The Syndicate

DharmaHelper wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Reywas / Roxy / Bea / any other original baddies from other RM games: Do you remember if you played differently than you normally would've when you were baddie leaders in RM 3?

When I was Jelly King Earl, Supreme Lord of Purpleosity (I think that was my role...but maybe I was just an early recruit to the jelly team? My memory is fucked..) my entire game plan was about fun maximization. I recruited solely based on how funny people's posts were. I don't think my in-thread play differed much (I'm always kind of a sarcastic/goofy asshole)...but I think I was definitely more engaged in the thread than was typical for me at the time

No, you were Erlatz. DH was your first recruit, then Pangy and TH, then me, then bleag, if I recall correctly.

And yes, FUNNY OR DIE.

That Canuck thinks I am the most fun is pretty cool.

Here is my schedule for today so nobody gets their shit twisted:
1. Big Brother
2. Mr. Robot
3. Maybe Master Chef unless they're cookin some whack shit
4. Thread Catch up
5. Dnd Show at 9pm til like, the rest of the night

I've missed you, buddy.

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.

Of course Im going to try, in my own way, don’t know how susseccfull I may be, but let me ask you a question
We are 36 players, is day 1, How many players you think are actually trying so far? So whoever is not trying is evil and should die? What about people that sometimes try so hard to hide their evilness?

I think sometimes people take things to serious and try so hard and pick every single thing is been said to put it out of context to their own beneficial and fine that’s their style to play, but not mine, Im clueless most of the time, I like to read and think and analize, but sadly I don’t have a lot time in my hands, I have not made a spread sheet, so I will just post and play according to when I have some free time from work and life, but Im not getting a headache from trying to hard to figure out things out

A lot times, most of the time, people don’t get my sense of humour, and could get me in trouble and I fine with it, I play the way I choose too

I won't ne voting for unfurl today. I like her attitude.

unfurl wrote: A lot times, most of the time, people don’t get my sense of humour, and could get me in trouble and I fine with it, I play the way I choose too

Gee, I wonder what that's like.

Oh look, an actual Thing to talk about!

thellama73 wrote:Here is the relevant post.

llamastache has endorsed a lynch of TinyBubbles for her response to his "are you bad?" question (she said she was bad facetiously). How seriously should this be taken? Well let's look at Bubbles' stuff and decide for ourselves:

TinyBubbles wrote:POST. hi everyone

Cheery entrance. This is meaningless unless a contrary trend can be identified in her opening posts elsewhere...
I observe nothing in this content that makes me care about Bubbles' intro post in this game any more than I otherwise would have.

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

MM asked her if she was bad and she told him no. INCONSISTENCY?!

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!

JJJ likey. A baddie in this position is less likely to respond with this precise combination of incredulity and exasperation and more likely to serve up snark. I know because experience.

TinyBubbles wrote:

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.

