The Syndicate

Matt wrote:

Enrique wrote:Matt, it's simple. When an option gains popularity on the poll, and most votes are quick throwaway for no particular reason and sometimes by players that have gone mostly unaccounted for, that's considered shady. It's a huge stretch to go from there and start singling out individuals as being suspicious, especially when the game just started. There's simply nothing else to work with, but the poll results are still interesting.

Again, this feels like a contradiction.

Per the underline, what exactly is considered shady? If Zebra isn't calling the voters shady, then she's just calling...the votes...shady? I'm having a real hard time grasping what you all seem to easily be getting.

I'm not calling any particular voter shady. No particular voter or vote has pinged me. But the popularity of the option in general seems shady to me, and alarming.

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

Enrique wrote:Matt, it's simple. When an option gains popularity on the poll, and most votes are quick throwaway for no particular reason and sometimes by players that have gone mostly unaccounted for, that's considered shady. It's a huge stretch to go from there and start singling out individuals as being suspicious, especially when the game just started. There's simply nothing else to work with, but the poll results are still interesting.

Again, this feels like a contradiction.

Per the underline, what exactly is considered shady? If Zebra isn't calling the voters shady, then she's just calling...the votes...shady? I'm having a real hard time grasping what you all seem to easily be getting.

I'm not calling any particular voter shady. No particular voter or vote has pinged me. But the popularity of the option in general seems shady to me, and alarming.

Lol. This is almost comedic I guess, considering everyone seems to be on this page and I'm just not understanding. I don't see how the popularity of an option can be shady if the voters behind that popularity aren't considered shady as well.

Matt wrote:

Matt wrote:What "shady" means...

Google says "of doubtful honesty or legality"

Urban dictionary says "shifty, sly, suspicious"

How is the popularity of Arkham "shady" if you don't suspect any one who's voted for it?

I'm sorry, I simply do not understand. It's not intentional. I simply don't.

Can someone else speak up on this before Zebra and I make 100 posts each going at each other?

Does anyone else understand? Am I legit just being stupid right now?

I think it's rooted in the idea that it might be a bandwagon vote and that makes her uneasy.

However, I think it's irrelevant because I think Epi said no one has information?

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

Enrique wrote:Matt, it's simple. When an option gains popularity on the poll, and most votes are quick throwaway for no particular reason and sometimes by players that have gone mostly unaccounted for, that's considered shady. It's a huge stretch to go from there and start singling out individuals as being suspicious, especially when the game just started. There's simply nothing else to work with, but the poll results are still interesting.

Again, this feels like a contradiction.

Per the underline, what exactly is considered shady? If Zebra isn't calling the voters shady, then she's just calling...the votes...shady? I'm having a real hard time grasping what you all seem to easily be getting.

I'm not calling any particular voter shady. No particular voter or vote has pinged me. But the popularity of the option in general seems shady to me, and alarming.

Lol. This is almost comedic I guess, considering everyone seems to be on this page and I'm just not understanding. I don't see how the popularity of an option can be shady if the voters behind that popularity aren't considered shady as well.

This isn't almost comedic, this is comedic.

The voters behind that popularity are shady in general, but none in particular have pinged me because of their vote. When you ask for individual reads of all of them and most of them are null for me and the baddie one for you is for reasons outside of your vote for that option, there is no contradiction. Just because I think the popularity for an option is shady doesn't mean I'm able to discern who the baddies are that are voting for it and who the misguided civs are. Because of this, you asking for my reads of all the players on that vote in the first place was one of the first indicators to me that you weren't genuine.

See if you had asked me if I think some of the voters of that option were bad, I would've said yes. But because you asked for individual reads on each player who was on the vote, I didn't have any to offer because none of them in particular struck me as bad based on their vote and reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it.

This is correct, Dom:

Epignosis wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Hosts: Does anyone have any info about this poll?

No.

...but this doesn't mean that no one has info about any of the options either, only info about the poll itself. I imagine in a map-based game the factions have at least some info about what locations would benefit them and which ones wouldn't, I don't think that's much of a stretch.

Matt, it's similar to when someone is about to be lynched in a landslide vote and you know there is at least one baddie on it but you have no idea how many or which one(s). That happens all the time, and this is a Day 0 equivalent of that for me.

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

Enrique wrote:Matt, it's simple. When an option gains popularity on the poll, and most votes are quick throwaway for no particular reason and sometimes by players that have gone mostly unaccounted for, that's considered shady. It's a huge stretch to go from there and start singling out individuals as being suspicious, especially when the game just started. There's simply nothing else to work with, but the poll results are still interesting.

