The Syndicate

I've decided I still don't like INH's vote. The reason he provided just looks like B/S regardless of the circumstances.

insertnamehere wrote:I'm going to throw my vote onto the Scotty bonfire. Him and Sloonei are probably my two most suspicious people at this point, and I'm willing to give Sloonei a chance to earn my trust here. Plus I really don't like the Leetic bandwagon, so helping to derail that is a nice bonus.

It came at a moment which definitely increased the chance of Scotty being offed, but it was probably evident at that point that the only counterwagon with any chance of changing that was leetic (a case he had already discarded well before). It was the only vote on the table for him.

Ricochet wrote:As for the counter-wagon moment on INH, we believe JJJ has argued that, if baddie, he would have pressed on leetic, but the thing is: 1) we don't recall leetic wagon gaining serious traction (in fact, wasn't Scotty the only player to lean on it) and 2) a counter-wagon on INH is, in principle, still a perfect viable counter-wagon to accomplish the essential: get Scotty out of the lynch spot.

The leetic wagon peaked at 3 votes, not 2. Boomslang and Scotty voted there along with me. It's one reason I'm considering Boomslang as a potential opportunist. It was a more viable counterwagon than INH (which peaked at 2 votes) because it had more time to develop and there had been more discussion of leetic's goofy post. If I was bad, I would have pursued that counterwagon -- if I don't just bus Scotty outright. I had no need of Sloonei's INH wagon. I switched to that because it was my EOD inspiration.

Actually I forgot you voted for INH yourself, Rico. So it also peaked at 3 votes.

"Let's get right into the big story of the morning," Joe Scarborough announced at the top of the 6:00 hour. "A fire broke out around 3:30 a.m. this morning at the luxurious St. Regis Hotel in Atlanta while Republican nominee Donald Trump and his campaign staff were staying there. What do we know so far, Mika?"

"Authorities are still looking into the cause of the blaze," Ms. Brzezinski said, "and several Trump campaign staffers are being treated at Emory University Hospital. Among them are Trump's recently-appointed campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

"All authorities can tell us about the fire itself is that is started Conway's room and spread from there. Ms. Conway is listed in serious condition, being treated for smoke inhalation and second-degree burns. She's expected to remain at Emory hospital for the next few days before she can be released to either re-join the campaign or be transferred to another hospital."

"Terrible," Joe muttered. "Meanwhile, Governor Christie is also listed in serious condition after being struck by falling debris as he shielded campaign members as they made their way down a stairwell. Initial reports from witnesses suggest that the debris was caused by an explosion of some kind but authorities have been very tight-lipped about what that means."

"That hasn't stopped Donald Trump from speculating. Less than an hour ago he took to Twitter to comment on the fire and the ongoing investigation:"





"So what do you think, Joe?" Mika asked. "Is Donald jumping the gun by pulling out the conspiracy card?"

"While I think it's in the realm of possibilities, I think it may be a little too early for him to suggest foul play. Let the investigators do their job and see what they come up with."

"But you think it's possible someone might have set this fire on purpose?"

"Sure, why not?"

"But fires happen all the time."

"Do they happen around Presidential candidates, Mika? Do they?"

"Oh now you're just being ridiculous."

"I don't think so," Joe admonished. "Look, I'm keeping an open mind here but you have to consider the possibility that some anti-Trump person or people may have some involvement. The odds are small but they're still real odds."

"If you say so," Mika condescended.

"Look, if this had happened to Hillary's campaign, you know everyone would be wondering if some angry far-right lunatic tried to kill her. It would be the first thought to cross many minds. Why is it that, because it happens to Donald Trump, it's assumed to just be an accident?"

"Because there are more instances of violence coming from the political Right than there are from the Left, Joe."

"That is not true, Mike. Not true. You know the history of the Left- Stalin, Mao..."

"Yes but those were other countries."

"Okay, how about the Weather Underground and radical leftist movements here in the 60s? It rarely gets mentioned, but there are almost always more protests at Democratic conventions by members of the Left than at Republican conventions. Don't try to pass it off like there's no history of violence there. Several Trump supporters have been attacked and beaten at campaign events since last year, often times by anti-Trump, anti-Right activist thugs."

"Anyway," Mika sighed, "Governor Christie is being treated for smoke inhalation, a concussion, and other undisclosed injuries. He will also be held for a few days before heading back to New Jersey to recuperate. More on this story as it develops throughout the day."

Two players I was wary of were eliminated, so that's not the worst thing ever.

