The Syndicate

No.

Walking into a thread with lots of people talking about you often does not bode well in my experience

Still looking for grasping straws, I see. Give up on Tiny Bubbles?

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

timmer wrote: How are people going to handle the unrecruited side of things? Last game, I rather infamously flamed out, and it all started when I admitted that I didn't give a crap who got lynched since I was neutral. There was more to it than that afterwards, but that was essentially the big issue. It was pointed out that the rules of R3 said that an unrecruited player was sort of a civ, but in THIS game, I see the rules state that an unrecruited player is neutral and has only to survive to win. So how does that play out this time? Are you guys still feeling like it makes more sense to "think civ"? Or is this sort of a LMS format that segues into a more traditional team format, with an awkward middle?

I'm happy either way, I just need clarity for my own sense of sanity, lol.

The bolded/underlined is what I'm thinking will happen.

But, then again, I imploded in The Flash because everyone was talking 'civ civ civ' when it was clearly a faction game, so my thoughts may be different than others'. :P

Well, the baddies will be trying to kill you regardless, so I think neutrals should align with the civs.

Of course they should. It's the easiest and possibly smartest way to play neutral IMO. I just assume all neutrals are civ-aligned, hence my contribution to the massacring of the apparently baddie-friendly neutral team in HSK. You never know though, some people might think it's more fun to align themselves with the baddies before they've even been recruited.

Russtifinko wrote: Also, if there is a vote that looks to me like someone choosing something because they wanted a certain role power, it's Sorsha's. As someone else said, that may be more helpful later on when there are not tons of roles left, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Because it's her favourite number? I'm sure I saw at least one other person vote for the same reason... Definitely worth bearing in mind but also possible lots of other people voted for the specific position they wanted for their role. Not necessarily seeing that as a bad thing when the vast majority haven't been recruited yet.

Russtifinko wrote:And MP, BR specifically said we may not have to cycle through every single position. I think that makes a pretty strong case for going for the least bad case. Now, in reality it seems we'll hit each at least one time, but don't we at east want the worst ones less often? If we start on a bad one, since we don't know what will happen in the future, it guarantees nothing except that we have to deal with bad stuff and mayhem for a day.

Definitely. Makes the most sense to me if we continuously try to avoid the scariest/most dangerous powers.

bea wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I want to be recruited by all four sides so I can play them all against each other as a shadowy mastermind.

I KNEW IT!!!! BULLZ IS A TYPH SOCKPUPPET!!!!!!

linki - sorry epi - I'm sadly one beer left and this far behind. I can't tell yet if I want you to tear apart golden's response or not.

Actually if you read my DBZ game submission thread you'll realise I'm a sockpuppet from the X-Men game that achieved sentience and carried on playing here anyway.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Well the host labelled two of the groups as civvies, and those two groups seem effectively to be allies who only need to eliminate the baddies. That makes them civvies IMO.

Black Rock wrote:Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1

Ah Erlatz eleven, good times. Much better than the Ultramorph nine

@Hosts:
Were any of the day 1 options tied to a faction?

S~V~S wrote: Still looking for grasping straws, I see. Give up on Tiny Bubbles?

Nope. Just probing leads as they appear.

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

I've explained this a bunch of times. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept. How people answer that question matters. No, I obviously don't think people are just going to admit to being bad, but answering with sarcasm or a joke, or changing the subject indicate a level of uneasiness with the question. It is the mark of dishonesty. Is it foolproof? Of course not. But it is telling, and shouldn't be ignored.

aapje wrote:Ah Erlatz eleven, good times. Much better than the Ultramorph nine

@Hosts:
Were any of the day 1 options tied to a faction?

Nope, just individual choices for the power you wanted. A lot of people wanted position 1.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

I've explained this a bunch of times. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept. How people answer that question matters. No, I obviously don't think people are just going to admit to being bad, but answering with sarcasm or a joke, or changing the subject indicate a level of uneasiness with the question. It is the mark of dishonesty. Is it foolproof? Of course not. But it is telling, and shouldn't be ignored.

Some people have different opinions. I don't know why that's such a difficult concept.

oh come on, i was only kidding about being bad, i thought it was obvious. if thats a reason to lynch me then this game makes no sense at all!

