The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

Poor Bass was just put on the table for a lynch and he hasn't even posted yet.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I love the radio in the first post, Epi, that was pretty sweet. I hope you continue to utilize this method for your host posts!

Needs more tunes and less news. :P

Linki: I was only joking.

Well, I agree normally, but I love host posts that immerse me into the theme of the game.

Like G-Man and Cookie, I am not familiar with the theme, so don't expect me to know things about things.

I am still annoyed at Golden about Guess Who, so I would be up for lynching him Day 1. MP is getting my for so eagerly defending him.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

Poor Bass was just put on the table for a lynch and he hasn't even posted yet.

What makes you so sure that Bass would be the lowest poster by the end of Day 1?

thellama73 wrote:Like G-Man and Cookie, I am not familiar with the theme, so don't expect me to know things about things.

I am still annoyed at Golden about Guess Who, so I would be up for lynching him Day 1. MP is getting my for so eagerly defending him.

I don't know Golden's alignment this game, so why are you implying that I do? I am arguing fervently against policy lynching ANYONE, including Golden.

Policy lynching someone just because they got off of a baddie win or two, especially when they've consistently proven to be one of the best civilians at the site, is a ridiculous waste of Day 1. And I will make my opinion well known on the matter. If it gets me eyeballs or even death on Day 1, so be it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

Poor Bass was just put on the table for a lynch and he hasn't even posted yet.

What makes you so sure that Bass would be the lowest poster by the end of Day 1?

I didn't say he would be the lowest poster, I said he was put on the table.

Nijuukyugou is another player who has a tendency to post low, but she has already posted.

If anything, we should policy lynch a player who is least apt to contribute, rather than one that is apt to most contribute. I've been in Golden's shoes, hot off a baddie win or having a ton of baddie roles, and everyone started viewing everything I had to say with blood-colored glasses, instead of analyzing my words and making up their minds after being open to either scenario.

I will not stand for a closed-minded town on Day 1.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Scotty wrote:
linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

If it wasn't for Golden, the civilians wouldn't have won Biblical or Roger Rabbit, so... I can provide counterexamples for practically every example.

Is anyone here seriously considering a policy lynch option for Day 1? I just don't think it's wise.

I did not play those tho. I only played games where Golden was uberbaddie.

But ofc I'm just kidding, I'm not policy lynching. In fact, I usually prefer to lynch players who I think have little value on d1, instead of good players who I know are statistically more likely to be town, and thus useful. That isn't a rule though, it can vary depending on the situation.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

Poor Bass was just put on the table for a lynch and he hasn't even posted yet.

What makes you so sure that Bass would be the lowest poster by the end of Day 1?

I didn't say he would be the lowest poster, I said he was put on the table.

Nijuukyugou is another player who has a tendency to post low, but she has already posted.

I'm not saying we should commit to policy lynching a low poster, since as you know, I'm against policy lynches of any kind. I'm just saying, if we're considering a policy lynch for Golden, since it seems people are ACTUALLY considering it, why aren't they considering a policy lynch of a low poster?

I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

I won't policy lynch anyone.

I would recommend against it too.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

RYM seems to bring in folks from all over the world, so I figured it was just a case of someone not being exposed to this particular American songwriter.

She's actually Canadian. Maybe it's the ignorant American in me that assumes she was just as unavoidable in all other English-speaking parts of the world and Europe as she was here in North America for what felt like forever. It was just two years but how many other 90s artists were able to milk a single album for two years? Six singles from one album is an impressive feat. The early to mid-90s were such a great time for music. Then the boy bands and pop princess had to come and ruin everything. Creed shares some of the blame too.

Fun fact: Alanis Morissette was on You Can't Do That on Television. That aired on Nickelodeon back before Nickelodeon sucked. There probably aren't too many people younger than me that remember that show because I only ever watched reruns of it!

thellama73 wrote:I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

This.

I was going to point out that as a suspicion, but then I remembered him in economics game and thought "yup, that's MP"

Let me make the record clear: I am not trying to imply that those who are post addicts contribute more than those who post once per cycle. A player's contributions are driven by quality, not quantity, and I do NOT support everyone voting to lynch the player with the lowest posts on Day 1, since that would tell us practically nothing.

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

You're vigorously arguing against an obvious jest that no one intended to carry out.

G-Man wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

RYM seems to bring in folks from all over the world, so I figured it was just a case of someone not being exposed to this particular American songwriter.