Putting my preliminary vote on Quin to start the day.

Sloonei wrote:Two players I was wary of were eliminated, so that's not the worst thing ever.

Putting my preliminary vote on Quin to start the day.

Agreed. I was considering mounting a Boomslang lynch.

My PoE was relatively small though and they were both in it. I'll need to reexamine stuff when I get home.

linki: Rico, I wouldn't say it was "serious dirt". It was a hunch based on his willingness to lynch leetic while discussing little else. No matter, he's dead.

We'll see if their flips stay the way they are.

Stop hating Rico. I'm a purebred American patriot.

Voted Quin.

Two people out of the PoE is never bad.

The language employed in the OP to describe Scotty: "liberal baddie" suggests to me that his is the only mafia team. That'd leave the door open for one of the kills to be a serial killer type independent or a town vigilante (and I think both kills make sense for a vigilante).

Rico, why do you suggest a hypothetical vigilante did a poor job?

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:Hey Sloonei, want to vote Bass the Clever with me?

I do not. Why are you voting for him?

Lol

Yeah, I'm fine changing my vote from Quin based on this back and forth with Sloonei just in case I'm being bamboozled. Quin is one of 5 people I could vote for for almost interchangeable lack of content reasons. Let's move on to the one that JJJ has brought up better reasons for.

leetic

"I'll step off of Quin and go for this low content guy that dumb townie JJJ is hating on."

Nice look for leetic

A hypothetical vig would have been better taking out Quin, but I don't think they would have done a bad job taking out either of those candidates - both were not easy to remove from a PoE.

Jay, what is your PoE?

@Wilgy - by Grabhar's Hammer, by the Sons of Warvan, you shall be avenged!

insertnamehere and Scotty interaction:
I've already talked about the second post. The first post is questionable in that he generates two arbitrary pairs: Epignosis/Ricochet and Scotty/JJJ. Epi and Rico haven't operated with a great deal of overlap to my memory, in terms of what they've decided to talk about in this thread. Scotty and I weren't really on the same side of any particular argument either other than leetic. INH did feel it was specifically necessary to say something nice about Scotty though alongside the shade, which featured a gripe about Sloonei.