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

I've explained this a bunch of times. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept. How people answer that question matters. No, I obviously don't think people are just going to admit to being bad, but answering with sarcasm or a joke, or changing the subject indicate a level of uneasiness with the question. It is the mark of dishonesty. Is it foolproof? Of course not. But it is telling, and shouldn't be ignored.

Some people have different opinions. I don't know why that's such a difficult concept.

I don't mind that they have different opinions. I just don't want them to keep misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) my reasoning.

TinyBubbles wrote:oh come on, i was only kidding about being bad, i thought it was obvious. if thats a reason to lynch me then this game makes no sense at all!

See, this is what I mean. Of course you were kidding. You're right, it was obvious. My point is, why would you make that joke instead of just answering the question honestly? Maybe there's no reason, but maybe there is, and that is what I'm investigating.

thellama73 wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:oh come on, i was only kidding about being bad, i thought it was obvious. if thats a reason to lynch me then this game makes no sense at all!

See, this is what I mean. Of course you were kidding. You're right, it was obvious. My point is, why would you make that joke instead of just answering the question honestly? Maybe there's no reason, but maybe there is, and that is what I'm investigating.

cause i get asked the same question every game! i didn't want to declare " i'm CIV" for the 109485734th time so i made a joke about being bad.

Hey BR, any chance you could stick this on the front page? Please and thanks.

aapje - Posts
Bass_the_Clever - Posts
bea - Posts
birdwithteeth11 - Posts
Boomslang - Posts
Bullzeye - Posts
Canucklehead - Posts
Devin the Omniscient - Posts
DFaraday - Posts
DharmaHelper - Posts
DisgruntledPorcupine - Posts
Dom - Posts
DrWilgy - Posts
Epignosis - Posts
Golden - Posts
G-Man - Posts
JaggedJimmyJay - Posts
LoRab - Posts
Metalmarsh89 - Posts
MovingPictures07 - Posts
nutella - Posts
reywaS - Posts
Ricochet - Posts
Roxy - Posts
Russtifinko - Posts
Scotty - Posts
Sorsha - Posts
Spacedaisy - Posts
S~V~S - Posts
thellama73 - Posts
timmer - Posts
TinyBubbles - Posts
Tranq - Posts
Turnip Head - Posts
Typhoony - Posts
unfurl - Posts

Trying to figure out who "could" be recruited so early is a witch hunt imho
Is just guessing, but part of this game is just that at the end
Based in just guessing, I dont have suspects for leaders or recruiters. at this point, is finding a needle in a haystack unless you are a mind reader, then good for you, but discussion is good so there

Golden-Epig back in forth, intersting (haha I noticed Epig hates the word intersting!!!! :P)
Both of them talk and argue a lot, thats pretty much my conclusion

...

something as a general request
Please, use the green off topic color, for the people who dont have a lot time, to be reading/posting a lot, it helps to skim those parts

I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

The low poster debate, oh thats a new thing! Cant wait to see all the comments about it

Frankly, in a game such as this more so than any other, low posters will be a liability. They are easy tools for the mafia-oriented recruiters to recruit, since finding a recruited low poster or, more importantly, a recruiter out of a group of 10+ low posters is like finding a needle in a haystack, as we saw recently in Bullets over Broadway.

On the flip side, any low posters that happen to be on the civilian-oriented teams, whether recruited or a recruiter, may be more apt to miss a PM than a player who is actively posting.

I don't intend on insulting any player who has yet to get into the game, since it's still early, but this is what I think, and I think starting this discussion gives all of us another topic to discuss. I find the current topics boring.

unfurl wrote:The low poster debate, oh thats a new thing! Cant wait to see all the comments about it

That was fast.

It's not quite a new thing though, since this game has a different dynamic whereby players mostly start neutral and get recruited to one side or the other.

I intend on starting discussion.

You've contributed nothing through your posts and I may actually vote for you. In your 9 posts, you really don't give any solid opinions at all.