Again, this feels like a contradiction.

Per the underline, what exactly is considered shady? If Zebra isn't calling the voters shady, then she's just calling...the votes...shady? I'm having a real hard time grasping what you all seem to easily be getting.

I'm not calling any particular voter shady. No particular voter or vote has pinged me. But the popularity of the option in general seems shady to me, and alarming.

Lol. This is almost comedic I guess, considering everyone seems to be on this page and I'm just not understanding. I don't see how the popularity of an option can be shady if the voters behind that popularity aren't considered shady as well.

This isn't almost comedic, this is comedic.

The voters behind that popularity are shady in general, but none in particular have pinged me because of their vote. When you ask for individual reads of all of them and most of them are null for me and the baddie one for you is for reasons outside of your vote for that option, there is no contradiction. Just because I think the popularity for an option is shady doesn't mean I'm able to discern who the baddies are that are voting for it and who the misguided civs are. Because of this, you asking for my reads of all the players on that vote in the first place was one of the first indicators to me that you weren't genuine.

Okay, finally I'm getting what you're saying.

However...how do you know there are any "misguided civs" ? How do you know that Arkham isn't the BEST option to pick? You are so absolute on Arkham being this "terrible" option, yet nobody has info, and we don't even know what's going to happen.

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, it's similar to when someone is about to be lynched in a landslide vote and you know there is at least one baddie on it but you have no idea how many or which one(s). That happens all the time, and this is a Day 0 equivalent of that for me.

No offense, but this is another thing that doesn't make sense to me.

You were very "whatevs" with your vote for the docks, "cuz I like docks" and "it's only day 0", yet you have aggressively been AGAINST the Arkham option.

I don't know how you could be so "careless" with your vote, but then go on to suss the Arkham option.

Matt wrote: However...how do you know there are any "misguided civs" ? How do you know that Arkham isn't the BEST option to pick? You are so absolute on Arkham being this "terrible" option, yet nobody has info, and we don't even know what's going to happen.

I don't know there are misguided civs, it only seems reasonable since I think it's unlikely that every single vote on that option is anti-town.

I don't know that Arkham isn't the BEST option to pick, it only seems highly unlikely because it's the place that all the inmates have escaped from, so I can't understand what town would find there that would be beneficial. This is what I told you when you initially asked me why I thought the popularity for that option was alarming, so now we're back at square one.

It's precisely because we don't know what's going to happen that I am alarmed about the popularity of Arkham. Why is that weird? I also don't understand how I'm being absolute about it, I've only been stating how I feel about it this whole damn time.

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, it's similar to when someone is about to be lynched in a landslide vote and you know there is at least one baddie on it but you have no idea how many or which one(s). That happens all the time, and this is a Day 0 equivalent of that for me.

No offense, but this is another thing that doesn't make sense to me.

You were very "whatevs" with your vote for the docks, "cuz I like docks" and "it's only day 0", yet you have aggressively been AGAINST the Arkham option.

I don't know how you could be so "careless" with your vote, but then go on to suss the Arkham option.

No offense taken. And no offense, but look at the names.

The docks doesn't sound like a place that's going to effect much. Same with the last four options. And that's what I've wanted. I've said multiple times that I want Day 1 to be as normal as possible, because going somewhere where there's more likely to be manipulation from the outside (in my experience at least) tends to favor anti-town agenda. I'm careless with my vote because I narrowed my vote down to the options that I was comfortable being careless with. If I narrowed down my options to the first three and the Police Department instead, then believe me, I would not be careless with those options to choose from. Arkham Asylum, to me, sounds like a place where I can't imagine town benefiting from going there, at least not at this point in the game. And because I can't imagine it being beneficial for town, I am naturally alarmed that it is by far the most popular option. That's it.

Zeebs, another problem I've had...

Is that you immediately called me bad for simply asking you to give me reads. It felt like you knew where I was going with my questioning of you, so preemptively made a "no u" of the situation.

And remember, you called me bad well before most of our argument, so you saying "for reasons outside of your vote" doesn't completely make sense to me.

Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens assuming Arkham is still in the lead by the time the poll ends.

Also, wow, I keep seeing things...

