The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

FZ. wrote:I just want to address the info dumping issue. The only thing that I said that could be considered as something of the sort is saying that Epi wasn't on my team. Had I just said that the probability of him being a baddie was higher for me because he wasn't a Donner, and then voted for him, would you not know he's not on my team?
The only way people would vote for someone on their team, is if they were baddies and then they'd probably move that vote before the actual deadline. So I am now convinced I didn't info dump, and I take my apology back.
And people voting for those who allegedly info dumped are not looking very civvie like in my eyes. *eyes* llama

The rules indicate that normal mafia rules apply. Role-outing is always against the rules, but some hosts don't state that infodumping is against the rules (ie. see GoC rules), so it is unclear if that is considered normal mafia rules or not.

So to solve that problem, Roxy, is infodumping permitted?

Be that as it may, the thing is, I'd like to know how in the bottom line, what I said was info dumping when everything I've said could have been realized from my actions?


@linki: LOL SVS. Glad to know I scare someone.
llama, I just think that your vote was an easy excuse to vote for someone and not something civ llama would do when trying to look for a real baddie

It was Day 1, we had no thread evidence because there had been no lunches yet, everyone was gunning for Epi, who I did not think was bad, so I decided to use my vote the only productive way I could, to disincentive bad behavior. What do you want for nothin', a rubber biscuit?

Well, you said that my theory made sense, hence there was a logic in voting for Epi, when did that get lost?

thellama73 wrote:Snowman and FZ both make a lot of sense, but I'm not seeing the post where Epig says or implies that everyone is/should be afraid of him. Did Dom just make this up?

And you also said Rico seemed baddie to you (you also said that he always does). But this means you had at least 2 options, yet you decided to "punish" someone you thought was not lying, because you accused him for info-dumping, hence you decided to take out someone you thought was a civ.

FZ. wrote:Well, you said that my theory made sense, hence there was a logic in voting for Epi, when did that get lost?

thellama73 wrote:Snowman and FZ both make a lot of sense, but I'm not seeing the post where Epig says or implies that everyone is/should be afraid of him. Did Dom just make this up?

And you also said Rico seemed baddie to you (you also said that he always does). But this means you had at least 2 options, yet you decided to "punish" someone you thought was not lying, because you accused him for info-dumping, hence you decided to take out someone you thought was a civ.

When did I say I thought he was not lying? I explicitly raised the possibility that he was lying.

And yes, process of elimination would work if we all said who our BTSC partners are, but that is not the game I want to play.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:Well, you said that my theory made sense, hence there was a logic in voting for Epi, when did that get lost?

thellama73 wrote:Snowman and FZ both make a lot of sense, but I'm not seeing the post where Epig says or implies that everyone is/should be afraid of him. Did Dom just make this up?

And you also said Rico seemed baddie to you (you also said that he always does). But this means you had at least 2 options, yet you decided to "punish" someone you thought was not lying, because you accused him for info-dumping, hence you decided to take out someone you thought was a civ.

When did I say I thought he was not lying? I explicitly raised the possibility that he was lying.

And yes, process of elimination would work if we all said who our BTSC partners are, but that is not the game I want to play.

When you regard something as info dumping, it's usually when you consider it to be the truth. Otherwise, it's just lying and I think that's a great tactic if it works for you, and it surprises me that you don't think that way.
I don't think it was about everyone saying who are BTSC was, but like I've said before, if I was going to vote for him based on my own process of elimination, people would logically assume he's not on my team. There was no process of elimination other than that. Just by saying to me "you raise a good point", I would think he was not on your team as well, or you'd try to convince me my idea was wrong.

FZ. wrote:Had I just said that the probability of him being a baddie was higher for me because he wasn't a Donner, and then voted for him, would you not know he's not on my team?

But then there's also a possibility of you being a Donner as well. You gave out two juicy tidbits: you're not a Donner, and you're not on Epig's team.

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:Had I just said that the probability of him being a baddie was higher for me because he wasn't a Donner, and then voted for him, would you not know he's not on my team?

But then there's also a possibility of you being a Donner as well. You gave out two juicy tidbits: you're not a Donner, and you're not on Epig's team.

That maybe true, but basically you're asking me not to voice any conclusions I have from the game. Didn't Elizabeth Donner info dump as well by letting everyone know Epi was not a Donner?