For example, your second most recent post here:

unfurl wrote:Trying to figure out who "could" be recruited so early is a witch hunt imho
Is just guessing, but part of this game is just that at the end
Based in just guessing, I dont have suspects for leaders or recruiters. at this point, is finding a needle in a haystack unless you are a mind reader, then good for you, but discussion is good so there

Golden-Epig back in forth, intersting (haha I noticed Epig hates the word intersting!!!! :P)
Both of them talk and argue a lot, thats pretty much my conclusion

...

something as a general request
Please, use the green off topic color, for the people who dont have a lot time, to be reading/posting a lot, it helps to skim those parts

All you say is Golden and Epi talk and argue a lot.

Now you indicate you really don't want to talk about low posters.

So what do you want to talk about?

I think Im going to be very sarcastic this game, I dhould problably lear to use the orange color, but see I can use the green color
so proud of myself!!!

linky MP
I do understand your point a little bit, and ofc no one likes to be talking a lot, and get lynched or NK for it, while others just fly under the radar and a lot times win because of it
in a set up like LMS I agree, is usually good to get rid of people that are not even playing cause it gets boring

And that was fast cause I was around at this moment in my pc, and I found it amusing

Catching up, although my afternoon is almost up and I was busy throughout it, plus later I have an EoD on JMT as opposed to here (thank god for EoDs being on different days, at least).

I don't have anything original to contribute for the vanilla roles, but is every such contest gonna be announced at 5-6am my time zone? 'Cause if there will be any quick draw contests or such, I'll have virtually no change of participating.

Right now, my trigger is still on Llama, because he should at least get the same treatment for his statements as he considered that TinyBubbles (how should we nickname you, btw, if not TB?) should get for her statements. Is TinyBubbles bad for saying she's bad? Then so is Llama for saying he wants to side with the Sorcerers. Was TinyBubbles obviously joking, but is still suspicious for giving such answer? Then so can Llama have joked about it, but is suspicious for putting such a statement forth. Did TinyBubbles give in fact two contradictory statements, for which she shouldn't be trusted? So did Llama (coating his second statement as WIFOM that the Mafia will never pick him, now that he said he'd like to), for which he shouldn't be trusted.

To all this, Llama hunting or at least fishing TinyBubbles for reasons that make himself look bad is further incentive to suspect him.

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

You know I will! I haven't voted DP on Day 1 in a long time, even though it used to be a time honored tradition with me.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Hey BR, any chance you could stick this on the front page? Please and thanks.

<snip>

Thanks for this, I'd also add BR's and LC's host posts, because they make quite a lot of them with valuable info.

Black Rock - posts
Long Con - posts

unfurl wrote:I think Im going to be very sarcastic this game, I dhould problably lear to use the orange color, but see I can use the green color
so proud of myself!!!

linky MP
I do understand your point a little bit, and ofc no one likes to be talking a lot, and get lynched or NK for it, while others just fly under the radar and a lot times win because of it
in a set up like LMS I agree, is usually good to get rid of people that are not even playing cause it gets boring

And that was fast cause I was around at this moment in my pc, and I found it amusing

Look, I understand it's Day 1 and the low poster debate always happens, and I understand why people tire of it. But given this game's setup, I think it is something worth discussing, if not only to see how players would respond to me bringing it up: Whether they think I'm suspicious for jumping on low posters, whether they think we should vote a low poster, etc.

I got an immediate rise out of you, a rise that could be seen as stifling discussion, although even I can fathom why you'd be tired of debating about low posters. Don't get me wrong.

Regarding the bolded/underlined, this is sort of what I was trying to convey. Of course, if I have a lead as to whether someone is a recruiter that I believe in, and that player is not a low poster, I will vote for them. I also realize that people have lives, that some players don't feel as though much has happened, etc. I'm trying to make stuff happen. I see Llama and Epi are doing the same, but people are dismissing their attempts, including myself, hence I felt the need to go a different route.

In this game, hardly any players have any alignment at the moment, and there will be hardly any evidence by which to find a recruiter unless we create it. We don't even have the Erlatz 11 or anything like that, it seems, this time around either. At least that gave us something in past games.

I firmly believe that a recruiter would NOT want to say anything to unintentionally bring the heat against him or her so early in the game, and consequently I think we should start applying heat to players who aren't willing to say anything.