She's actually Canadian. Maybe it's the ignorant American in me that assumes she was just as unavoidable in all other English-speaking parts of the world and Europe as she was here in North America for what felt like forever. It was just two years but how many other 90s artists were able to milk a single album for two years? Six singles from one album is an impressive feat. The early to mid-90s were such a great time for music. Then the boy bands and pop princess had to come and ruin everything. Creed shares some of the blame too.

Fun fact: Alanis Morissette was on You Can't Do That on Television. That aired on Nickelodeon back before Nickelodeon sucked. There probably aren't too many people younger than me that remember that show because I only ever watched reruns of it!

I couldn't remember if she was from the US or Canada, but unfortunately, using American as an encompassing classification never works.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

Everything.

We are joking about lynching people who screwed up with us on previous game and you're going full mama bear on us.

Well at least I know I'm joking, can't speak for the others.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

You're vigorously arguing against an obvious jest that no one intended to carry out.

Fair enough. I'm all for joking when appropriate, but I usually have a hard time telling whether people are kidding or not, hence why I asked if anyone was seriously considering a policy lynch on Day 1, and why I just assumed that anyone was serious -- because I wanted at least my thoughts on the matter, in a serious fashion, to be made clear.

For the record, I don't find anyone suspicious at this time.

I find Ricochet suspicious for lurking and not posting.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

Everything.

We are joking about lynching people who screwed up with us on previous game and you're going full mama bear on us.

Well at least I know I'm joking, can't speak for the others.

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't support policy lynches, in the event that anyone was actually seriously considering one for Golden or anyone else, that's all.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I find Ricochet suspicious for lurking and not posting.

Are you serious or kidding?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

Everything.

We are joking about lynching people who screwed up with us on previous game and you're going full mama bear on us.

Well at least I know I'm joking, can't speak for the others.

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't support policy lynches, in the event that anyone was actually seriously considering one for Golden or anyone else, that's all.

What do you mean by "I don't support policy lynches"? Can you elaborate?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I find Ricochet suspicious for lurking and not posting.

Are you serious or kidding?

I'm ambiguous.

That's probably Ricochet scary as fuck of getting killed in n1 again.

MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

You mean the player whose posts can be read with the deepest voice or the player who writes the low-down meanest posts?

I believe the word you are looking for is fewest.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Scotty wrote:
linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

If it wasn't for Golden, the civilians wouldn't have won Biblical or Roger Rabbit, so... I can provide counterexamples for practically every example.

Is anyone here seriously considering a policy lynch option for Day 1? I just don't think it's wise.

Hey- Golden had a LOT of help behind the scenes. Never forget that. He was right and I was wrong about the final baddie but my lists helped serve up at least two baddies- one of which I handed to Golden on a silver platter from beyond the grave. I'd like to think that he would have had a much harder time winning that game without my help.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I will not stand for a closed-minded town on Day 1.

Then take a seat.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:That's probably Ricochet scary as fuck of getting killed in n1 again.

That would make him a civilian then.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:That's probably Ricochet scary as fuck of getting killed in n1 again.

That would make him a civilian then.

If I were bad, I would NK Ricochet Night 1.

Let the WIFOM begin.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

Everything.

We are joking about lynching people who screwed up with us on previous game and you're going full mama bear on us.

Well at least I know I'm joking, can't speak for the others.

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't support policy lynches, in the event that anyone was actually seriously considering one for Golden or anyone else, that's all.

What do you mean by "I don't support policy lynches"? Can you elaborate?

A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

MovingPictures07 wrote: A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

What?

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:That's probably Ricochet scary as fuck of getting killed in n1 again.

That would make him a civilian then.

If I were bad, I would NK Ricochet Night 1.

Let the WIFOM begin.

I said the exact same thing (except MovingPictures07 was the name I used instead) in a game at RYM. The reactions were wonderful.

yay game whoa boy a whole second page in just the last three quarters

Mooby?

Is that Epig's voice on the audio? If it is, it's not quite what I expected. I know I listened to his singing at one point, but I totally lost memory of how he sounded.

Gender check on espers (btw did you name yourself after the folk band? I love them), LoRab (nice to meet you ) and Sloonei (first time playing with you, sorry ), please.
Alignment check on Golden, please.
He said he fooled me twice, but I didn't play Economics and that's not why I'm really pissy. Twisting it, ey?

That being said, I happen to feel just like he does about checking Ozymandias first, because, as far as I remember the Watchmen never anticipated him being involved in Shenanigans until it was too late and those [Secrets] in his role doesn't sound too comforting here either.

