The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

Ok...I have the same conditions. I'm glad you understand what I was doing now. My NM is not something I care much about either. So I may vote...I May not. I won't vote for you if you prefer not.

How do I know neither of you are lying?

Does anyone else have a win condition similar to this?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

I can understand that.

However, didn't you previously agree with the assessment that the Gradys and maybe the Bartender were bad news?

Are they though? What evidence do you have? I am not so sure. I concede you may be right though. They may have a bad influence, whilst not being actually bad.

I don't have any evidence; it's all supposition. I honestly don't know, but I have my doubts they are good. I do know that my win conditions are relatively similar to a typical civvie's, if that makes sense, so I personally think they are bad news.

Ok. I don't mind them dead. And maybe their win conditions are both to survive?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

Ok...I have the same conditions. I'm glad you understand what I was doing now. My NM is not something I care much about either. So I may vote...I May not. I won't vote for you if you prefer not.

How do I know neither of you are lying?

Does anyone else have a win condition similar to this?

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

I can understand that.

However, didn't you previously agree with the assessment that the Gradys and maybe the Bartender were bad news?

Are they though? What evidence do you have? I am not so sure. I concede you may be right though. They may have a bad influence, whilst not being actually bad.

I don't have any evidence; it's all supposition. I honestly don't know, but I have my doubts they are good. I do know that my win conditions are relatively similar to a typical civvie's, if that makes sense, so I personally think they are bad news.

Ok. I don't mind them dead. And maybe their win conditions are both to survive?

I would imagine so. I don't know the movie or book well at all though... anyone have any ideas what the Grady twins, Delbert, and/or the Bartender's conditions might be?

S~V~S mentioned a drink... that has to have something to do with the Bartender's condition. I find it odd she would choose to drink it given it is generally agreed the Bartender is probably bad news. What could his condition be?

Did you read my post?

I had no choice. the host TOLD ME I drank it.

S~V~S wrote:Did you read my post?

I had no choice. the host TOLD ME I drank it.

Oh, I missed that, sorry. I must have misread it.

Interesting that you weren't made aware of anything. I'm not sure what drinking something alcoholic would even do... except maybe make someone "drunk".

What say you regarding my other question though? I thought you said those particular roles earlier were bad news... yet your role's win condition seems to contradict that.

I guess if you drink what the bartender gives you, and he is a ghost of sorts I guess, you become part of the mad world of the Hotel. What that means for SVS I do not know. Let's getb riid of the bartender I say. maybe

Ouch...who knows?

Well, MP, having reassessed this game, i think perhaps they could be bad news for someone else, but not for me, or that they could have been (Grady still worries me, tbh). With Stephen King dead, and with Jack also dead (who i really think was set to become a potential second killer) I don't know that there is anyone left killing at night. If there isn't any night killer, then I am willing to not show aggression towards others, having said that I don't need any of them dead. I am willing to give up my night power as well, in order to do so.

If people try to lynch me, then i will have to reassess this stand. But as of right now, I see no reason to get up in anyones face. My conditions require certain others being ALIVE, and does not require anyone being dead. Since I don't know who has the roles I need alive, I would be just as happy killing no one.

Does your role require people to be dead?

Linki @ Snow Dog~ maybe it also means I was role blocked, role checked or something like that. The role says "secret". So we don;t know, which is why I asked if it had happened to anyone else.

S~V~S wrote:Well, MP, having reassessed this game, i think perhaps they could be bad news for someone else, but not for me, or that they could have been (Grady still worries me, tbh). With Stephen King dead, and with Jack also dead (who i really think was set to become a potential second killer) I don't know that there is anyone left killing at night. If there isn't any night killer, then I am willing to not show aggression towards others, having said that I don't need any of them dead. I am willing to give up my night power as well, in order to do so.

If people try to lynch me, then i will have to reassess this stand. But as of right now, I see no reason to get up in anyones face. My conditions require certain others being ALIVE, and does not require anyone being dead. Since I don't know who has the roles I need alive, I would be just as happy killing no one.

Does your role require people to be dead?