Ricochet wrote:Catching up, although my afternoon is almost up and I was busy throughout it, plus later I have an EoD on JMT as opposed to here (thank god for EoDs being on different days, at least).

I don't have anything original to contribute for the vanilla roles, but is every such contest gonna be announced at 5-6am my time zone? 'Cause if there will be any quick draw contests or such, I'll have virtually no change of participating.

Right now, my trigger is still on Llama, because he should at least get the same treatment for his statements as he considered that TinyBubbles (how should we nickname you, btw, if not TB?) should get for her statements. Is TinyBubbles bad for saying she's bad? Then so is Llama for saying he wants to side with the Sorcerers. Was TinyBubbles obviously joking, but is still suspicious for giving such answer? Then so can Llama have joked about it, but is suspicious for putting such a statement forth. Did TinyBubbles give in fact two contradictory statements, for which she shouldn't be trusted? So did Llama (coating his second statement as WIFOM that the Mafia will never pick him, now that he said he'd like to), for which he shouldn't be trusted.

To all this, Llama hunting or at least fishing TinyBubbles for reasons that make himself look bad is further incentive to suspect him.

I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Like I said I have no ide how to uncover a recruiter is finding a needle in a haystack, but maybe the people who talk a lot are able to find a solution :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Catching up, although my afternoon is almost up and I was busy throughout it, plus later I have an EoD on JMT as opposed to here (thank god for EoDs being on different days, at least).

I don't have anything original to contribute for the vanilla roles, but is every such contest gonna be announced at 5-6am my time zone? 'Cause if there will be any quick draw contests or such, I'll have virtually no change of participating.

Right now, my trigger is still on Llama, because he should at least get the same treatment for his statements as he considered that TinyBubbles (how should we nickname you, btw, if not TB?) should get for her statements. Is TinyBubbles bad for saying she's bad? Then so is Llama for saying he wants to side with the Sorcerers. Was TinyBubbles obviously joking, but is still suspicious for giving such answer? Then so can Llama have joked about it, but is suspicious for putting such a statement forth. Did TinyBubbles give in fact two contradictory statements, for which she shouldn't be trusted? So did Llama (coating his second statement as WIFOM that the Mafia will never pick him, now that he said he'd like to), for which he shouldn't be trusted.

To all this, Llama hunting or at least fishing TinyBubbles for reasons that make himself look bad is further incentive to suspect him.

I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

Catching up in fits and starts...

Ricochet wrote:Ok, so today's package is

Lynch Pardon (civ leader)
Redirect Night powers (civ leader)
Immune to NK/Lynch (mafia leader)
Power Steal (mafia leader)
Insanifier
Seduction
Mind Control
Role Nullifier
Tracker
Heal
Randomly blows votes
Cremates a body (does this actually require a body, i.e. a dead player to cremate, possibly making him unrezzable q.m.)
Immune to all Kills
Untargetable
Can’t die as long as [lover] is alive
End day period early
Seemer
Message to the thread through host
Switches two targets
Dead role check
Boon
Picks Player
Picks 3 minus or plus votes
Kill a Sorcerer
Switch three roles powers
Randomize three players, block one, protect one, kill one
Finds out how many of each clan are recruited or unrecruited, and the status of Clan Leaders
Magnetically repel night powers to random targets
Knowing who a Position 1 role targeted
Message to the thread
Protects all Guardians (indy leader)

But I also have half past three am on my clock, so see you tomorrow.

Discuss lynching llama until then, please.

I purpled the roles I am unclear on. Not sure what seduction is. I've seen blocking roles that use their block by being alluring to their target. Does that fit or have things changed since I've been away?

Role Nullifier could be dangerous if it nullifies a player's role/position powers for the whole game. That's how I read it, because it would just be a fancy way of saying 'blocker' if it's not permanent. A kinder, gentler interpretation could mean that the Warden gets to block a specific role instead of a player (even more of a shot in the dark).

The Pyromancer sounds like it destroys the body, making that dead player unrezzable and uncheckable.

I have no idea what a Boon is aside from the main character who dies first on Lost. Can someone explain that one?

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, I know who I'm voting for. Anyone want to talk about anything else while we wait?