I should read the comics.
I'll probably also re-watch the movie, even though it sucked.

linki: care to let me read the thread and post first, Marshy?
linki: I fear nothing.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

I don't think I've ever played a game that didn't have one of those.

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Scotty wrote:
linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

If it wasn't for Golden, the civilians wouldn't have won Biblical or Roger Rabbit, so... I can provide counterexamples for practically every example.

Is anyone here seriously considering a policy lynch option for Day 1? I just don't think it's wise.

Hey- Golden had a LOT of help behind the scenes. Never forget that. He was right and I was wrong about the final baddie but my lists helped serve up at least two baddies- one of which I handed to Golden on a silver platter from beyond the grave. I'd like to think that he would have had a much harder time winning that game without my help.

I'm not implying that you or anyone else did not help as much in the win of that game, or Roger Rabbit, for that matter. No one civilian can win the entire game by him or herself, it takes a group effort from all of the town. In fact, I congratulated you and Golden consistently in postgame. So, I did not intend to imply anything otherwise. You played an outstanding game.

I'm just saying that Golden's individual contributions, as a civilian, are certainly not anything to scoff at in light of his recent baddie performances.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

What?

I don't understand. What's confusing?

@Rico: Sloonei is a dude. Dunno about the others.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

What?

I don't understand. What's confusing?

I'm just seeing how long I can troll you before you catch on.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

What?

I don't understand. What's confusing?

I'm just seeing how long I can troll you before you catch on.

Oh, okay. :P

Well, I have a lot to accomplish today PhD-wise, so I'm going to slink away now, start posting much less seriously, and lurk for a while.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: What do you mean by "I don't support policy lynches"? Can you elaborate?

A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

Fewest! Fewest, man. The proper word in that sentence is fewest!

I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

I don't play mafia to have my grammar corrected, so if you want to vote me for such a reason, then I clearly will cast the in your direction, good sir.

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: What do you mean by "I don't support policy lynches"? Can you elaborate?

A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

Fewest! Fewest, man. The proper word in that sentence is fewest!

I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

G-Man wrote:I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

This is the first game I play where I'm actually free of Epi (as a player at least) and you're gonna spoil it?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

I don't think I've ever played a game that didn't have one of those.

Now that I think about it, Guess Who Mafia did have a policy lynch on Day 1 in a sense.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

I don't think I've ever played a game that didn't have one of those.

Now that I think about it, Guess Who Mafia did have a policy lynch on Day 1 in a sense.

Yes it did. A very well-aimed one.

It had another one on day 4, with Missing Person. And then another one with Hedgeowl. That one was the game of policy lynches.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

I don't think I've ever played a game that didn't have one of those.

Now that I think about it, Guess Who Mafia did have a policy lynch on Day 1 in a sense.

Yes it did. A very well-aimed one.

It had another one on day 4, with Missing Person. And then another one with Hedgeowl. That one was the game of policy lynches.

And I am proud of the fact that I did not vote on a single one of those silly baddie-driven bandwagons.

I also didn't catch the baddies who drove them.

A policy lynch of a complete no-show is practically the only one I will support. I hope that doesn't happen here though.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't play mafia to have my grammar corrected, so if you want to vote me for such a reason, then I clearly will cast the in your direction, good sir.

So I've noticed. It's okay though. You've got an accounting degree. We all know that accountants are better with numbers than they are with words.

Ricochet wrote:

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: What do you mean by "I don't support policy lynches"? Can you elaborate?

A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.

I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.

Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.

Fewest! Fewest, man. The proper word in that sentence is fewest!

I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

Spoiler: show

I don't watch the show but very nice! I promise not to policy lynch you Day 1.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

G-Man wrote:I may switch my policy vote from Golden the Coward to the player who commits the most grammatical errors.

It's a dangerous job but someone's got to do it.

This is the first game I play where I'm actually free of Epi (as a player at least) and you're gonna spoil it?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

G-Man wrote:

espers wrote:

Golden wrote:Alanis senses the irony here.

who's Alanis?

espers wrote:fair enough. I've heard of her of course but I don't think I've ever knowingly heard a song by her.

Methinks you're under the age of 25; possibly under 20 even.

RYM seems to bring in folks from all over the world, so I figured it was just a case of someone not being exposed to this particular American songwriter.

Dude. Alanis is from Winnipeg.

Well that didn't work right. *kicks computer*

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't play mafia to have my grammar corrected, so if you want to vote me for such a reason, then I clearly will cast the in your direction, good sir.

So I've noticed. It's okay though. You've got an accounting degree. We all know that accountants are better with numbers than they are with words.

Accountants unite.