblique Mafia, which I think is excused from any meta-gaming.

Thanks for explaining.

@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

Not saying I suspect you here for that. I don't have much of an opinion yet.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

Thats the old school way. You don't vote for nubs on Day One. They never come back if you do, lol. And being right in one game is trumped by getting a new cultist...um, player in the long term. Yeah. Plus it's just polite. It's one of those things like not voting for the silenced or insanified.

Then perhaps you should talk to Mongoose and tell her not to make consecutive Day 1's.

He got his grace day. I see an at least semi hot seat in his near future as far as Llama is concerned.

FZ. wrote:SVS, you asked why I had a problem with role analysis. I don't. I have a problem with LC's one. Period. Here it is again (below).

Give me one comment which made you actually think about things and somehow progressed the game. There is not one. And again, had I not said a thing, no one would have said a thing. Everyone just ignored that post because it basically said nothing. Now, if you're all going to tell me that his role analyses are never helpful, I might back off, but to me, the fact that it is not helpful combined with the fact he chose to focus on all the people who might turn out to be harder to lynch because they have BTSC or something like that and not on any role that is actually worth talking about, that comes very close to a baddie behaviour. And LC. I saw that you said you're done talking about it. I am only trying to get to the bottom of this. I'm sorry if it's pissing you off.

I think becasue at KSite you don't post roles, you are misconstruing the point of this. I can't imagine what you would make of aapje~ he deconstructs all the roles in thread and asks a trillion questions on each in thread. Would it surprise you that some people don't actually read the roles? But in addition, and this is a salient point here, LC is a big fan of thread collaboration & planning. With all the civ BTS in this game, if we can do some planning in the open, it helps us to stay on track and not attack each other. Hopefully the people who could be helped by it did not ignore it.

You asked for comments I found helpful. Well, there are these:

Long Con wrote:

George Cukor wrote:American Director of Classic Comedies. Can target a player to reference a romantic comedy in each post they make.

Hilarious. Total window-dressing role, it doesn't affect the game too much. Perhaps we could increase this role's value to the Civs by having George target people he suspects.

Darren Aronofsky Another auteur who can find BTSC with David Lean using math, a common theme in his films.

Interesting. This role could probably benefit from some creative ways to use math, another BTSC Civ pair would be very useful.

Hopefully George caught the suggestion that he should choose his target based on suspicion, not on lulz. Some people like to target people with powers like his for max comic effect (I know I do ). But if George targets those he suspects, then he will be telling everyone whom he suspects. If George is not ready to make a case, or is a crap case maker, this signals the GOOD case makers to maybe take a look at the target. It also gives us the opinions of a known civ, instead of an in thread case from someone we may not trust.

As for Darren, I am hoping that those who are good at the maths can make some suggestions, or ask the host some questions that might help Darren use his powers in a creative way; this is a very vague role description. It does not say "Secrets" and I presume that Darren got some clarification. But if you don't ask the right questions, you may not get the right answers. Some good in thread speculation here will not hurt anyone, and might help Darren. It was a good suggestion, especially since the more civ BTS the better.

His question re Ingmar Bergman was spot on as well:

Long Con wrote:

Ingmar Bergman Evocative Swedish film director who often had religion as a theme in his films. May grant amnesty to a player 3x, which will result in his/her removal from the lynch that day.

Is this something that gets used the night before? Or can Ingmar remove someone from the poll mid-day?

I don't know about you, but were I Ingmar, I might not have thought to ask the host this question. Maybe after reading this, Ingmar did.

I know I had a question to ask the host about my own role, and I am someone who tends to look for loopholes to maximize my powers. It is always a good idea to keep an eye on LC, when I play with him, I never take that eye off of him, lol. I have played with LC for years & years, and I seldom trust him, he thinks very differently than I do.

He's an incredibly evil baddie when he's bad, but he's an incredibly helpful civ when he's not. Not seeing the evil at this point.

Yeah, I agree with SVS's analysis of LC and his role breakdown/thoughts. I don't think his post in any way guarantees he's a civ, but I'm certainly not any more suspicious of him because of it, apart from my constant baseline suspicion of "I'm afriad of LC 'cuz he's too damn good as a baddie and I know that's he's capable of easily hoodwinking me". I always have that in the back of my mind because I'm paranoid, but I haven't seen anything from LC yet that pushes me beyond mere paranoia.