How about if we should lynch you for already deciding who you're voting for with little explanation?

Also, I completely forgot who you said you're voting for so yeah there's that...

Would you like an explanation? I would be happy to provide one.

linki Golden: I don't think the lynch save should be used on the person I will be voting for, because I think that person is bad.

Well Golden's post reminded me it was Bubbles. So yeah, either an explanation or a link back to your reason why would suffice for now.

I asked Bubbles if she was bad, and she said she was. Why would she lie about that?

You remind me of Absalom.

I did not read bubbles post as a statement of fact, but as a sarcastic response to your question, and won't be voting that way myself. I did not mind her reaction. I think it spoke to neutrality, and I don't think she would have been a likely choice for a recruit after that point.

Ha! I was thinking the same thing. Kind of like the Uzziah case all over again.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:POST. hi everyone

POST. Hi Tinybubbles. Did you finally get a mafia role this time around?

hi MM i'm afraid not. i think i'm going for a mafia record here lol

She also said this ^^

So you are preferring to take her at her word for one post but not another?

In fact, she said that first.

SVS - help me with a bit of theorycrafting. (For anyone who asks, I asked SVS specifically because I know her brain works a lot differently to mine and so I think her perspective can be very helpful to me, but I'm interested in anyones view). If you were a baddie leader, what would your preferred approach be on day one - try and recruit someone you know is a major FEB and could be a big asset to the team, or try and recruit someone no-one would suspect?

That's a hard question.

I would either recruit someone who I would have fun with, OR i would recruit someone who has what i lack (which was my strategy when i used to hire my own assistants irl). Someone who was a better strategist (I am a good tactician, but a poor strategist) and perhaps better at the technical game, sussing out roles, etc. which is something I am the suck at. I have done both in the past. I don't think it matters if they are a FEB or not, tbh. That would not come into my considerations.

Does that answer your question?

Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

I think SVS's take on recruiting makes the most sense to me. Pick people you know or think you'll work well with but don't be afraid to take a few chances. Otherwise it could just become a popularity contest and newer people may be discouraged by getting picked last. Then again, the people who are known to be major FEB's can be something of a liability to a recruiter because a reputation for being an awesome baddie may get someone lynched or NK'd early. Same goes for super-civvies. There's lot of reverse psychology at play though, because what I just said would suggest it's best to go for those middle-ground players first while at the same time putting a target on their backs, making the theoretically less attractive players more attractive again. But that just starts us spinning round and round. Recruiters probably have their 'power rankings' (to borrow a sports term) while also not wanting to seem too obvious. I'd be way to susceptible to overthinking recruitment decisions, so I'm glad I am not one of the recruiters.

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

Too bad reputations get you lynched and NK'd early. Especially if you've had a good run lately and showed some serious skill/luck on one or both sides of the game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

Bea's post is astute. Leaving wiggle room is a baddie hallmark.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Personally (as usual) I'd rather vote a low poster/no-show than an active participant on day one if nothing more meaningful shows up.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Ricochet wrote: My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

This is a misrepresentation of my record. I called you bad in the first two games we played together, if I recall, because I thought you were bad in those games. I haven't really gone after you since, but you're holding on to a grudge from your first game here. That's not good strategy.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

This is a misrepresentation of my record. I called you bad in the first two games we played together, if I recall, because I thought you were bad in those games. I haven't really gone after you since, but you're holding on to a grudge from your first game here. That's not good strategy.

Also, what do you mean "Baddie aligned"? The only baddie aligned people in this game so far are the two baddie recruiters, so you are in fact accusing me of being a recruiter.

Ricochet wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Catching up, although my afternoon is almost up and I was busy throughout it, plus later I have an EoD on JMT as opposed to here (thank god for EoDs being on different days, at least).

I don't have anything original to contribute for the vanilla roles, but is every such contest gonna be announced at 5-6am my time zone? 'Cause if there will be any quick draw contests or such, I'll have virtually no change of participating.