Linki @ Snow Dog~ maybe it also means I was role blocked, role checked or something like that. The role says "secret". So we don;t know, which is why I asked if it had happened to anyone else.

Having reassessed? Are you implying your win conditions have changed or do I misunderstand you there?

Mine does, yes.

I have a question. Llama, if no one voted during the day, would there still be a lynch or would no one die?

^My guess is a random lynch. Just like you said.

I mean based on what is happening in the thread, i have reconsidered baddie hunting as being my primary objective in this game, my role is not one anyone else has named as one people might consider to be baddies. My win conditions have not changed~ just my interpretation of the thread and the game. Normally, I play for the sake of the game, and winning is a secondary thing for me. In this game, i think they are the same; with differeing win conditions, the game each of us plays may be different, and judging it based on standard games would be pointless.

So you need people to be dead in order to win?

EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

Snow Dog wrote:^My guess is a random lynch. Just like you said.

Yeah, seems most logical, but I figured I'd ask. He may not answer, but maybe he will.

S~V~S wrote:I mean based on what is happening in the thread, i have reconsidered baddie hunting as being my primary objective in this game, my role is not one anyone else has named as one people might consider to be baddies. My win conditions have not changed~ just my interpretation of the thread and the game. Normally, I play for the sake of the game, and winning is a secondary thing for me. In this game, i think they are the same; with differeing win conditions, the game each of us plays may be different, and judging it based on standard games would be pointless.

So you need people to be dead in order to win?

Interesting, OK. I appreciate your contribution.

Yes, I do, but it closely mirrors what you could probably consider to be a 'typical' civvie win condition, if that makes sense.

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

I know that when I host -- if there are no votes for anyone, someone still has to die, and thus I randomize among everyone. Maybe it's different here though.

MovingPictures07 wrote: I have a question. Llama, if no one voted during the day, would there still be a lynch or would no one die?

Why not try it and find out?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

I know that when I host -- if there are no votes for anyone, someone still has to die, and thus I randomize among everyone. Maybe it's different here though.

i guess thats an individual host thing; the players decide if someone has to die. Sometimes no one dies. That is up to the players, not up to me. And i certainly would never randomize a lynch if there are zero votes. No one *has* to die.

Has that ever happened in one of your games?

Also, did I get you right before, people need to die for you to meet your win conditions?

Ebwop, I missed your earlier reply, fast moving thread.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

I know that when I host -- if there are no votes for anyone, someone still has to die, and thus I randomize among everyone. Maybe it's different here though.

i guess thats an individual host thing; the players decide if someone has to die. Sometimes no one dies. That is up to the players, not up to me. And i certainly would never randomize a lynch if there are zero votes. No one *has* to die.

Has that ever happened in one of your games?

Also, did I get you right before, people need to die for you to meet your win conditions?

Yeah, true. Seems by Llama's response that I guess we won't find out unless we try it.

It has, technically, only once. In Avant 2, The Truth ended the day early without putting a vote on anyone first, and I randomized among all the living players. Out of irony, his name come up, so I killed him off.

Yes, in a roundabout way. I THINK there are certain roles in the bottom half of the role listing that need to be dead for me to actually win here. I know that sounds weird that I don't know, but I at least need them to be immobilized, or something to that effect, and I'm not aware of anyone else's power that does something like that. My condition does not specifically say anything about needing anyone "dead", however, so maybe there's something I don't know about.

In the movie drinking with the bartender made jack pretty insane.

Kate wrote:In the movie drinking with the bartender made jack pretty insane.

What are you implying here, anything?

Jack is dead, so I don't think we have to worry about him going insane. You think anyone who drinks from the Bartender might become compromised or something?

Well, I gotta go. Be back at some point tomorrow when I find some time. I do think I need to take a good hard look at the roles again because I do think there absolutely have to be players currently alive for me (and likely others as well) to win. I am very curious if anyone else has thoughts about what Snow Dog and S~V~S have seemed to indicate.

Hold on, I lost something there... there absolutely have to be players currently alive for me that need to be DEAD for me to win. Okay, now out of here.

I'm saying maybe its the drinks which are making ppl insane.