So this means he agreed with Scotty on a negative point about Sloonei. This is significant because in the second post, he sided with Sloonei against Scotty. That might be a red flag.

~~~
The third post here might be telling. Scotty sought to expand upon his "suspicion" of Quin, and he likened it to his "suspicion" of INH and leetic. He lumped the three of them together into a sort of "forgettable" pile. This makes me think there's a team mate in the Quin, INH, leetic set but probably not two. I think I actually lean INH more than Quin on this one. I'd welcome other people's input.

Golden wrote:Jay, what is your PoE?

Right now I'm feeling:

Beck
INH
MP/reywaS
Quin
S~V~S

Quin wrote:I'd like to know exactly what you don't understand, what I've mistaken, what we're miscommunicating, because writing this is giving me a headache and I'm not sure whether anything I've just said to you is even relevant.

This where you are losing me:

Quin wrote:His suspicion of a townie had nothing to do with it. It was how he approached his suspicion that I found hollow.

I get that something about the way I handled things with Scotty made you think I'm bad. Here you suggest that I was basing my vote on you off of Scotty's actions, but I think I explained how that was not the case in this post. I had started to form a scum read against you before any of the business with Scotty started, but I did not say anything about this because I wanted to see if he was able to substantiate his own read. He was not. I would not have pursued this angle in the first place if it were not for my pre-existing read on you.

But then in this post your reason, or at least your wording of it changes:

Quin wrote:I'm leaving my vote where it is. I'm of the opinion that Sloonei was attempting to set me up as the Day 1 lynch with baddie intentions and fell back onto Scotty when I resisted it and he became the center of attention.

Whereas before I was suspicious for basing a vote for you off of Scotty's actions. Now it's a full-blown conspiracy of mine to turn the lynch on you. In spite of my attempt to debunk your theory, you've gone and escalated it to a more extreme level. This would be one thing if you had engaged in any sort of a discussion about my defense, but you did no such thing. You never acknowledged my response at all, and that is a bad look. It suggests to me that you were unwilling to engage in a true analysis of your case.

And then came this chain of posts where your responses covered only the most basic elements of Mafia Strategy 101, and did nothing to further explain your suspicion (which, as it stood, was that I was trying to get you lynched by making Scotty look bad. If you remember, at some point yesterday I mentioned that I had not suspected you for a while. I brought this up because, at the time, it appeared your suspicion against me was still being based on the belief that I was trying to get you lynched.)

I understand you better in your most recent post about the case. I do not necessarily think it matches the reality of events from my perspective. I left my vote on you at first because I was genuinely suspicious. It stayed on you longer than it should have, but only because I was at work the whole night. I changed it to Scotty as soon as I got home, because I was genuinely suspicious of him. It later changed to INH.

After going through all of this I am left feeling more like I understand where you were coming from, but I also think I have identified where the source of the confusion was for me; you never engaged with my side of the argument. You continued to express your theory that I was trying to set up a lynch against you without ever responding to my counter-arguments. And that is one reason why I am currently voting for you.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The language employed in the OP to describe Scotty: "liberal baddie" suggests to me that his is the only mafia team. That'd leave the door open for one of the kills to be a serial killer type independent or a town vigilante (and I think both kills make sense for a vigilante).

Rico, why do you suggest a hypothetical vigilante did a poor job?

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The language employed in the OP to describe Scotty: "liberal baddie" suggests to me that his is the only mafia team. That'd leave the door open for one of the kills to be a serial killer type independent or a town vigilante (and I think both kills make sense for a vigilante).

Rico, why do you suggest a hypothetical vigilante did a poor job?

No, nor do I see any "Republicans". I see red and blue.

The game is called Red vs. Blue.

Talk to me about the possible vigilante.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:Hey Sloonei, want to vote Bass the Clever with me?

I do not. Why are you voting for him?

Lol

Yeah, I'm fine changing my vote from Quin based on this back and forth with Sloonei just in case I'm being bamboozled. Quin is one of 5 people I could vote for for almost interchangeable lack of content reasons. Let's move on to the one that JJJ has brought up better reasons for.

leetic

"I'll step off of Quin and go for this low content guy that dumb townie JJJ is hating on."

Nice look for leetic

Ricochet wrote:

Shame on me.

Ricochet wrote:

I don't think I understand what you're saying. There's a dead baddie named Scotty. What does that have to do with what I said before?

You said the vigilante, if there is one, "did a very poor job". Why do you say so?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: I don't think I understand what you're saying. There's a dead baddie named Scotty. What does that have to do with what I said before?

You said the vigilante, if there is one, "did a very poor job". Why do you say so?

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: I don't think I understand what you're saying. There's a dead baddie named Scotty. What does that have to do with what I said before?

You said the vigilante, if there is one, "did a very poor job". Why do you say so?

That's a bit of a daft reply.

Both kills fell within most people's pool of suspects, which prevents us from mislynching them. If either one was a vigilante, I tip my cap. Good shot.

I have never understood you less than I do in this game, Trumpochet.

Anyway, I was exploring that "vigilante" question with Ricochet for a reason. There's a chance it wasn't a vigilante and instead it was a serial killer. If that's the case, it could be anyone including those outside the mafia alignment PoE. Ricochet's reference to a vigilante making a boner mistake was my first SK-related ping, and I think it might also align with him being so confusing to me all game long.

I don't suggest he should be lynched today because I don't even know if the SK is a thing. But if it is, he's my first suspect.

linki == and Golden. And probably more than one other person. There was no reason to trust either DrWilgy or Boomslang.

Ricochet wrote:

You're not doing any critical thinking. You're only concerning yourself with what's on the surface.

Yes, I commended a hypothetical vigilante for killing a townie. If you want to pretend that's suspicious then dig your own grave, goofball.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:You're not doing any critical thinking. You're only concerning yourself with what's on the surface.

Jaggy' Jay wrote: Yes, I commended a hypothetical vigilante for killing a townie. If you want to pretend that's suspicious then dig your own grave, goofball.

Jaggy' Jay wrote: Yes, I commended a hypothetical vigilante for killing a townie. If you want to pretend that's suspicious then dig your own grave,
goofball.

Jaggy' Jay wrote: Yes, I commended a hypothetical vigilante for killing a townie. If you want to pretend that's suspicious then dig your own grave, goofball.

Jaggy' Jay wrote: Yes, I commended a hypothetical vigilante for killing a townie. If you want to pretend that's suspicious then dig your own grave, goofball.