Right now, my trigger is still on Llama, because he should at least get the same treatment for his statements as he considered that TinyBubbles (how should we nickname you, btw, if not TB?) should get for her statements. Is TinyBubbles bad for saying she's bad? Then so is Llama for saying he wants to side with the Sorcerers. Was TinyBubbles obviously joking, but is still suspicious for giving such answer? Then so can Llama have joked about it, but is suspicious for putting such a statement forth. Did TinyBubbles give in fact two contradictory statements, for which she shouldn't be trusted? So did Llama (coating his second statement as WIFOM that the Mafia will never pick him, now that he said he'd like to), for which he shouldn't be trusted.

To all this, Llama hunting or at least fishing TinyBubbles for reasons that make himself look bad is further incentive to suspect him.

I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

Irrational does not equate to suspicious.

Civilians act irrationally all the time. I find his statements mostly irrational, but they're typical Llama that I've seen for years now. He's trying his best to start discussion on Day 1, and I think he firmly believes he has a better chance at catching someone using his line of thinking (that someone who is lying is uncomfortable with a direct yes/no question) than he does at randomizing or any other method or current lead, so I believe he is being sincere. I have no reason to believe he is anything right now other than just plain old Llama.

What possibilities for baddie-aligned do you see at this moment?

G-Man wrote:I have no idea what a Boon is aside from the main character who dies first on Lost. Can someone explain that one?

Lol, that's Boone. Also, questions about the boon have been answered and preserved on the first page. Here it is:

What is a boon?

A boon is a piece of assistance for a player tailored to their specific needs and situation. It may be info, or a crucial protection, a subtraction of votes, or whatever.

Role nullifier sounds like ability nullifier to me, but probably needs confirmation. I'm playing on JTM these days and have discovered that "role" can sometimes address the "ability", not the "character", the way we use the term here. They speak of "role madness" as in heavily loaded with abilities, instead of traditional vanilla-cop-(medic)-(vigi)-mafia setups.

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Like I said I have no ide how to uncover a recruiter is finding a needle in a haystack, but maybe the people who talk a lot are able to find a solution :P

Are you going to try? I don't know how to find a recruiter either but I'm not going to just let other people do it for me. This post makes me feel like that's your attitude though.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

Bea's post is astute. Leaving wiggle room is a baddie hallmark.

I wouldn't disagree.

However, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) Do you feel BWT's post is typical behavior for him regardless of alignment?
2) Do you think that a recruiter would have incentive to make the post that BWT made?

I also want to note that it seems that BWT didn't notice that DH was being tongue in cheek.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Irrational does not equate to suspicious.

Civilians act irrationally all the time. I find his statements mostly irrational, but they're typical Llama that I've seen for years now. He's trying his best to start discussion on Day 1, and I think he firmly believes he has a better chance at catching someone using his line of thinking (that someone who is lying is uncomfortable with a direct yes/no question) than he does at randomizing or any other method or current lead, so I believe he is being sincere. I have no reason to believe he is anything right now other than just plain old Llama.

Wrong. All actions are by definition rational, in the sense that they are designed to move the actor from a place of lesser satisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, based on the subjective preferences of the actor. Whether or not they succeed is not relevant.

Ludwig von Mises wrote: The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.

Now, regarding low posters: My feeling is that they are less likely to be recruited, and therefore more likely to remain unaligned. Not ideal choices for lynches, especially later in the game. On Day 1, however, they are just as likely to be a recruiter as anyone else, so if we're going to go after them, we should do it sooner rather than later.

Bullzeye wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Like I said I have no ide how to uncover a recruiter is finding a needle in a haystack, but maybe the people who talk a lot are able to find a solution :P

Are you going to try? I don't know how to find a recruiter either but I'm not going to just let other people do it for me. This post makes me feel like that's your attitude though.

I echo this sentiment.

If we all wanted to, we could just not post at all, then randomize, right? If we really can't figure out who a recruiter is, why even post? That is some of the implication I've been reading of unfurl's posts.

So is unfurl a nervous recruiter unsure of how to handle the discussion today or a genuine unrecruited neutral line of thinking?

thellama73 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

This is a misrepresentation of my record. I called you bad in the first two games we played together, if I recall, because I thought you were bad in those games. I haven't really gone after you since, but you're holding on to a grudge from your first game here. That's not good strategy.