Well, i got one, and i don't THINK I'm any more insane than normal. All the host told me is, "Someone sent you a drink, you were thirsty, you drank it". No consequences or effects.

If it made me insane, i am unaware of it.

S~V~S wrote:Well, i got one, and i don't THINK I'm any more insane than normal. All the host told me is, "Someone sent you a drink, you were thirsty, you drank it". No consequences or effects.

If it made me insane, i am unaware of it.

Being more insane than you usually are may be hard for you. Maybe you are immune to it

thellama73 wrote:Dex, you are not allowed to vote for real options in these polls. I don't care how zany you are!

Well definitely getting gin, my favorite.

thellama73 wrote:Dex, you are not allowed to vote for real options in these polls. I don't care how zany you are!

While he calls himself "Zany Dex", i would think that "Mad as a Fucking Hatter Dex" might be more appropriate. Even out of the context of this game.

Just sayin~

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

Ok...I have the same conditions. I'm glad you understand what I was doing now. My NM is not something I care much about either. So I may vote...I May not. I won't vote for you if you prefer not.

How do I know neither of you are lying?

Does anyone else have a win condition similar to this?

Mine also requires someone other than myself to be alive at the end, and I don't need or want anyone dead unless they want me dead I guess.

S~V~S wrote:Well, i got one, and i don't THINK I'm any more insane than normal. All the host told me is, "Someone sent you a drink, you were thirsty, you drank it". No consequences or effects.

If it made me insane, i am unaware of it.

"Crazy people don't know they're crazy, they think they're getting saner" I don't personally think the bartender makes people crazy, I think it's the hotel doing that. I have no idea what the drinks do to people though if they don't make you crazy...

Also I voted for bourbon.

I guess I think there may be some somewhat malicious roles still out there, but i don;t think they can kill, I think Jack was scheduled to be the other killer. My guess is they may want the rest of us dead to meet THEIR win cons. If this was a more traditional game without finite time limits, I would think those of us with non violent win cons would NEED to make those who need us dead, dead themselves. But all I need to do is evade being lynched by them for three more time periods.

If a kill DOES happen, though, that will have to change. But if it does not, I think that if I, and those like me with non violent win conditions, only have to make our non aggression clear, and keep an eye on those who keep trying to promote suspicion based lynches, we may be OK. I intend on saving my vote and either not voting, or using it to save myself or someone I feel may have "SVS Friendly" win conditions.

There are two people I feel pretty good about, potentially a third, and although this person has been pushing the suspicion envelope, ANOTHER person whom I do not trust AT ALL has been pushing suspicion on my potential third, which makes me feel better about Third, if that makes sense

I feel not good about one (as said above) and am on the fence about the rest.

As the guests sipped their drinks, beginning to feel slightly better, they gradually became aware of soft music playing throughout the ballroom, although try as they might they could not trace the sound.

"Golly, I do believe this place is hainted!" exclaimed MovingPictures07.

"That's racist," said Hedgeowl.

"How is that racist?" protested Bullzeye, and just like that, the squabbling resumed.

After a while, Kate had the following insight. "Well, if this place really is hainted..."

"Haunted," corrected Snow Dog.

"If this place really is haunted, then any one of us could be an evil ghost, or worse an evil non-ghost!"

"Should we continue our policy of randomly killing off members of our group then?" asked Vompatti.

"I don't see that we have any choice," was Mongoose's sensible reply.

S~V~S had misgivings about this approach, but she had to confess that the logic behind it was inescapable.

No one has died. It is now Day 4. You have 24 hours to lynch someone. There were missing PMs.

Well, so far so good, no night kills

So I plan a totally defensive vote, if I am forced to vote at all. I will vote to save myself, or someone I feel good about that is possibly being railroaded. Since I need someone ELSE alive to win, and don't know who it is, I feel that my best chance lies in as many people being alive at the end as possible. Including myself :nod:

If we choose to lynch no one, and someone dies anyhow, I will rethink this.

S~V~S wrote:Well, so far so good, no night kills

So I plan a totally defensive vote, if I am forced to vote at all. I will vote to save myself, or someone I feel good about that is possibly being railroaded. Since I need someone ELSE alive to win, and don't know who it is, I feel that my best chance lies in as many people being alive at the end as possible. Including myself :nod:

If we choose to lynch no one, and someone dies anyhow, I will rethink this.