This is confirmed truth, I literally just saw her other games and people definitely always ask her this. She also got a lot of crap in Broadway for claiming to be a civilian repeatedly.

~~~

In conclusion, I don't see any good reason to lynch Bubbles on Day 1 -- certainly not her content in response to llama.

"JJJ, did you seriously just compile that post about that?"

Yeah sorry I dunno what to do with myself.

I always forget the text is grayed out within spoilers. *eyeball tweaking*

Jay, want to go interjection hunting with me? I hear it's the new bread crumbs of mafia.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Jay, want to go interjection hunting with me? I hear it's the new bread crumbs of mafia.

You find 'em and I'll appraise. I have a spiffy new monocle just for this purpose.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Jay, want to go interjection hunting with me? I hear it's the new bread crumbs of mafia.

You find 'em and I'll appraise. I have a spiffy new monocle just for this purpose.

It will have to wait though. I'm on my cell phone which is rapidly dying, and I'm going to work soon.

I'm digging your energy, JJJ. You will not get my vote today.

thellama73 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?

That just proves that one of those two posts is a lie. Do you really trust a liar not to be bad?

Do you suppose liars who are bad prefer to do their lying in such a way that it begs for anyone paying attention to see an obvious discrepancy and hurl an accusation?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Do you suppose liars who are bad prefer to do their lying in such a way that it begs for anyone paying attention to see an obvious discrepancy and hurl an accusation?

It's possible, if they are nervous or not paying close attention themselves. Like I said to MP, I expect more unforced errors early this game due to a lack of team support. My case against TinyBubbles has more to do with her unconscious anxiety rather than her deliberate intentions.

reywaS wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Reywas / Roxy / Bea / any other original baddies from other RM games: Do you remember if you played differently than you normally would've when you were baddie leaders in RM 3?

When I was Jelly King Earl, Supreme Lord of Purpleosity (I think that was my role...but maybe I was just an early recruit to the jelly team? My memory is fucked..) my entire game plan was about fun maximization. I recruited solely based on how funny people's posts were. I don't think my in-thread play differed much (I'm always kind of a sarcastic/goofy asshole)...but I think I was definitely more engaged in the thread than was typical for me at the time

No, you were Erlatz. DH was your first recruit, then Pangy and TH, then me, then bleag, if I recall correctly.

And yes, FUNNY OR DIE.

That Canuck thinks I am the most fun is pretty cool.

Here is my schedule for today so nobody gets their shit twisted:
1. Big Brother
2. Mr. Robot
3. Maybe Master Chef unless they're cookin some whack shit
4. Thread Catch up
5. Dnd Show at 9pm til like, the rest of the night

I've missed you, buddy.

Epignosis wrote:I'm going to bed myself. I want people to read Golden's answers a few times over. I think he's a naughty recruiter.

Interesting theory. I'm not opposed to lynching anyone except me today but I'll see how Golden the Coward handles the rest of Day 1.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oh and I also had beer with the pizza.

Mmm. Beer. I cannot tell you how long it's been since my last one. Probably a year ago.

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?

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

Hmm. A change of play style? Interesting. I support your line of thought, however.

I had forgotten what an intelligent group mafia players were. I'm very glad that I signed up for this game.

reywaS wrote:I had forgotten what an intelligent group mafia players were. I'm very glad that I signed up for this game.

Proof that rey is red/green colorblind. Sarcastic orange, this is not.

As usual I am overwhelmed by Day One activity and have no idea what to think of anyone. It's nice that there is some actual discussion, but I am still totally clueless as to how to rat out a decent lynch candidate. Sorry if I don't post much -- I'm trying to keep up with this super-fast-paced thread while at work.

Kind of curious about Epi vs. Golden. Those two both scare me a lot but can be extremely useful as civvies (or whatever, in this game). Might re-read their exchange from last night, though it seemed like a lot of it was just Epi being pedantic. Also llama. I never know what to think of him.

As for Bubbles I think she is genuine. Going after her for joking seemed like a ridiculous nitpick at this stage, and after Broadway I want to give her the BOTD.
And Unfurl is reading like her usual self to me.

@BR- could you possibly use a slightly lighter shade of blue for your host color? It's a little painful on the dark forum skin

Golden wrote:

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?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

I suspect this mindset will be different for everyone, but I do think there could be value in pooling our individual perspectives.

Hey everyone! Please tell us here in this very thread how you think you would go about choosing recruits in this setup if you were recruiters. What factors would be most important in your decision? Least important? If enough of you help me out with some delicious answers, I might even compile a CHART. Who wants a chart? We love charts, don't we? Seriously, this might be a good way to get a grip of early choices -- and perhaps even influence how future recruitment choices are made. We could in part dictate how the baddies recruit. I think this is appealing.

My answers, most important numbered and least important lettered:

1.) My perception of their skillset -- I would favor someone that I feel has a diverse array of mafia skills that can function cross-alignment and long-term.

2.) Complementary talent within The Syndicate -- I am newer here than most and do not boast a lot of experience in setups as complex as this. Someone who can fill that void would be a big help.

3.) Less inherently likely to attract thread attention -- I wouldn't select myself, essentially. Loud players are a dangerous choice.

///

A.) Fun -- I'd probably be a party pooper in this regard. While I do love fun, I'd also think choosing based on fun would be more transparent to others and less likely to progress me towards a victory.