Also, what do you mean "Baddie aligned"? The only baddie aligned people in this game so far are the two baddie recruiters, so you are in fact accusing me of being a recruiter.

This is not true, is it? Haven't all four recruiters (2 baddie and 2 civvie) had the chance to recruit once already? So really, there are 4 actual baddies in the game now, and four actual civs.....right??


Also, hi everyone! Sorry I wasn't around yesterday. It's super upper hella busy time here right now, but I will do my best to stay involved and active.


YAAAAYAYYAYAUYAYYUUUUYYYU RECRUITMENT GAME! Thanks for letting me sneak in last minute, beauteous hoagies!

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Irrational does not equate to suspicious.

Civilians act irrationally all the time. I find his statements mostly irrational, but they're typical Llama that I've seen for years now. He's trying his best to start discussion on Day 1, and I think he firmly believes he has a better chance at catching someone using his line of thinking (that someone who is lying is uncomfortable with a direct yes/no question) than he does at randomizing or any other method or current lead, so I believe he is being sincere. I have no reason to believe he is anything right now other than just plain old Llama.

Wrong. All actions are by definition rational, in the sense that they are designed to move the actor from a place of lesser satisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, based on the subjective preferences of the actor. Whether or not they succeed is not relevant.

Ludwig von Mises wrote: The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.

Now, regarding low posters: My feeling is that they are less likely to be recruited, and therefore more likely to remain unaligned. Not ideal choices for lynches, especially later in the game. On Day 1, however, they are just as likely to be a recruiter as anyone else, so if we're going to go after them, we should do it sooner rather than later.

Fair enough. I suppose rational isn't the best word to describe what I think of your arguments (although I will emphasize that I used the qualifier "mostly", since I can understand why you feel the way you do); rather, they aren't convincing to me.

thellama73 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

This is a misrepresentation of my record. I called you bad in the first two games we played together, if I recall, because I thought you were bad in those games. I haven't really gone after you since, but you're holding on to a grudge from your first game here. That's not good strategy.

Also, what do you mean "Baddie aligned"? The only baddie aligned people in this game so far are the two baddie recruiters, so you are in fact accusing me of being a recruiter.

I used aligned improperly, I meant leaning i.e. roles with bad-lean positions. You stated your preference for the Sorcerers who want nothing but chaos, because fun. The Sorcerer recruiter is baddie aligned. Hence if your preference is getting recruited by the Sorcerer recruiter, why shouldn't we suspect you for possibly ending up being recruited as mafia?

EBWOP irrational, not rational. Lol.

Canucklehead wrote: This is not true, is it? Haven't all four recruiters (2 baddie and 2 civvie) had the chance to recruit once already? So really, there are 4 actual baddies in the game now, and four actual civs.....right??


Also, hi everyone! Sorry I wasn't around yesterday. It's super upper hella busy time here right now, but I will do my best to stay involved and active.


YAAAAYAYYAYAUYAYYUUUUYYYU RECRUITMENT GAME! Thanks for letting me sneak in last minute, beauteous hoagies!

Based on what the hosts have posted, I think you may be right. Have we had specific confirmation though?

MovingPictures07 wrote: I wouldn't disagree.

However, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) Do you feel BWT's post is typical behavior for him regardless of alignment?
2) Do you think that a recruiter would have incentive to make the post that BWT made?

1) BWT is always somewhat of a fence-sitter, so it pings me less than it would coming from another player. Still worth watching though.
2) Maybe.A recruiter is apt to be nervous early on and afraid of being discovered. Unlike in traditional mafia, he doesn't yet have a team to bail him out if he gets into trouble. I would expect this to result in more unforced errors than normal.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote: This is not true, is it? Haven't all four recruiters (2 baddie and 2 civvie) had the chance to recruit once already? So really, there are 4 actual baddies in the game now, and four actual civs.....right??


Also, hi everyone! Sorry I wasn't around yesterday. It's super upper hella busy time here right now, but I will do my best to stay involved and active.


YAAAAYAYYAYAUYAYYUUUUYYYU RECRUITMENT GAME! Thanks for letting me sneak in last minute, beauteous hoagies!