This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

S~V~S wrote:I guess I think there may be some somewhat malicious roles still out there, but i don;t think they can kill, I think Jack was scheduled to be the other killer. My guess is they may want the rest of us dead to meet THEIR win cons. If this was a more traditional game without finite time limits, I would think those of us with non violent win cons would NEED to make those who need us dead, dead themselves. But all I need to do is evade being lynched by them for three more time periods.

If a kill DOES happen, though, that will have to change. But if it does not, I think that if I, and those like me with non violent win conditions, only have to make our non aggression clear, and keep an eye on those who keep trying to promote suspicion based lynches, we may be OK. I intend on saving my vote and either not voting, or using it to save myself or someone I feel may have "SVS Friendly" win conditions.

There are two people I feel pretty good about, potentially a third, and although this person has been pushing the suspicion envelope, ANOTHER person whom I do not trust AT ALL has been pushing suspicion on my potential third, which makes me feel better about Third, if that makes sense

I feel not good about one (as said above) and am on the fence about the rest.

I don't think there's another kill either, but I guess we'll see if anything else develops from hereon forward. Definitely good to see no death.

While I completely understand and appreciate your thoughts here, I am personally in a somewhat different boat, so I'm still contemplating voting for someone. The problem is I really don't want to lynch the wrong person, so I am cautious.

I presume you avoided using player names on your trust and suspicion list for a reason?

Hedgeowl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, so far so good, no night kills

So I plan a totally defensive vote, if I am forced to vote at all. I will vote to save myself, or someone I feel good about that is possibly being railroaded. Since I need someone ELSE alive to win, and don't know who it is, I feel that my best chance lies in as many people being alive at the end as possible. Including myself :nod:

If we choose to lynch no one, and someone dies anyhow, I will rethink this.

This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

Well, I intend to take a wait and see attitude. See who pushes to kill, and who does not. I would be willing to try a non lynch, but then there is the possibility of a random factor.

And yeah, I have to be alive at the end as well.

MP, I named no names since I want to see what develops. I think I have been fairly obvious, but maybe not. I will say that some folks have quieted down somewhat since we have had no NKs and have had talk of win conditions. I will say that for me, you are "Third", MP. Based on your posts, and the fact that you seem pretty sane to me, I want to trust you. But your violent win cons make me nervous, as the remnants of the baddie team that never formed may have violent win conditions, or if not, perhaps your conditions conflict with mine~ perhaps the person you need dead is the person I need alive. And, of course, others can be lying about their conditions. As could i, really.

BUT some people who seem fairly violent to me seem to be pushing a suspicion of you, and it is possible for one role i can think of to require people to be dead in a totally non-evil-qhost way. I think we got pretty lucky losing both Stephen King & Jack as early as we did.

So

I just want to live, and I want everyone else to live, too

Hedgeowl wrote: This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

How do you prefer them? Or should I leave the tending to Llama?

Nevinera wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote: This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

How do you prefer them? Or should I leave the tending to Llama?

I was wondering this as well. There are not a lot of ways to screw up a gin & tonic.

S~V~S wrote:
Well, I intend to take a wait and see attitude. See who pushes to kill, and who does not. I would be willing to try a non lynch, but then there is the possibility of a random factor.

And yeah, I have to be alive at the end as well.

MP, I named no names since I want to see what develops. I think I have been fairly obvious, but maybe not. I will say that some folks have quieted down somewhat since we have had no NKs and have had talk of win conditions. I will say that for me, you are "Third", MP. Based on your posts, and the fact that you seem pretty sane to me, I want to trust you. But your violent win cons make me nervous, as the remnants of the baddie team that never formed may have violent win conditions, or if not, perhaps your conditions conflict with mine~ perhaps the person you need dead is the person I need alive. And, of course, others can be lying about their conditions. As could i, really.

BUT some people who seem fairly violent to me seem to be pushing a suspicion of you, and it is possible for one role i can think of to require people to be dead in a totally non-evil-qhost way. I think we got pretty lucky losing both Stephen King & Jack as early as we did.