Looking at the poll, Arkham had about 5 or 6 votes by the time you voted. Both Wayne Manor and the GCPD had two votes a piece before you voted. If you were so against the Arkham option, why didn't you pick Wayne Manor or GCPD as a way to "beat" the Arkham option? Instead, you went for the Docks, which...IMO, not many people are going to see "the Docks" and go "oh swell option".

But again, I don't understand why you didn't pick Wayne Manor or GCPD when they already had votes, and you could've added to them as a way to ensure Arkham doesn't win.

Matt wrote:Zeebs, another problem I've had...

Is that you immediately called me bad for simply asking you to give me reads. It felt like you knew where I was going with my questioning of you, so preemptively made a "no u" of the situation.

And remember, you called me bad well before most of our argument, so you saying "for reasons outside of your vote" doesn't completely make sense to me.

Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens assuming Arkham is still in the lead by the time the poll ends.

That's not true. See Matt this is what I'm talking about when I say that you're disingenuous. Why did you assume that I called you bad for asking you to give me reads? How do you expect me to believe that is a genuine assumption when it came out of nowhere just now referring to something that happened hours ago that you could have brought up then and in any case is based on nothing? Seriously, where do you get off assuming that? How do you know why I called you bad? How do you know why I think you're bad? When you make statements like this that only exist because of assumptions that are both inaccurate and completely out of left-field, it's hard to believe that you're dealing with me with a genuine open mind. Do you think I kept calling your suspicion of me desperate for shits and giggles? No, I keep calling it desperate because of stuff like this that you won't stop doing.

How does me saying that I read you as bad for reasons outside of your vote not make sense to you? Seriously, how? Just because the argument hadn't ended yet? That doesn't make sense. I made an enormous analysis post detailing where my thought process was during every single point of our back-and-forth detailing where you pinged me and why, and I made that post primarily for you in case you were in fact genuine and could respond to it like a genuine Matt would. Yet you still haven't acknowledged that it even exists. This is the kind of shit that makes me so frustrated. I'm fine being ignored, I'm fine being suspected, I'm not fine when I correct inaccurate assumptions about where I'm coming from and my correction is ignored so that misrepresentation can go on to be repeated countless times.

I don´t see why Arkham would be dangerous. The inmates are gone, and the "crime scene" is still fresh.

I don´t like that you voted docks. Why not put more thought into what could possibly help the town? If not Arkham, then what? A random vote is not worth anything. What location do YOU think could benefit the town?

Shooting down Arkham as an option but not providing an alternative doesn´t sound good to me. I guess you were trampled over yesterday which sucks, but only doing damage control and not contributing doesn´t sit well with me. Though it can be excused since you have been busy arguing with people, so there is that.

I know you don´t want crazy stuff to happen, but there must be at least one location that you believe to be pro-town. Where?

Matt wrote:Also, wow, I keep seeing things...

Looking at the poll, Arkham had about 5 or 6 votes by the time you voted. Both Wayne Manor and the GCPD had two votes a piece before you voted. If you were so against the Arkham option, why didn't you pick Wayne Manor or GCPD as a way to "beat" the Arkham option? Instead, you went for the Docks, which...IMO, not many people are going to see "the Docks" and go "oh swell option".

But again, I don't understand why you didn't pick Wayne Manor or GCPD when they already had votes, and you could've added to them as a way to ensure Arkham doesn't win.

Because I'm not confident enough that Wayne Manor or GCPD would be preferable to the Arkham option. And I'm not trying to pick an option to win everyone over. My first post was "let's all go to the docks" and it was humorous because I knew that wasn't going to happen. Like I said just now, I narrowed it down to the options that to me seem like are unlikely to effect the day. That excludes Wayne Manor and GCPD, so why would I fight for them when I'm not sure about them either?

Nerolunar wrote:I don´t see why Arkham would be dangerous. The inmates are gone, and the "crime scene" is still fresh.

I don´t like that you voted docks. Why not put more thought into what could possibly help the town? If not Arkham, then what? A random vote is not worth anything. What location do YOU think could benefit the town?

Shooting down Arkham as an option but not providing an alternative doesn´t sound good to me. I guess you were trampled over yesterday which sucks, but only doing damage control and not contributing doesn´t sit well with me. Though it can be excused since you have been busy arguing with people, so there is that.

I know you don´t want crazy stuff to happen, but there must be at least one location that you believe to be pro-town. Where?

