The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:EBWOP: never mind, that doesn't make sense with the sentence that follows. Now I am confused.

juliets wrote:EBWOP means Edit By Way Of Post - so you are editing your previous post with another post because you cannot change that previous post.
I join the confused.

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

thellama73 wrote:The way BWT worded it was confusing. I think most of us read "concern" as meaning "worry," but he seems to have meant it in the sense of "priority."

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

birdwithteeth11 wrote:RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

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

Zany Dex wrote:I've never claimed to be civvie

thellama73 wrote:I disagree with almost everything you just said, Spaghetti, but I too am not sold on A Person being bad. I think Lizzy is a more likely candidate, but for today I have decided to give my vote to Dex. In my opinion, he saw a bandwagon forming against me and saw it as an excuse to jump on board without comment. He just got unlucky that the tide turned as it has.

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

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

Yeah. I went back and read it, and I saw that immediately. No wonder so many people got confused!

I have no idea honestly. This seems like typical Dex behavior, and I always read him as bad. I'd prefer to hear something more concrete from him, but so far it seems like he keeps trying to dig a hole for himself.

Linki: Most definitely.

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

Snow Dog wrote:Is this the llama gambit employed by Dex?

juliets wrote:Can someone explain what the llama gambit was? I didn't play the Train game so I dont' understand what Dex's behavior is being compared to.

Snow Dog wrote:

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

Seems so. There is definitely some strange behaviour this game.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

Yeah. I went back and read it, and I saw that immediately. No wonder so many people got confused!

I have no idea honestly. This seems like typical Dex behavior, and I always read him as bad. I'd prefer to hear something more concrete from him, but so far it seems like he keeps trying to dig a hole for himself.

Linki: Most definitely.

Snow Dog wrote:

juliets wrote:Can someone explain what the llama gambit was? I didn't play the Train game so I dont' understand what Dex's behavior is being compared to.

It's a civ acting in an unusual or random way to draw baddie votes due to him being an easy and obvious target.

juliets wrote:On the llama gambit, I don't understand why a civ would do that - draw votes by acting abnormal. Why did llama do that? (I'm still trying to relate this to what dex is doing)

thellama73 wrote:Now that all the votes have been cast, I can reveal the patented "Llama Gambit."

Knowing that most of the time baddies try to act helpful and logical to blend in with the civvies, I decided to act crazy and illogical. A baddie would have to be nuts to act the way I've been acting, and I was counting on the civs realizing that. Therefore, civs would be unlikely to vote for me, but baddies would see an opportunity. They could vote for a civ and when my affiliation is revealed excuse themselves by saying "well, he was acting really crazy."

However, by revealing my strategy in the thread, one of two things will happen: Either I get lynched, in which case the civvies have good info on who the baddies are based on who voted for me, or I survive and still have good info based on the votes for me. Either way, my team is aided substantially towards victory.

This is the "Llama Gambit." I hope you are as impressed with it as I was when I came up with it.

thellama73 wrote:Juliets, here is the rationale I gave in the thread just before I was lynched if this helps.

thellama73 wrote:Now that all the votes have been cast, I can reveal the patented "Llama Gambit."

Knowing that most of the time baddies try to act helpful and logical to blend in with the civvies, I decided to act crazy and illogical. A baddie would have to be nuts to act the way I've been acting, and I was counting on the civs realizing that. Therefore, civs would be unlikely to vote for me, but baddies would see an opportunity. They could vote for a civ and when my affiliation is revealed excuse themselves by saying "well, he was acting really crazy."

However, by revealing my strategy in the thread, one of two things will happen: Either I get lynched, in which case the civvies have good info on who the baddies are based on who voted for me, or I survive and still have good info based on the votes for me. Either way, my team is aided substantially towards victory.

This is the "Llama Gambit." I hope you are as impressed with it as I was when I came up with it.

It was less successful than I had hoped, although it did result in one baddie lynch(Bullzeye) and would have resulted in another(Lizzy). I think it would have been more successful in a game with fewer newibies.

boo wrote: Ofc, I also don't think the gambit makes much sense. If you act in a bizarre way, you're going to takes votes for it. From civvies and baddies. I'm not sure that employing WIFOM to say, "Aaha! I know I'm a civ, and I tricked you into voting for me by being so insane you would do so, but also being so insane to the point no baddie actually would act like this. So everyone who voted for me is bad!" makes no sense. You can bring on any bandwagon, and baddies will pile on it if they think it's safe. But in order for the bandwagon to be safe, civvies have to be voting there to, which the baddies know.

thellama73 wrote:
It's easy to criticize, but I don't hear anyone talking about the boo gambit.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Is there a certain role we don't know about that benefits from lynch votes at a certain time in the game?
Seems very unlikely and more likely that he is just being zany.
Still... Who knows in this game.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Is there a certain role we don't know about that benefits from lynch votes at a certain time in the game?
Seems very unlikely and more likely that he is just being zany.
Still... Who knows in this game.

Sander Cohen's alignment/win conditions change if he gets five or more votes and doesn't die. But other than that, I don't see the type of role you describe.

I will post more later. I'm at work on my phone and typing long posts out is a real pain.

Snow Dog wrote:

Dom wrote:

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

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

Snow Dog wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


LINKI: Boo

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

I admit my post was a bit hasty but I said it as a player of mafia. I thought his attitude was all wrong but you know that's just my opinion. In the end it might have come to nothing depending if others wanted to lynch him.

Anyway he was killed by a civ.

insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.

thellama73 wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.

Zuh? This game is nuts.

Can someone explain the voting for yourself thing? YOu know 100% that you are on your own team, whereas with anyone else there is at least a chance you get someone of the opposite team, so why do it? Ever?

thellama73 wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.

Zuh? This game is nuts.

Can someone explain the voting for yourself thing? YOu know 100% that you are on your own team, whereas with anyone else there is at least a chance you get someone of the opposite team, so why do it? Ever?