I don't agree with FZ that LC's post "said nothing", and "wasn't helpful"...can you give an example, FZ, of a role analysis that says something and is helpful?? That might help me understand where you're coming from with your read on LC here.

S~V~S wrote:@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

This is all very true, and why I tend to always think MP is bad as well. Although for me it is not so much the hyperbole as the "overly reasonable" demeanor, where he seems to very thoughtfully take in everyone's opinion and analyze it. I know he always does it, but it always reads like a baddie trying too hard to seem helpful.

DFaraday wrote:So sorry I missed the first day, hostess! I was out of town over the weekend and didn't really check in. I will catch up tomorrow, which is apparently Day 1, Version 2.0.

It's okay, the poll ended at a dumb time, so I totally understand.

Happy Monday, players!

I am sorry about my absence and missed vote. I was putting a bunk bed together for my boys. I thought the vote was later, I didn't make it online yesterday anyways.

I still have no idea who I would have voted for anyways. I'll do better from now on.

"I was putting a bunk bed together" is my favorite excuse ever. No one could possibly make up such a thing if it weren't true. I will have to remember to use it in the future.

Glad to have you here, BR!

Vompatti wrote:When I had an inflatable mattress it took my hours to fill it. I can't even blow balloons. I think I'm probably dying of lung cancer.

You should get an electric pump. Also, I had an air mattress once that had a slow leak in it. Every two hours, my head would bang against the wood floor and I'd have to get up and refill it. Dark times.

I've been quite preoccupied with the Champs game, so forgive my lack of posting here.

I'm reading back and will post some comments as I go.

first up @FZ, I just your post about how LC's comments about the roles says nothing. I think you maybe just have some blinders on a bit, there. You are absolutely right. I can read that whole post on the assumption LC is bad, and it makes sense, as in it reads like a baddie trying to post stuff without really saying anything risky. I get it. BUT, on Day 1, civvies often have just as little to say as baddies. So, I read it again assuming LC is civ, and it still makes sense. The fact is, to me it could go either way, but you are CHOOSING to read it the bad way. As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is a wash.

Moving on.

Made wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Made wrote:Yo, just a quick thought i want to get out while i'm thinking about it. Does talking about a player play style/tendencies this early in the game kinda taint possible future "AHH GOTCHA" moments later in the game?

I don't understand, explain more.

Like Hawthorne effect kinda.

So let's say it's agreed that I'm a very outspoken player, unafraid to offend. If I'm meek and submissive, then that's a ping against how I normally play. If the game starts and everyone's like "Yeah man, Made, he's such a feisty one" Baddie Made would attempt to play to his feisty tendencies more than he might otherwise. Through this we'd lose an opportunity to spot a baddie Made.

This is an interesting question. People who can "read" a player's baddie or civvies game can be one of the more dangerous mafia factors out there. And you are right, it's possible that if someone comments early on that someone is quieter than normal and they are quiet when they are bad or whatever, it can indeed cause the player to shift play style and cover their tracks. But just as some players are good at reading the play style, they are also often good at catching the reversal, knowwadimean?

What pings me more, for a Day 1, is when people bring that kind of thing up way early. I was very curious to see what would shake down from Vomps getting called out on Day 1, and part of my reread is to go and write down which people had glommed onto that. Calling Vomps out that early seemed odd to me, BUT I also know there are a few people who like to shake the tree on Day 1, so I considered it more of a potential gambit than a baddie move. More interesting to see who followed.

Mongoose wrote:

While I'm rereading, I've just got to comment on this ad. I laugh at the top line calling Dennis Hopper a master of his craft. When he made Easy Rider, he barely knew what he was doing!! He actually did not know that once you physically sliced off a part of a film reel, that you could go back and put it back in again, so every time he "edited", he thought those scenes were lost forever. That's partly why Easy Rider feels so disjointed.

So I've finished my read of Day 1.2.