If you know this, then what point are you trying to make with this post? The locations that I believe will be more beneficial to town are the locations where a vague kind of foul play is the least likely. In other words, irrelevant locations. The docks and the last four options don't seem to me like there's going to be negative outside interference because I don't see why those locations would have any outside interference period. My thought process with my vote is that the best chance of a pro-town option isn't to look for an option that seems appealing to town, but to look for an option that seems to have little to no chance of being anti-town. Does that make sense?

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:Zeebs, another problem I've had...

Is that you immediately called me bad for simply asking you to give me reads. It felt like you knew where I was going with my questioning of you, so preemptively made a "no u" of the situation.

And remember, you called me bad well before most of our argument, so you saying "for reasons outside of your vote" doesn't completely make sense to me.

Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens assuming Arkham is still in the lead by the time the poll ends.

That's not true. See Matt this is what I'm talking about when I say that you're disingenuous. Why did you assume that I called you bad for asking you to give me reads?

K. Here are my posts before you called me bad...
There you have it. Please identify why you found me bad outside of my vote for Arkham.

Anywho, I'm out for a bit to eat, but I'll be back in an hour or so. Peace

I think we have different mindsets on this matter. For you, the goal is to visit the least anti-town location, while I want to visit the most pro-town location.

I just can´t understand why you fear foul play and prefer irrelevance, when you could instead go for something thats barely high-risk and probably high-reward.

That place is Arkham.

And because to me I don't think there's any way to discern which of the options that seem the least likely to be favorable to anti-town is the absolute ideal option, I went with one of the ones I felt seem likely to be safe randomly. I like speculation about Day 0 votes but at the end of the day there's no way to know which one would be best, so I usually try to play it safe with either an irrelevant or straight-up contrarian option. I understand that you don't think that's contributing, but my top priority for every Day 0 isn't my own vote but to look at everyone else's.

linki @ Nero - See, what makes you think it's probably high-reward? The Riddler thing you mentioned earlier? Fair enough, but I can't imagine why you seem so sure that it's barely high-risk. To me that's alarming.

Matt, you went to the trouble to bump all of your old posts for me to elaborate on the issues I have with them (as if I haven't already) but you didn't go to the trouble to find my analysis of them that you're still pretending doesn't exist. You're digging your own damn grave.

Lots of assuming going on out here.

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, you went to the trouble to bump all of your old posts for me to elaborate on the issues I have with them (as if I haven't already) but you didn't go to the trouble to find my analysis of them that you're still pretending doesn't exist. You're digging your own damn grave.

That's a weird thing for you to say.

Why?

I've read just about all I've had time for today and still I'm only just about halfway through the thread! I've had a busy day of travelling on next to no sleep so I'm gonna cast my vote now and then go pass out for the night. Voting for *Wayne Manor* because I bet Bruce has a sweet booze stash somewhere in there. Perhaps he'll share.

Matt wrote:Btw, Golden, are you aware that Wayne Manor gets a 12% increase for every dead inmate? You keep saying that no civs "necessarily" need them dead. That's not true.

I've also said very clearly that Wayne Manor are town-favouring independents, not civilians... they do not need the mafia teams dead to win, they have their own unique win con.

The town is the PD.
The mafia are the crime families

Everyone else are forms of independent with non-standard win cons.

Plus, Wayne Manor doesn't 'necessarily' need all independents dead. They just need some dead. For them, it matters less specifically who than it does for the cops, though,

@all - I expect today will be a low participation day from me.

Golden wrote:Plus, Wayne Manor doesn't 'necessarily' need all independents dead. They just need some dead. For them, it matters less specifically who than it does for the cops, though,

@all - I expect today will be a low participation day from me.

Am I missing something?

I personally see Wayne Manor as full-on civvies, especially when you take into account that we all have different win conditions already. But, uh, whatever.

I still think Zebra comes off looking better in the recent exchange tbh. Like it usually happens, I'm not sure whether Matt really is that confused or he's just refusing to give her a point. If most of the thread understands what she meant, can we just move on? I don't think anybody is digging anybody's grave, but if anything it's Matt's stubbornness that stands out to me.

No concerns re: Nero. In the end I just think fighting about locations is a bit silly. Did I miss Epi's post saying no one has info? Because if that's really the case, then yeah, this is moot.

Oh woops I misread that, Golden. I thought you said who does it. Okay nvm.

The inmates are gone. That alone deems it safe for me. Any interpretation is valid at this point, but thats just what I believe.

Im not going to discuss it further Enrique, no worries

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, you went to the trouble to bump all of your old posts for me to elaborate on the issues I have with them (as if I haven't already) but you didn't go to the trouble to find my analysis of them that you're still pretending doesn't exist. You're digging your own damn grave.

