The Syndicate

Remember that time we lynched S~V~S over a confirmed mafia member?

My sincerest apologies for the host error. The two names/rolecards are neighbors in my secret hosting lair and I grabbed the wrong one when starting my post.

G-Man wrote: My sincerest apologies for the host error. The two names/rolecards are neighbors in my secret hosting lair and I grabbed the wrong one when starting my post.

Wait, did you post, delete, then post?

DrWilgy wrote:

G-Man wrote: My sincerest apologies for the host error. The two names/rolecards are neighbors in my secret hosting lair and I grabbed the wrong one when starting my post.

Wait, did you post, delete, then post?

Nothing gets by you.

G-Man wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

G-Man wrote: My sincerest apologies for the host error. The two names/rolecards are neighbors in my secret hosting lair and I grabbed the wrong one when starting my post.

Wait, did you post, delete, then post?

Nothing gets by you.

IGNORE MY THOUGHTS REGARDING THE MARMOT

SVS really did look bad. That post Epi made pointing out the post flip reactions looked great. Still should have lynched the known badder.

Lynching the known badder today does nothing for us though. We shoulda lynched DF instead.

Long Con wrote:

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I wasn't talking about drawbacks in YOUR argument; I was talking about
You saying you found it suspicious that he was qualifying his opinion. It was essentially a rhetorical question. "Are you always so sure of your own opinions that you find someone who can see both sides of a suspicion questionable?".

Oh.

No, I don't. But I do find the act of discrediting one's own opinion to be innately suspicious. There's a difference between that and just not being sure.

Quin: "No, you don't" what?

No, I'm not*

...I think.

I thought the intention was to act like we could lynch outside of Jack in order to generate discussion, but to vote him in the end anyway.

It appears I was wrong, and therefore this is sketchy.

The Polls thread has been updated.

Also, Hillary Clinton still appreciates those who exercise their right to vote, even if they vote out a member of the Democratic Party. +1 Hillary Points to everyone who voted during Day 2. An additional +1 Hillary Point to Jackofhearts2005 for making me laugh with his Ted Cruz posts.

Hillary Points Standings:

+7 Points: S~V~S
+6 Points: notsawyer540, thellama73
+5 Points: Elohcin, Long Con, Marmot
+4 Points: FZ., Jackofhearts2005, MacDougall
+3.5 Points: Epignosis
+3 Points: Dfaraday, DrWilgy, Scotty, TheFloyd73
-2 Points: Quin

G-Man wrote:The Polls thread has been updated.

Also, Hillary Clinton still appreciates those who exercise their right to vote, even if they vote out a member of the Democratic Party. +1 Hillary Points to everyone who voted during Day 2. An additional +1 Hillary Point to Jackofhearts2005 for making me laugh with his Ted Cruz posts.

Hillary Points Standings:

+7 Points: S~V~S
+6 Points: notsawyer540, thellama73
+5 Points: Elohcin, Long Con, Marmot
+4 Points: FZ., Jackofhearts2005, MacDougall
+3.5 Points: Epignosis
+3 Points: Dfaraday, DrWilgy, Scotty, TheFloyd73
-2 Points: Quin

This is some bullshit.

Lololololololololol

Typical executive overreach. All actions should go through Russian Republican controlled congress.

DrWilgy wrote:Lynching the known badder today does nothing for us though. We shoulda lynched DF instead.

It does nothing? Except remove a bad guy and prevent the chance of mislynching a civ for another full night and day phase. You know like the ideal outcome of a day.

Quin wrote:I thought the intention was to act like we could lynch outside of Jack in order to generate discussion, but to vote him in the end anyway.

It appears I was wrong, and therefore this is sketchy.

As did I.

MacDougall wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Lynching the known badder today does nothing for us though. We shoulda lynched DF instead.

It does nothing? Except remove a bad guy and prevent the chance of mislynching a civ for another full night and day phase. You know like the ideal outcome of a day.

I don't get this argument. According to your earlier post, we'd lynch Jack now and then S~V~S later. Same result.

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:While I think SVS is Mafia and ordinarily would vote for her I KNOW Jack is and voting for him today seems a better idea to me. Cool we managed to find a great day 3 lynch candidate already but how can we truly justify lynching SVS before Jack?

How is that suspicious? Also answer my question. You aren't even a civ read of mine so I'm super interested in how you can justify your wagon creation here as well as this arrogant single smiley post response to a very fair question. The vote is too close now to not lynch Jack.

To answer your question here, my concern was that you would vote Jack, and Jack would self-vote, and that would tie it up.

Self-voting is illegal though, so I don't know how that would've played out.

And I don't need to "justify [my] wagon creation" (whatever the hell that means). If people agree with my points (as you claim you did), the wagon I led is just.

Technically, MM created it. Lynch him.

RIP SVS. That was a lousy result.

DrWilgy wrote:

G-Man wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

G-Man wrote: My sincerest apologies for the host error. The two names/rolecards are neighbors in my secret hosting lair and I grabbed the wrong one when starting my post.

Wait, did you post, delete, then post?

Nothing gets by you.

IGNORE MY THOUGHTS REGARDING THE MARMOT

Damn straight.

Epignosis wrote:Technically, MM created it. Lynch him.

And I'll take the responsibility you dolt.

Who was the phoniest of the S~V~S voters?