I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

And for what it's worth, I could have been a baddie from the other team, and him not being on my team, would have meant nothing.

@linki: Which role?

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

Maybe?

Considering the message goes through the Host,I doubt she'd allow such format of information if it'd be against the rules.

What I'm trying to say is, info dumping is a general term and in my opinion should only be prohibited if it can not be interpreted in more than one way

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:Had I just said that the probability of him being a baddie was higher for me because he wasn't a Donner, and then voted for him, would you not know he's not on my team?

But then there's also a possibility of you being a Donner as well. You gave out two juicy tidbits: you're not a Donner, and you're not on Epig's team.

That maybe true, but basically you're asking me not to voice any conclusions I have from the game. Didn't Elizabeth Donner info dump as well by letting everyone know Epi was not a Donner?

In a more typical game, that kind of statement would be a throwaway as there is no, or limited, civ BTS. But in this game, Rox has balanced all that civ BTS with the role change dynamic. So Elizabeth did expose Epi & MP iirc as "not Donners" but tomorrow one or both of them may well be Donners.

So

i am thinking of it more as a conversation starter than as "info dumping".

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

S~V~S wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:Had I just said that the probability of him being a baddie was higher for me because he wasn't a Donner, and then voted for him, would you not know he's not on my team?

But then there's also a possibility of you being a Donner as well. You gave out two juicy tidbits: you're not a Donner, and you're not on Epig's team.

That maybe true, but basically you're asking me not to voice any conclusions I have from the game. Didn't Elizabeth Donner info dump as well by letting everyone know Epi was not a Donner?

In a more typical game, that kind of statement would be a throwaway as there is no, or limited, civ BTS. But in this game, Rox has balanced all that civ BTS with the role change dynamic. So Elizabeth did expose Epi & MP iirc as "not Donners" but tomorrow one or both of them may well be Donners.

So

i am thinking of it more as a conversation starter than as "info dumping".

I agree with this.

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

The first example is pretty much the whole discussion that drives mafia.

The only distinction is that if you have particular information that someone is bad or civilian (say, you have BTSC with them), the second example is forbidden. Instead, you should disguise it as the first example. Regardless of whether you have information or whether your thoughts are based purely on the contents of the thread, the first example should be how you word your opinions.

The second example is "role outing" and is against the rules of pretty much every game of mafia I've ever played.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

Which would put what I and LC said as acceptable. I was either saying I think Epi is likely a baddie because of something, or was lying about it. Either way, I didn't know he was a baddie. Hence I think llama's vote was a baddie's excuse for voting like that, or an overreaction at best.

Okay - then here's what I THINK:

1) MP and Epi are not Donners.
2) Llama or SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner.
3) The lunch was stopped by a tie (can someone give me a tally of the ending votes?) or by Jacob Donner (I don't have a theory for why unless LC is Jacob Donner).
4) Epi somehow predicted that the lunch would be stopped (he is a Reed and they planned a tie vote? or is he a Donner?), either way, I don't think Epi is bad - for now
5) Maybe Epi guessed that SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner (or not) either way, SVS seemed to think that he did, so I don't think that SVS is bad either - for now.
6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
7) I suspect that Snowman might be bad but SVS defended him so he might also be a Donner.

That is all.

FZ. wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

Which would put what I and LC said as acceptable. I was either saying I think Epi is likely a baddie because of something, or was lying about it. Either way, I didn't know he was a baddie. Hence I think llama's vote was a baddie's excuse for voting like that, or an overreaction at best.

Yes, true, but if everyone from each civilian group comes in and says "Epi isn't on my team!", then it means Epi has to be bad, or someone has to be lying.

What you and LC said isn't role outing, but it's info dumping, which can be a bit of a grey area.

Zomberella12 wrote:6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
That is all.

Clarification - I didn't vote for LC because I thought he info-dumped. It was because his posts were short, lacked real thought, and seemed to latch on to others' ideas that didn't make sense.

Also, I think that FZ's analysis of Epi's % chance of being is civie-like behavior.

I would like to hear more analysis from MP and Snowman re thoughts/ideas.

FZ. wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

Which would put what I and LC said as acceptable. I was either saying I think Epi is likely a baddie because of something, or was lying about it. Either way, I didn't know he was a baddie. Hence I think llama's vote was a baddie's excuse for voting like that, or an overreaction at best.