B.) Reputation on The Syndicate -- I only have a cursory knowledge of this anyway, but I probably wouldn't care much whether someone is perceived by others to be elite or something else.

thellama73 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Do you suppose liars who are bad prefer to do their lying in such a way that it begs for anyone paying attention to see an obvious discrepancy and hurl an accusation?

It's possible, if they are nervous or not paying close attention themselves. Like I said to MP, I expect more unforced errors early this game due to a lack of team support. My case against TinyBubbles has more to do with her unconscious anxiety rather than her deliberate intentions.

This is plausible enough to at least lend me some confidence that you're not being manipulative with your treatment of Bubbles. In my last game I actually experienced this personally -- I was on a three-person mafia team but the other two were AFK for all of Day 1. I felt on my own and it led to some goofs on my part.

I don't really read Bubbles' content to this point that way, but at this point I'll just let her deal with you herself and assess further.

I would choose people that I think can, as you say, function cross alignment. If choosing among several of these types, I would go with people that I have had good experiences with in past mafia games in terms of strategic thinking and general fun.

I would probably pick people who I view as solid and dependable, not likely to flake out on me, but also not the people who attract the most thread attention.

and if the last part wasn't applicable, I would choose someone that had already built up "civvie cred" in the game.

I'd probably recruit the players I like the most first, difficult as that would be to narrow down. I'd also recruit either:

People who make better civs than me (if I were a civ recruiter)
or
People who make better baddies than me (if I were a baddie recruiter)

nutella wrote:As usual I am overwhelmed by Day One activity and have no idea what to think of anyone. It's nice that there is some actual discussion, but I am still totally clueless as to how to rat out a decent lynch candidate. Sorry if I don't post much -- I'm trying to keep up with this super-fast-paced thread while at work.

Kind of curious about Epi vs. Golden. Those two both scare me a lot but can be extremely useful as civvies (or whatever, in this game). Might re-read their exchange from last night, though it seemed like a lot of it was just Epi being pedantic. Also llama. I never know what to think of him.

As for Bubbles I think she is genuine. Going after her for joking seemed like a ridiculous nitpick at this stage, and after Broadway I want to give her the BOTD.
And Unfurl is reading like her usual self to me.

@BR- could you possibly use a slightly lighter shade of blue for your host color? It's a little painful on the dark forum skin

This?

I'm a fan of Russ's early contributions. His longer multi-quote posts aren't good merely for being long, they're good for conveying a mindset and progression of thought that I have no difficulty following. I can insert myself into his brain and see the posts he is discussing through his eyes -- which would be suggestive that we both are reading posts with the same end goals.

Black Rock wrote:

nutella wrote:As usual I am overwhelmed by Day One activity and have no idea what to think of anyone. It's nice that there is some actual discussion, but I am still totally clueless as to how to rat out a decent lynch candidate. Sorry if I don't post much -- I'm trying to keep up with this super-fast-paced thread while at work.

Kind of curious about Epi vs. Golden. Those two both scare me a lot but can be extremely useful as civvies (or whatever, in this game). Might re-read their exchange from last night, though it seemed like a lot of it was just Epi being pedantic. Also llama. I never know what to think of him.

As for Bubbles I think she is genuine. Going after her for joking seemed like a ridiculous nitpick at this stage, and after Broadway I want to give her the BOTD.
And Unfurl is reading like her usual self to me.

@BR- could you possibly use a slightly lighter shade of blue for your host color? It's a little painful on the dark forum skin

This?

Perfect!

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 was really hoping that all the adverb talk was not serious suspicion talk :/ It seemed like silly banter to me so I really just skimmed over it as I would OT. Should I be rereading it?

To everyone:
Sorry for being on the low poster list. I mentioned in the sign up thread that I would be out of town at a funeral through Saturday so please keep that in mind. I was in the middle of bumfuck nowhere Michigan with no service yesterday. I'm not intentionally avoiding the thread!

I'm only caught up to about page 14ish at this point, just taking things in but I don't really have any suspicions yet.

Golden wrote:I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

bea wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

bea wrote:

Golden wrote:@Bullz - am i wrong in assuming you can only be recruited by one?

I hate those musketeers.

Those musketeers. Their last-minute swashbuckling antics ruined me.

I see that Golden cited me as an example of someone who often avoids getting lynched, which is very much not the case. Nearly every game I play ends with me getting lynched for being blendy.

And every game you survive deep into is because 1000 veterans, myself included, say "DF always reads blendy - that's not indicative of alignment." You remember the losses, he remembers the times it worked for you. Both are true.

me too. Jerks.

This is not an anti-town post, I will not vote bea this phase and I will fight anyone who suggests otherwise. That might seem a curious read to some; call it intuition.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

bea wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

bea wrote:

Golden wrote:@Bullz - am i wrong in assuming you can only be recruited by one?

I hate those musketeers.

Those musketeers. Their last-minute swashbuckling antics ruined me.

I see that Golden cited me as an example of someone who often avoids getting lynched, which is very much not the case. Nearly every game I play ends with me getting lynched for being blendy.

And every game you survive deep into is because 1000 veterans, myself included, say "DF always reads blendy - that's not indicative of alignment." You remember the losses, he remembers the times it worked for you. Both are true.

me too. Jerks.