Jaggy' Jay wrote: Yes, I commended a hypothetical vigilante for killing a townie. If you want to pretend that's suspicious then dig your own grave, goofball.

That's right. You can copy/paste it and make it really big. I said that.

It's not hard to understand why.

I'd like to hear thoughts from third parties on this one.

Ricochet wrote:

Please tell me what my motive is for saying these outlandish things I'm saying.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: I don't think I understand what you're saying. There's a dead baddie named Scotty. What does that have to do with what I said before?

You said the vigilante, if there is one, "did a very poor job". Why do you say so?

That's a bit of a daft reply.

Both kills fell within most people's pool of suspects, which prevents us from mislynching them. If either one was a vigilante, I tip my cap. Good shot.

I have never understood you less than I do in this game, Trumpochet.

This entirely.

Ricotrump may be highlighting one of the reasons I think townies are struggling to win on this site - that is, the idea that taking out townies is inherently bad. In both of the champs games I played, we lynched townies on day one, and in both cases I think it led to a lot of information that enabled us to win the game.

The town vig in the first game never hit a baddie until the very last phase, but they took several people out of the PoE and enabled us to narrow down our lynch candidates so much that we couldn't lose.

The only bad shot for a town vig is when they trust a bad gut and take out someone who shouldn't be in the PoE at all. If hitting a townie was by definition an inherently bad result, then the town vig would be better off not existing at all.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'd like to hear thoughts from third parties on this one.

There is nothing suspicious about the quotation Rico is embigenning.

In this case, rico is just wrong. But I don't blame him, not long ago I would probably have thought the same way. You learn a hell of a lot when you have to sharpen your game to play amongst the best.

Also, heist games are different from role madness games in this way. For the most part, a townie is just a townie. You aren't losing Mr Insanely Powerful Town Role every time you hit a townie.

Ricochet wrote:

I didn't say everyone.

Ricochet wrote:

This is irrelevant.

Ricochet wrote:

Calm down.

Rico - a PoE is not a list of people you suspect. It is a list of people who cannot be cleared of being bad. Who you 'suspect' is irrelevant to the concept of PoE. I didn't have any active suspicion of either Boom or Wilgy, but neither could I clear either of them. That means they were in the PoE.

Sometimes, deepwolves aren't in the PoE, because they've done a great job of clearing themselves, and that is a different phase of the game.

It's a completely different way of thinking about the game, for sure, but it's in my opinion a very successful way, from a town perspective.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:Jay, what is your PoE?

Right now I'm feeling:

Beck
INH
MP/reywaS
Quin
S~V~S

People not in your PoE

You, obvs. Epi, obvs. Sloonie, obvs. Leetic, understand and agree with the logic.

Your thoughts on why these people are not in the PoE?

MM
Me
Rico

Golden wrote:Rico - a PoE is not a list of people you suspect. It is a list of people who cannot be cleared of being bad. Who you 'suspect' is irrelevant to the concept of PoE. I didn't have any active suspicion of either Boom or Wilgy, but neither could I clear either of them. That means they were in the PoE.

Sometimes, deepwolves aren't in the PoE, because they've done a great job of clearing themselves, and that is a different phase of the game.

It's a completely different way of thinking about the game, for sure, but it's in my opinion a very successful way, from a town perspective.

One of the hallmarks of my early-game methods that I think has confused people here, or worse gotten me into trouble, is my deliberate pursuit of town reads. It's all about process of elimination. I don't have to actively "suspect" people if I have limited my options to a narrow enough pool. Instead of finding people suspicious, I am failing to find people trustworthy. Especially in heist-styled games, this is a proven method.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:I didn't say everyone.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:This is irrelevant.

Golden wrote:Rico - a PoE is not a list of people you suspect. It is a list of people who cannot be cleared of being bad. Who you 'suspect' is irrelevant to the concept of PoE. I didn't have any active suspicion of either Boom or Wilgy, but neither could I clear either of them. That means they were in the PoE.

Sometimes, deepwolves aren't in the PoE, because they've done a great job of clearing themselves, and that is a different phase of the game.

It's a completely different way of thinking about the game, for sure, but it's in my opinion a very successful way, from a town perspective.

Beck
Epignosis
Golden
insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay
leetic
Metalmarsh89
Quin
reywAs
S~V~S
Sloonei

Btw Rico, I don't think you have to AGREE with this way of thinking about the game, but right now here is how you read to me:

I suspect Jay for it.
Other people don't suspect Jay for it.
So I'll get annoyed and ask to be vigged

Why? Why would we want to see you vigged?

Surely a good civvie would instead say... ok, maybe Jay's way of looking at the vig kill is a reasonable way of looking at the game and is not suspicious, since others are backing it. So, perhaps I should revisit that...

Rather than just getting mad that people disagree?

Rico, you stubborn man.

Nowhere did I imply that vigis 'tend to do shit'.

I said the exact opposite - that the vigi who didn't hit a baddie until the last round was fundamental to the town winning, and that if this was not true the role of town vig would be inherently broken and pointless to have. If you are setting up a balanced set up, you can't set it up saying 'man, rico is so good at being town vig, he can roll that every time and it makes the setup balanced'. The role would be inherently scum favouring if hitting civilians was inherently scum leaning, because the vig is going to hit more civilians than baddies on average. That's just fact.

All I hear your posts saying, rico, is 'I'm a great mafia player the way I am, I refuse to take on board anything that could change my perspective'.

Which is your prerogative, and fine if you want to be that way - Epi will probably call what we are talking about bullshit as well, and you are both great players, so it's certainly a view you can have. But as someone who just went through a massive mafia learning experience, I have found out first hand there is a whole lot that one can learn about this game, and the concept of the PoE is the single best tactic I saw used in the championship to improve the towns chances of winning - by a mile.

You are being facetious by having everyone in your PoE, since it's objectively obvious that there are a couple of people who shouldn't be.

Golden wrote:Your thoughts on why these people are not in the PoE?

MM
Me
Rico

For Rico, I liked this observation made by Epignosis:

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:Honest question, Rico: I know you're not in the States, but do you find ourself gravitating towards any particular politician over here? What's your take on the political climate? Very curious.

Would Scotty ask a teammate something like this when he could ask in the semi-privacy of BTSC? I would say no. I've had lots of BTSC with Scotty compared to other people, and he's a talker. I realize people don't like factoring in OT green stuff, but if it's in the thread, I use it. This is a point in Ricochet's favor.

This sort of idle OT chatter doesn't need to exist if there's a chatzy or other private dialogue.