I was trying to stop something I saw happening, which is the following: Suppose everyone in the thread had followed your and LC's example. Suppose everyone in the thread said "A, B, and C are my BTSC partners." How long do you think the game would last and how fun would it be? I don't think what you did crossed the line, I think LC came closer (and I also thought he might be lying) but if that line of posting had continued, I think it would have ruined the game.

That is my opinion, and you are free to disagree. But if you think the case on LC was trumped up, recall that I am far from the only person who voted for him, and I gave a better reason than many.

Zomberella12 wrote:Okay - then here's what I THINK:

1) MP and Epi are not Donners.
2) Llama or SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner.
3) The lunch was stopped by a tie (can someone give me a tally of the ending votes?) or by Jacob Donner (I don't have a theory for why unless LC is Jacob Donner).
4) Epi somehow predicted that the lunch would be stopped (he is a Reed and they planned a tie vote? or is he a Donner?), either way, I don't think Epi is bad - for now
5) Maybe Epi guessed that SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner (or not) either way, SVS seemed to think that he did, so I don't think that SVS is bad either - for now.
6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
7) I suspect that Snowman might be bad but SVS defended him so he might also be a Donner.

That is all.

Llama was taken off the poll. I believe that is a Donner only function. Interesting deductions; I don't agree with all of them, but I can totally see why you think what you think.

The problem here is that this is all likely to change tomorrow.

S~V~S wrote:Llama was taken off the poll. I believe that is a Donner only function. Interesting deductions; I don't agree with all of them, but I can totally see why you think what you think.

The problem here is that this is all likely to change tomorrow.

Hmmm...I didn't realize. I need to add that into my analysis.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

Which would put what I and LC said as acceptable. I was either saying I think Epi is likely a baddie because of something, or was lying about it. Either way, I didn't know he was a baddie. Hence I think llama's vote was a baddie's excuse for voting like that, or an overreaction at best.

I was trying to stop something I saw happening, which is the following: Suppose everyone in the thread had followed your and LC's example. Suppose everyone in the thread said "A, B, and C are my BTSC partners." How long do you think the game would last and how fun would it be? I don't think what you did crossed the line, I think LC came closer (and I also thought he might be lying) but if that line of posting had continued, I think it would have ruined the game.

That is my opinion, and you are free to disagree. But if you think the case on LC was trumped up, recall that I am far from the only person who voted for him, and I gave a better reason than many.

Okay, fair enough. I get where you're going with this. I still think there's a big difference between saying who is on your team, and naming one person who isn't.
By the way, remember the small game (I don't remember who hosted it) where there were 4 investigators (naive, always wrong, always right and always gets "guilty") and one killer, and TH suggested the strategy? I was the killer and I thought the strategy was unfair, but had he come up with that idea one day later (as was initially supposed to happen), it would have been okay in my mind. The timing was everything. Here too, I think it's about balancing. Saying one person is okay, because you can lie about it, bug giving everyone on your team is not, because that would just out everyone and kill the game.

S~V~S wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:Okay - then here's what I THINK:

1) MP and Epi are not Donners.
2) Llama or SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner.
3) The lunch was stopped by a tie (can someone give me a tally of the ending votes?) or by Jacob Donner (I don't have a theory for why unless LC is Jacob Donner).
4) Epi somehow predicted that the lunch would be stopped (he is a Reed and they planned a tie vote? or is he a Donner?), either way, I don't think Epi is bad - for now
5) Maybe Epi guessed that SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner (or not) either way, SVS seemed to think that he did, so I don't think that SVS is bad either - for now.
6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
7) I suspect that Snowman might be bad but SVS defended him so he might also be a Donner.

That is all.

Llama was taken off the poll. I believe that is a Donner only function. Interesting deductions; I don't agree with all of them, but I can totally see why you think what you think.

The problem here is that this is all likely to change tomorrow.