So llama I guess wasn't doing a Day 1 gambit to see who bites but genuinely thinks Vomps is acting bad. So far, Vomps seems to be playing a more "normal" game, meaning less throwaway posts, nonsensical comments and "tures". In fact, he is directly responding to posts, like with the "what makes you think I'm afraid of being lynched" comment. But, llama called him out on this so early, I'm not sure how that would affect Vomps. Would Vompatti react in any noticeable way to being called out on something related to play style? I feel like he's usually locked into a certain mode for a game?

I dislike voting for people on play style, but like I said earlier, sometimes people genuinely do just "know" when a player is off. Roxy certainly has my ticket a lot of the time. So I'd like to hear some corroboration, some support to llama's views. Do others feel that Vompatti is playing in a "bad Vomps" style, or is this just more on-point than normal, not indicating alignment? I won't vote play style based on one person's view. but there is a consensus that something is off, I could consider it this early in a game.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

This is all very true, and why I tend to always think MP is bad as well. Although for me it is not so much the hyperbole as the "overly reasonable" demeanor, where he seems to very thoughtfully take in everyone's opinion and analyze it. I know he always does it, but it always reads like a baddie trying too hard to seem helpful.

LOL, that is MP in everyday life. Decisions never come quickly in our house.

timmer wrote: What pings me more, for a Day 1, is when people bring that kind of thing up way early. I was very curious to see what would shake down from Vomps getting called out on Day 1, and part of my reread is to go and write down which people had glommed onto that. Calling Vomps out that early seemed odd to me, BUT I also know there are a few people who like to shake the tree on Day 1, so I considered it more of a potential gambit than a baddie move. More interesting to see who followed.

Yeah, I'm definitely a tree shaker.

Just finished rereading Day 1 (won't bother rereading Day 0).

Only a few things to note:

The only person who seemed perturbed at llama's calling out of Vompatti was Lizzy, who used accusatory language that no one else did. But llama said she is often like this in regards to Vomps? Protective? Sorry, I should know these things but I hadn't played a game on this site in a LONG time before these current ones, and I've got memory issues that get in the way of details like this.

Either way if Vomps flips bad, I'll be looking Lizzy's way.

And it was pointed out that Vomps HAS been more active recently in games as a civ, so I'm now feeling like this whole topic is maybe taking up too much time and i'm going to move on from it.

Also, I don't think there is anything to Rico's lack of answering the are you bad question. If he were bad, I think his teammates would have told him to answer it, and his responses would have been different.

timmer wrote:Also, I don't think there is anything to Rico's lack of answering the are you bad question. If he were bad, I think his teammates would have told him to answer it, and his responses would have been different.

So Rico is good? That is the implication I got.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

timmer wrote:Also, I don't think there is anything to Rico's lack of answering the are you bad question. If he were bad, I think his teammates would have told him to answer it, and his responses would have been different.

So Rico is good? That is the implication I got.

At worst, it's a neutral read for me.

MM, what are your thoughts on the game?

I will point out that Rico DID eventually reverse his position and answered the question directly. It is possible thta his teammates just took a little time in telling him to answer it.

That said, I'm not planning to vote for him today. Today is all about Vompatti.

No pings. Everything seems honky-dory right now. But I skimmed last night after getting home, and was rather tired. Vote records may be the best place to start, since it is rare to get such bonus material on Day 1. Contrary to MP, I think random votes are far more suspect than self-votes. As a baddie, I have 'random voted' before, but it's an excuse to vote for someone for no reason, and it typically isn't actually random.

Linki: wombatist

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Linki: wombatist

Just be glad I'm not a newtist. :P

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Linki: wombatist

Just be glad I'm not a newtist. :P

Don't look at me. I've gradee-ated!

timmer wrote:

Made wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Made wrote:Yo, just a quick thought i want to get out while i'm thinking about it. Does talking about a player play style/tendencies this early in the game kinda taint possible future "AHH GOTCHA" moments later in the game?

I don't understand, explain more.

Like Hawthorne effect kinda.

So let's say it's agreed that I'm a very outspoken player, unafraid to offend. If I'm meek and submissive, then that's a ping against how I normally play. If the game starts and everyone's like "Yeah man, Made, he's such a feisty one" Baddie Made would attempt to play to his feisty tendencies more than he might otherwise. Through this we'd lose an opportunity to spot a baddie Made.