~~~

For Golden, it's a matter of the enthusiasm and initiative you took alongside Sloonei against Scotty. You've been less present in this game for obvious reasons, and that gives you the space you need to take essentially whatever stance you want to take when you're able to visit the thread. You specifically elected to help roast Scotty, and I don't think that was ever necessary if you're his team mate. It'd be foolhardy.

~~~

For Metalmarsh, I might be able to convince myself to bring him back just because of his WIFOM reputation. I leave him out because Sloonei and I begged him (foolishly) at EOD to join us on the INH counterwagon. He didn't join us, and indeed he cited my own pressures as his reason for refusing to do so. That just smells like town behavior to me under the circumstances. I also think Scotty kind of spewed him town when he commended the "directness" of his unexplained accusations, like he just wanted a reason to make the read he knew to be true.

~~~~~

My definition of a "PoE" is perhaps less restrictive than yours. I don't believe these people are objectively cleared, but for the purposes of Day 2 investigation I am willing to focus elsewhere for mafia suspects.

Golden wrote:Btw Rico, I don't think you have to AGREE with this way of thinking about the game, but right now here is how you read to me:

I suspect Jay for it.
Other people don't suspect Jay for it.
So I'll get annoyed and ask to be vigged

Why? Why would we want to see you vigged?

Surely a good civvie would instead say... ok, maybe Jay's way of looking at the vig kill is a reasonable way of looking at the game and is not suspicious, since others are backing it. So, perhaps I should revisit that...

Rather than just getting mad that people disagree?

Goldeen wrote:Why? Why would we want to see you vigged?

Golden wrote:All I hear your posts saying, rico, is 'I'm a great mafia player the way I am, I refuse to take on board anything that could change my perspective'.

Which is your prerogative, and fine if you want to be that way - Epi will probably call what we are talking about bullshit as well, and you are both great players, so it's certainly a view you can have. But as someone who just went through a massive mafia learning experience, I have found out first hand there is a whole lot that one can learn about this game, and the concept of the PoE is the single best tactic I saw used in the championship to improve the towns chances of winning - by a mile.

You are being facetious by having everyone in your PoE, since it's objectively obvious that there are a couple of people who shouldn't be.

Rico, you have a right to disagree about any strategic mindset. If you can't, however, explain why my mindset makes me suspicious -- then who cares? What is your point? Your vote is on me, which suggests you suspect me. So great: show me why my this mindset I am conveying is a mafia-aligned mindset. If you think it's stupid that's meaningless. Maybe it is. But why is it suspicious?