It really wasn't trouble at all, it took like three minutes.

Anyway, as it were, I see you're doing the "won't answer you" thing you also did as a baddie in Star Wars, so whatevs.

Enrique, I really was confused. One of Zebra's most recent posts finally got the point across, but until then, I simply wasn't getting it.

Frankly, I think Zebra is bad. She accuses people without really accusing them. She saw Arkham as a bad option for town, yet opted to vote the Docks instead of adding votes on Wayne Manor or GCPD which could've helped stop Arkham from winning the poll. She said she didn't think I was bad because of my vote for Arkham or because I questioned her on reads for everyone, and yet when I bring up the six posts I had in the game previous to her calling me bad (a total no u btw) asking her to explain why she thought I was bad...doesn't answer.

Zebra, quick question. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Batman mythos, but if there was a breakout at Arkham, which option do you think Batman would pick from the poll?

Matt wrote:Frankly, I think Zebra is bad. She accuses people without really accusing them.

Is this something you think Zeebs usually does when she's bad?

Turnip Head wrote:

Matt wrote:Frankly, I think Zebra is bad. She accuses people without really accusing them.

Is this something you think Zeebs usually does when she's bad?

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen her pull a "this is quite alarming but nobody is alarming in particular cept the guy who called me out on saying this is alarming".

So I dunno.

I guess that's my point. Why are you associating that with baddie behavior?

Turnip Head wrote:I guess that's my point. Why are you associating that with baddie behavior?

I definitely don't associate it with civvie behavior. Do you?

Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.

Turnip Head wrote:Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.

So does that mean you think Zeebs is civvie ("irrational") ?

Tbh, seeing her and SVS get into has made me question by bad vibes on Zeebs, but again, that whole argument could be legit regardless of her affiliation.

Basically, though, I do not understand...if she did not like the Arkham option, why she would throw her vote on the docks. Why NOT Wayne Manor or GCPD? She says she doesn't necessarily think those are better options then Arkham. If she sees Arkham as a bad option, then why doesn't she see Wayne Manor or GCPD as a "good" option? Why put her vote on an option that virtually nobody else (cept nub Typh) is going to add on to?

Again, am I the only one seeing this? Does this not strike anyone else as funny?

You don't seem to understand Zebra's behavior, so you're associating it with her being bad. To me, that's irrational. I don't really understand why Zebra made the "alarming" comment or why she voted for the Docks, but I'm reading her tone as genuine.

Turnip Head wrote:You don't seem to understand Zebra's behavior, so you're associating it with her being bad. To me, that's irrational. I don't really understand why Zebra made the "alarming" comment or why she voted for the Docks, but I'm reading her tone as genuine.

Tone reading I get. But you can't ignore that she did not like the Arkham option, yet did nothing to stop it's progress with her vote. Only commented how "alarming" it was how many votes it was getting, and then when asked to provide reads on those who voted Arkham, every single one was "null" except for me...who dared to question her on it.

Zeebs, another question. Do you really find me more suspicious then some of the other Arkham voters, who have barely said a word on the matter since your "alarming" comment?

OK just caught up and I can remember who else said something about my tone but if someone could tell me how my tone has seemed bad this game that would be real helpful.

I can see why she said it was alarming/shady, however I can't explain her logic behind it. I don't think this is an alignment indicator for anyone really, maybe a few inmates are going to Arkham to not draw attention to themselves, but that is all speculation.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:OK just caught up and I can remember who else said something about my tone but if someone could tell me how my tone has seemed bad this game that would be real helpful.

Bass, Mac made a post about your tone that provided some examples, unless what you're asking for is more examples from other people.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:OK just caught up and I can remember who else said something about my tone but if someone could tell me how my tone has seemed bad this game that would be real helpful.

You sound exactly like normal bass to me. Mind you, I am terrible at reading you, but I feel like thats because I never detect a difference in tone.

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:Plus, Wayne Manor doesn't 'necessarily' need all independents dead. They just need some dead. For them, it matters less specifically who than it does for the cops, though,

@all - I expect today will be a low participation day from me.

Am I missing something?

I personally see Wayne Manor as full-on civvies, especially when you take into account that we all have different win conditions already. But, uh, whatever.