Based on what the hosts have posted, I think you may be right. Have we had specific confirmation though?

I don't think we've had explicit statements, and I'll admit that my reading has been very rushed....but I think there have been elements in the host posts and story posts that have made it pretty clear that the game's key mechanic (Recruitment) is up and running already. But it's BR/LC so I guess nothing is certain

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Catching up, although my afternoon is almost up and I was busy throughout it, plus later I have an EoD on JMT as opposed to here (thank god for EoDs being on different days, at least).

I don't have anything original to contribute for the vanilla roles, but is every such contest gonna be announced at 5-6am my time zone? 'Cause if there will be any quick draw contests or such, I'll have virtually no change of participating.

Right now, my trigger is still on Llama, because he should at least get the same treatment for his statements as he considered that TinyBubbles (how should we nickname you, btw, if not TB?) should get for her statements. Is TinyBubbles bad for saying she's bad? Then so is Llama for saying he wants to side with the Sorcerers. Was TinyBubbles obviously joking, but is still suspicious for giving such answer? Then so can Llama have joked about it, but is suspicious for putting such a statement forth. Did TinyBubbles give in fact two contradictory statements, for which she shouldn't be trusted? So did Llama (coating his second statement as WIFOM that the Mafia will never pick him, now that he said he'd like to), for which he shouldn't be trusted.

To all this, Llama hunting or at least fishing TinyBubbles for reasons that make himself look bad is further incentive to suspect him.

I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

Irrational does not equate to suspicious.

Civilians act irrationally all the time. I find his statements mostly irrational, but they're typical Llama that I've seen for years now. He's trying his best to start discussion on Day 1, and I think he firmly believes he has a better chance at catching someone using his line of thinking (that someone who is lying is uncomfortable with a direct yes/no question) than he does at randomizing or any other method or current lead, so I believe he is being sincere. I have no reason to believe he is anything right now other than just plain old Llama.

What possibilities for baddie-aligned do you see at this moment?

That didn't exactly answer my question, although it reflected on my TinyBubbles (sorry) vs. llama analogy, so I guess it's still a fair input.

But you till didn't exactly answer my question, what does his two "I <3 Sorcerer / Oh, now that mafia will definitely never pick me " posts tell you?

If by baddie-aligned, you mean to ask where can I potentially spot the two baddie recruiters, then my answer is I have no idea, right now.

Canucklehead wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: My arguments are never biased, they are based on reading his suspicious actions. Same here as back in Guess Who, the only two games when he was among my first suspects (if not my first). If you want bias, look back at him instead, always calling me bad off the bat, in the earliest games I played.

I don't think it indicates he is a recruiter, I think it indicates he might be indeed baddie-aligned and seed WIFOM for us. What part sounded for you like implying he's a recruiter?

What do you think of his statements?

This is a misrepresentation of my record. I called you bad in the first two games we played together, if I recall, because I thought you were bad in those games. I haven't really gone after you since, but you're holding on to a grudge from your first game here. That's not good strategy.

Also, what do you mean "Baddie aligned"? The only baddie aligned people in this game so far are the two baddie recruiters, so you are in fact accusing me of being a recruiter.

This is not true, is it? Haven't all four recruiters (2 baddie and 2 civvie) had the chance to recruit once already? So really, there are 4 actual baddies in the game now, and four actual civs.....right??


Also, hi everyone! Sorry I wasn't around yesterday. It's super upper hella busy time here right now, but I will do my best to stay involved and active.


YAAAAYAYYAYAUYAYYUUUUYYYU RECRUITMENT GAME! Thanks for letting me sneak in last minute, beauteous hoagies!

Huzzah, Canucklegoose is here!

And now, everyone has officially posted in this game.

If Canuck is correct, then we are hunting for 2 groups of 2, which still is similar to hunting a lone recruiter, only different in the fact that the recruiter at least has one other player to rely on at this time.

I agree with Llama that a recruiter would be especially nervous right now since they have not yet built up a team.

Linki w/ Rico: I didn't realize you were referring to those statements. They're WIFOM, I really didn't make anything of them when I read them. Not really out of character for Llama. I'm not willing to overthink them. And re: baddie-aligned, noted.