This is an interesting question. People who can "read" a player's baddie or civvies game can be one of the more dangerous mafia factors out there. And you are right, it's possible that if someone comments early on that someone is quieter than normal and they are quiet when they are bad or whatever, it can indeed cause the player to shift play style and cover their tracks. But just as some players are good at reading the play style, they are also often good at catching the reversal, knowwadimean?

What pings me more, for a Day 1, is when people bring that kind of thing up way early. I was very curious to see what would shake down from Vomps getting called out on Day 1, and part of my reread is to go and write down which people had glommed onto that. Calling Vomps out that early seemed odd to me, BUT I also know there are a few people who like to shake the tree on Day 1, so I considered it more of a potential gambit than a baddie move. More interesting to see who followed.

I thought it was more of a gambit on Llama's part, given that he did some analysis on the responses to it. Of course, the best baddie way to do something like that is to do something with serious intent, but to leave a back door of "it was a gambit". And now Llama is after Vompatti for realsies, it seems, so not sure where I fall on that one. I still don't know why he's so focused or sure about Vomps.

I can see the advantage of, instead of immediately analyzing a player's style at the outset, just taking notes and making it a case later. Then you don't affect the analysis be exposing that it's happening. That sounds like some advanced Mafia playing, requiring a reliable idea of how a player acts normally in previous games. A player would have to act the same way over several games in order for an analysis of their past behaviour to be viable.

Thanks for clarifying, Made, I think I got your point now!

FZ. wrote:Can we please get the results ASAP?

FZ, is there any particular reason you needed the results ASAP, or are you just super impatient?

Long Con wrote:

timmer wrote:

Made wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Made wrote:Yo, just a quick thought i want to get out while i'm thinking about it. Does talking about a player play style/tendencies this early in the game kinda taint possible future "AHH GOTCHA" moments later in the game?

I don't understand, explain more.

Like Hawthorne effect kinda.

So let's say it's agreed that I'm a very outspoken player, unafraid to offend. If I'm meek and submissive, then that's a ping against how I normally play. If the game starts and everyone's like "Yeah man, Made, he's such a feisty one" Baddie Made would attempt to play to his feisty tendencies more than he might otherwise. Through this we'd lose an opportunity to spot a baddie Made.

This is an interesting question. People who can "read" a player's baddie or civvies game can be one of the more dangerous mafia factors out there. And you are right, it's possible that if someone comments early on that someone is quieter than normal and they are quiet when they are bad or whatever, it can indeed cause the player to shift play style and cover their tracks. But just as some players are good at reading the play style, they are also often good at catching the reversal, knowwadimean?

What pings me more, for a Day 1, is when people bring that kind of thing up way early. I was very curious to see what would shake down from Vomps getting called out on Day 1, and part of my reread is to go and write down which people had glommed onto that. Calling Vomps out that early seemed odd to me, BUT I also know there are a few people who like to shake the tree on Day 1, so I considered it more of a potential gambit than a baddie move. More interesting to see who followed.

I thought it was more of a gambit on Llama's part, given that he did some analysis on the responses to it. Of course, the best baddie way to do something like that is to do something with serious intent, but to leave a back door of "it was a gambit". And now Llama is after Vompatti for realsies, it seems, so not sure where I fall on that one. I still don't know why he's so focused or sure about Vomps.

I can see the advantage of, instead of immediately analyzing a player's style at the outset, just taking notes and making it a case later. Then you don't affect the analysis be exposing that it's happening. That sounds like some advanced Mafia playing, requiring a reliable idea of how a player acts normally in previous games. A player would have to act the same way over several games in order for an analysis of their past behaviour to be viable.

Thanks for clarifying, Made, I think I got your point now!

I missed this in my stupor-read last night.

Long Con wrote: I thought it was more of a gambit on Llama's part, given that he did some analysis on the responses to it. Of course, the best baddie way to do something like that is to do something with serious intent, but to leave a back door of "it was a gambit". And now Llama is after Vompatti for realsies, it seems, so not sure where I fall on that one. I still don't know why he's so focused or sure about Vomps.

When I gambit, you'll know it!

Canucklehead wrote:

FZ. wrote:Can we please get the results ASAP?

FZ, is there any particular reason you needed the results ASAP, or are you just super impatient?

I can certainly think of one reason that did not need addressing.