Missed that part. I guess llama's off the hook

FZ. wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:Okay - then here's what I THINK:

1) MP and Epi are not Donners.
2) Llama or SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner.
3) The lunch was stopped by a tie (can someone give me a tally of the ending votes?) or by Jacob Donner (I don't have a theory for why unless LC is Jacob Donner).
4) Epi somehow predicted that the lunch would be stopped (he is a Reed and they planned a tie vote? or is he a Donner?), either way, I don't think Epi is bad - for now
5) Maybe Epi guessed that SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner (or not) either way, SVS seemed to think that he did, so I don't think that SVS is bad either - for now.
6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
7) I suspect that Snowman might be bad but SVS defended him so he might also be a Donner.

That is all.

Llama was taken off the poll. I believe that is a Donner only function. Interesting deductions; I don't agree with all of them, but I can totally see why you think what you think.

The problem here is that this is all likely to change tomorrow.

Missed that part. I guess llama's off the hook

Agreed.

For now. For tomorrow we may all change

Has it been discussed yet if we can talk about past roles we had once they changed?
I think I played the game on the piano too, so I wish I could help, but I can't think of anything useful atm

Any suggestions on why Epi would vote himself and prevent the tie?
One option is that they are on the same team and he could survive the lynch when LC couldn't. But LC said they're not on the same team. LC also voted himself. So not likely.


Roxy, are there more secret to the roles that we are in the dark about, or are the roles exactly as described in the thread?

Maybe he knew he would not be lynched

How could he know that?

I'm still scratching my head about the non-lynch, but based on whta Epi said, I expect more information will be forthcoming to some of us soon.

FZ. wrote:How could he know that?

I can read k

Good to know.

S~V~S wrote:Good to know.

Books are expensive in Hkoe Countty.

i know k

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:How could he know that?

I can read k

Apparently, I can't, because I can't find anything that makes sense. The only way you could know you wouldn't be killed from reading the roles description is if you're a Donner and knew you could be saved. That would make what you said to Elizabeth Donner really weird in my eyes, because if you're a part of that team, why bother doing all that hoopla and making us believe you're not on the same team? Also, if that's what you are, and llama's on your team, why'd you break the tie with LC instead of voting LC. He obviously was not on your team?

thellama73 wrote:I'm still scratching my head about the non-lynch, but based on whta Epi said, I expect more information will be forthcoming to some of us soon.

I wonder if you are really scratching your head about the non-lynch.
I agree that more info will be coming.
I think that Epi might be bluffing or might be Wasatch. If we kill Wasatch we will definitely need to change roles.

FZ. wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:How could he know that?

I can read k

Apparently, I can't, because I can't find anything that makes sense. The only way you could know you wouldn't be killed from reading the roles description is if you're a Donner and knew you could be saved. That would make what you said to Elizabeth Donner really weird in my eyes, because if you're a part of that team, why bother doing all that hoopla and making us believe you're not on the same team? Also, if that's what you are, and llama's on your team, why'd you break the tie with LC instead of voting LC. He obviously was not on your team?

Agreed again!

fingersplints wrote:Has it been discussed yet if we can talk about past roles we had once they changed?
I think I played the game on the piano too, so I wish I could help, but I can't think of anything useful atm

Let me think about this.

FZ. wrote:Roxy, are there more secret to the roles that we are in the dark about, or are the roles exactly as described in the thread?

Funny you should ask, every game I have ever hosted had some roles with secret - secrets. Some may be unknown to the player with the role until a certain chain of events takes place. That is all I will say.

Roxy wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Has it been discussed yet if we can talk about past roles we had once they changed?
I think I played the game on the piano too, so I wish I could help, but I can't think of anything useful atm

Let me think about this.

FZ. wrote:Roxy, are there more secret to the roles that we are in the dark about, or are the roles exactly as described in the thread?

Funny you should ask, every game I have ever hosted had some roles with secret - secrets. Some may be unknown to the player with the role until a certain chain of events takes place. That is all I will say.

Hmm, well, that kills the last crumbs of logic I was trying to use to understand anything in this game

Roxy eats logic crumbs for breakfast. No logic crumbs for you.

I gave up trying to understand a while ago

S~V~S wrote:Roxy eats logic crumbs for breakfast. No logic crumbs for you.

Epig's role - (Secrets) Epig wins lol

I can see it already...

Ricochet wrote:

Epig's role - (Secrets) Epig wins lol

I can see it already...

Has Roxy's used my idea? - click me

S~V~S wrote:Roxy eats logic crumbs for breakfast. No logic crumbs for you.