This is not an anti-town post, I will not vote bea this phase and I will fight anyone who suggests otherwise. That might seem a curious read to some; call it intuition.

I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

Bullzeye wrote:I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

I don't either.

S~V~S wrote: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?

I'd like to know your precise stance on llama ASAP.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

I don't either.

So what made you feel the need to come out so strongly in her defense?

If this is anything like the previous Recruitment games, the leaders do not have full control over who they recruit. There's many different mechanics involved in recruiting.

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

unfurl, I am deeply troubled. This post... it endorses nothing! You're not down with trying to figure out who could be recruited. You're not down with offering a perspective on the Golden-Epignosis interaction despite bringing it up. I need to know why this post exists, please inform me. I beg you.

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

I don't either.

So what made you feel the need to come out so strongly in her defense?

Call it preliminary defense. I have no actual idea whether anyone is going to voice suspicion of bea. I had an intuition and shared it with clear language. There can be no doubt about my take on bea given that post.

Do with it what you will. What do you think Bullzeye? Why did I come out so strongly in her defense?

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.

I think it comes down to win conditions for each team. Hence why two of the teams can win together, because in a more straightforward civ vs. mafia game, with multiple civ teams, the civ teams could both win.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

I don't either.

So what made you feel the need to come out so strongly in her defense?

Call it preliminary defense. I have no actual idea whether anyone is going to voice suspicion of bea. I had an intuition and shared it with clear language. There can be no doubt about my take on bea given that post.

Do with it what you will. What do you think Bullzeye? Why did I come out so strongly in her defense?

I don't know. Hence why I asked. It just seemed such a strange thing to suddenly come out with from nowhere.

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'm saying the whole idea of making a case on someone because of "adverb usage" is more based on context, rather than whether or not someone uses adverbs.

Bullzeye wrote:I don't know. Hence why I asked. It just seemed such a strange thing to suddenly come out with from nowhere.

It probably is strange. What do you think the implications might be of me making a post that could be called strange?

birdwithteeth11 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'm saying the whole idea of making a case on someone because of "adverb usage" is more based on context, rather than whether or not someone uses adverbs.

Could you provide an example (even if you just make one up) of an instance in which you'd find an adverb or someone's tendency to use them suspicious?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't know. Hence why I asked. It just seemed such a strange thing to suddenly come out with from nowhere.

It probably is strange. What do you think the implications might be of me making a post that could be called strange?

I just don't see how your intuition came about from such an unremarkable exchange. It's not that it tells me anything about you so much as I just can't figure out why you said it or what inspired such confidence.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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

unfurl, I am deeply troubled. This post... it endorses nothing! You're not down with trying to figure out who could be recruited. You're not down with offering a perspective on the Golden-Epignosis interaction despite bringing it up. I need to know why this post exists, please inform me. I beg you.

It exist because I wrotte what if first came to mind and that was it
this is the first time we play together, so just you know I march to the beat of my own drum

Maybe you should read my previous response to bullz, to get to know a little bit of how I roll, and I will roll a lot different in this game, from previous games too

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?

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

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

MovingPictures07 wrote: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.

Do you think a recruiter would be someone who would tend to lie low early on or not? Or do you think that depends on the player?

Whhops hit submit instead of preview that img goes with my first thought.

1. Unfurl/MP - it feels like MP isexpecting more from unfurl than she was prepared to offer since she did explicitly state that she was going to work but this being her first Recruitment game I feel like she is just unsure how to approach it since her normal style is kind of null for this game - something she alluded to earlier. While I do not fault MP for pursuing what he feels I do disagree with his take on unfurl.

Llama - I disagree that Teeth rides the fence in most games. I have he really doesnot. He gets a suspicion and stands behind it in my experience. Why are you so dismissive of ricochet's suspicion? It is based on as much as your Bubbles suspicion - I would go as far to say that they are eerily similar.Both based on a response to a silly question imho.

Typh - I only played RM3. I was the recruiter Ultramorph. I did play differnt in that I took more chances with my poll choices but for my recruitment I picked people I had never had btsc with.

DH - Johnny Mack ftw!


Liky many many times not reading, posting first

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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?

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

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

Maybe if we keep up a discussion of low posters and their potential lynchable status they will all come crawling out of the woodwork to explain why they shouldn't be voted for, and the least satisfactory answer gets votes?

Linki - question about recruiters not specifically addressed to me, but I think it depends on the player. I think a lot of people would just try to act cool and normal like nothing is different so that nobody picks up on a change in their gameplay.