I still think Zebra comes off looking better in the recent exchange tbh. Like it usually happens, I'm not sure whether Matt really is that confused or he's just refusing to give her a point. If most of the thread understands what she meant, can we just move on? I don't think anybody is digging anybody's grave, but if anything it's Matt's stubbornness that stands out to me.

No concerns re: Nero. In the end I just think fighting about locations is a bit silly. Did I miss Epi's post saying no one has info? Because if that's really the case, then yeah, this is moot.

Do you think Wayne Manor starts out at 0% or 100%?

The way I see it is that the Wayne's are pro civ independents. It would be in their best interest to work with the civs, however they don't need the civs to win and could easily throw us under the bus to achieve victory. They could in theory win with the mafia, so they are pro civ, but we shouldn't count them as civilians.

Bullzeye wrote:I've read just about all I've had time for today and still I'm only just about halfway through the thread! I've had a busy day of travelling on next to no sleep so I'm gonna cast my vote now and then go pass out for the night. Voting for *Wayne Manor* because I bet Bruce has a sweet booze stash somewhere in there. Perhaps he'll share.

I've been so sidetracked with Zeebs I forgot...

U bad.

Unfortunately, I seem to be on the losing side of the argument here (again...I was on the losing side in Star Wars too where, yup, I called Zeebs out on her sketchy behavior there too), so hopefully peeps don't see her adversary (me) and go "Oh well guess we'll vote him".

I'm not Batman or anything but it will simply be a waste of a day if that's where we're going. Seeing Enrique call me stubborn and a few others (Golden for one) acting suss of me does not make me feel good about tomorrow's lynch, but anyway, just throwin' that out there.

wtf is this Day 0? I've been popping in and out trying to catch up one page at a time over the past 24 hours and it's been nonstop content. I'm in DFaraday's boat and am quite overwhelmed in not being part of the discussion since I've been too busy the past day. Good thing I invented that time machine last week. OH wait, that was a dream i had. nevermind.

Most of the semantics with which group to gun for early on and the meaning of the poll seems to have evened out, and frankly I feel like I've been stuck in a roundabout in New Jersey where only I understand the correct traffic yielding rules and in turn have been here for 5 hours on the inside track.

Stuff's gonna happen, we're gonna lynch some people, baddies will hopefully get killed, and independents might also be killed. It's important to identify specific independent roles, like Wilgy, who is

most definitely a doctor.

but unless it's directly interfering with the town's win goal, I'm out for mafia blood, boys.

Nerolunar wrote: Mac: My only clear civ read. Seems genuinely interested in finding the culprits.

I would be careful to jump on civ reads from a player's investment in catching baddies. There are 2 baddie teams on top of like 4 other clusters of win conditional castes. Of course both baddie teams should be actively pursuing other baddie teams as well. That being said, I am not getting a baddie read from Mac right now either.

Golden/Enrique dont look bad to me right now.

I think MP is not looking not civvie. And before you ask why, I don't know. gut? Sorry.

I am still looking to vote for no/low-posters for day 1, like usual. Because it's still too early for me to accuse.

Turnip Head wrote:Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.

You went out of your way to write "we" here.

sig wrote:Do you think Wayne Manor starts out at 0% or 100%?

The way I see it is that the Wayne's are pro civ independents. It would be in their best interest to work with the civs, however they don't need the civs to win and could easily throw us under the bus to achieve victory. They could in theory win with the mafia, so they are pro civ, but we shouldn't count them as civilians.

Because of the percentages involved in various actions, I think they must start at 0%

BUT WHY NOT ASK THE HOSTS - hosts, what percentage do Wayne team start at? Also, can they go above 100% so that they can then lose points but still be above 100%?

You and I definitely see game mechanics the same way, sig. Wayne can win with the mafia. They don't want to (because killing mafia nets them points and killing civs subtract points) but ultimately they will do what they need to do to win, and if that means taking out the last civ to end the game alive and above 100% they would do so.

@Matt - zeebs is acting totally different (to me) here than in Star Wars. The zeebs I saw in Star Wars was poised, she was the one resolving fights and being a good mediator, trying to get people to have an open mind and see all sides etc. She lacked any real frustration. To me this frustrated zeebs reminds me much more of her dune self.

What I see from you at the moment is standard tunnelly Matt. I'm not seeing good evidence from you that she is bad, just 'I was right last time' and you reacting to her suspecting you.

Golden wrote:BUT WHY NOT ASK THE HOSTS - hosts, what percentage do Wayne team start at? Also, can they go above 100% so that they can then lose points but still be above 100%?

0%. Yes.