So

I just want to live, and I want everyone else to live, too

I understand, I figured as much. I did note as well that a few people have gotten more quiet and refuse to discuss since the no NKs and the win conditions discussions started.

I know it's a game of mafia and trusting should be taken with a grain of salt, I want to trust you as well, and I THINK I can. I've been played by you pretty hard before, so I'm naturally hesitant, but I don't think you're playing an evil game here, and I don't think you're one of the roles that I need to be out of the picture.

My win con isn't exactly overtly violent or anything, but it does seem to strongly indicate that I do need some seemingly bad roles gone, and it does seem to contrast heavily with yours and a few others that have been stated as pacificist-esque at this point (assuming you and others are telling the truth). Good point, you or anyone else could be lying, but it's why I wanted to have all of this discussion in the thread. You cannot possibly even begin to figure out who to believe about anything or how to win this game until discussion starts rolling.

I definitely think there are some roles with truly violent win conditions alive, the ones that are the antithesis to mine (like I said, I like to think of mine as civvie-minded, in that I need the "baddie"-minded roles gone, whereas yours seems to be more independent-esque in nature by being pacificst, if that makes sense).

I do think we got lucky getting rid of those two roles, but I'm convinced that we need to have at least some sort of death to continue from here -- or at least I do. And I'm willing to extend a hand of quasi-trust to you for the time being because I don't think that's you.

I will try and re-read some things here before I go to bed and sleep on it. I suppose I can vote (if necessary) during lunch at work tomorrow.

thellama73 wrote:

Nevinera wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote: This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

How do you prefer them? Or should I leave the tending to Llama?

I was wondering this as well. There are not a lot of ways to screw up a gin & tonic.

The type of gin is important for sure, but I recently discovered good tonic is a huge step up too. Also, making them with lemon is delightful.

Hedgeowl wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Nevinera wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote: This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

How do you prefer them? Or should I leave the tending to Llama?

I was wondering this as well. There are not a lot of ways to screw up a gin & tonic.

The type of gin is important for sure, but I recently discovered good tonic is a huge step up too. Also, making them with lemon is delightful.

Heresy. Gin & Tonic is always always served with a lime. If you want a lemon, get a Tom Collins.

thellama73 wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Nevinera wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote: This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

How do you prefer them? Or should I leave the tending to Llama?

I was wondering this as well. There are not a lot of ways to screw up a gin & tonic.

The type of gin is important for sure, but I recently discovered good tonic is a huge step up too. Also, making them with lemon is delightful.

Heresy. Gin & Tonic is always always served with a lime. If you want a lemon, get a Tom Collins.

So I also thought, but further reading led me to find out that it is hotly contested between the lime and lemon. And now that I've tried it I prefer a lemon. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... and_tonic/

Lemon FTW

Hedgeowl wrote: So I also thought, but further reading led me to find out that it is hotly contested between the lime and lemon. And now that I've tried it I prefer a lemon. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... and_tonic/

Well, given that my favorite cocktail is the Gimlet, I have to disagree and stick with lime, but I suppose as long as you're staying away from that most horrible of all drinks, the Vodka Tonic, we are mostly on the same side of this war.

thellama73 wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote: So I also thought, but further reading led me to find out that it is hotly contested between the lime and lemon. And now that I've tried it I prefer a lemon. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... and_tonic/

Well, given that my favorite cocktail is the Gimlet, I have to disagree and stick with lime, but I suppose as long as you're staying away from that most horrible of all drinks, the Vodka Tonic, we are mostly on the same side of this war.

A truce! (lemon hugs lime) Vodka and I have never been friends. .

No in-game discussion since I last looked?

Come on, other people, especially those who haven't posted in a while, must have something to say!

Well it seems to me that myself and S~V~S have win conditions that do not need another lynch. MP you seem to be claiming you DO need deaths to win. That makes you the enemy of those certain people and as far as I know me myself.
I'll go further and say that I think you are one of these "bad" characters that you say should be lynched. Either the bartender, the twins or that other guy...the waiter or whatever he is.