Epignosis wrote:Who was the phoniest of the S~V~S voters?

Probably me.

All right. Wilgy it is.

Who was the phoniest of the Jack voters?

S~V~S wrote:Wow. Seriously fucking lame. Good luck civs, you gonna need it

S~V~S, I'm really, really sorry. I didn't realize the poll ended so early. I just wanted to put some pressure on you to come in and respond to the accusations, but if I had gotten in before the poll closed, I would have changed my vote to Jack upon seeing that you hadn't even been on to respond to the votes. That was so sucky, I'm sorry.

Epignosis wrote:All right. Wilgy it is.

Who was the phoniest of the Jack voters?

I don't think there's a way to tell that one. The bus is really easy if there are any. Imma look and see if theres anything that stands out.

[quote="G-Man"]
VICE PRESIDENT TIM KAINE


Shit, that's worse than the original Civ role he put out for her. Well, equally vanilla... but higher up, closer to Clinton herself!

Long Con wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Wow. Seriously fucking lame. Good luck civs, you gonna need it

S~V~S, I'm really, really sorry. I didn't realize the poll ended so early. I just wanted to put some pressure on you to come in and respond to the accusations, but if I had gotten in before the poll closed, I would have changed my vote to Jack upon seeing that you hadn't even been on to respond to the votes. That was so sucky, I'm sorry.

Are you really though LC? How will you male sure she didn't die in vain?

DrWilgy wrote:

Long Con wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Wow. Seriously fucking lame. Good luck civs, you gonna need it

S~V~S, I'm really, really sorry. I didn't realize the poll ended so early. I just wanted to put some pressure on you to come in and respond to the accusations, but if I had gotten in before the poll closed, I would have changed my vote to Jack upon seeing that you hadn't even been on to respond to the votes. That was so sucky, I'm sorry.

Are you really though LC? How will you male sure she didn't die in vain?

Leave that to me, Doc. I have a trick or two up my sleeve.

I just want to be clear I had no intention of changing my vote unless I saw Mac or someone try to make it a tie. I was married to the idea of S~V~S being bad. Her posts here marked all the boxes for me, and I thought I had this one.

Epignosis wrote:I just want to be clear I had no intention of changing my vote unless I saw Mac or someone try to make it a tie. I was married to the idea of S~V~S being bad. Her posts here marked all the boxes for me, and I thought I had this one.

Without her even having a chance to respond to the votes??

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I just want to be clear I had no intention of changing my vote unless I saw Mac or someone try to make it a tie. I was married to the idea of S~V~S being bad. Her posts here marked all the boxes for me, and I thought I had this one.

Without her even having a chance to respond to the votes??

That's right. You voted for her as well. Why the double question marks?

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I just want to be clear I had no intention of changing my vote unless I saw Mac or someone try to make it a tie. I was married to the idea of S~V~S being bad. Her posts here marked all the boxes for me, and I thought I had this one.

Without her even having a chance to respond to the votes??

That's right. You voted for her as well. Why the double question marks?

Because I didn't intend to lynch her without giving her a chance to respond, that was a careless oversight on my part. Not an oversight on yours, apparently. She deserved better.

RIP SVS.

I'm only on page 13, so idk why SVS was killed yet, but I want to post this here so I can close some tabs and have it all in one place. I'm about two bottles of wine deep, so forgive me if I make any typos or mistakes.

Epignosis wrote:As I said, she's a low poster by reputation. She had thirteen here.

As for Wilgy's vote, I'm not voting for Jack today either.

Epignosis wrote:Jackie O is vanilla.

I was comfortable keeping him around, saying that I would rather lynch the mafia member with an ability.

However, I looked back and saw that none of us (the RED vs. BLUE mafia) had any ability at all, and there was a third party, and Trump had an ability.

Given that data, I think it is reasonable to assume the entire mafia is powerless beyond a kill.

I don't mind lynching Jackie O, but I would only do so as a last resort. Lynching exposed mafia only keeps his teammates out of discussion and pressure.

DrWilgy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Given that data, I think it is reasonable to assume the entire mafia is powerless beyond a kill.

I don't mind lynching Jackie O, but I would only do so as a last resort. Lynching exposed mafia only keeps his teammates out of discussion and pressure.

This.

Scotty basically hog tied and handed us a hostage.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but going after someone else could get an innocent person killed and set us back one lynch. If we get Jack now and go after someone else on day 3, that gives us a whole extra day's worth of information to base our decision off of. Leaving Jack alive just gives the baddies more of an advantage.

What information does it give civilians and what advantage does it give mafia?

Having an extra day of posts and discussion makes it more likely that mafia will slip up and it gives us more time and more evidence to make a good decision. People randomize their votes on day 1 because there's very little information to go off of. Wouldn't it make sense to lynch someone we know is bad today and make a more informed decision tomorrow than we would if we went after someone else today? Even if we're only slightly more informed?

What information do you gain by lynching someone you know is bad today?

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:What information do you gain by lynching someone you know is bad today?

We would have an extra day and night to make an informed decision based off of the posts and interactions that take place in that time. I just think we're more likely to make a mistake the earlier it is in the game. We got pretty lucky day 1, and I don't think we should push it. The logic just doesn't add up to me.

Do you think it'll be easier to catch other baddies by leaving him alive? If so, how?

How would you have an extra Day and Night? You're going to have the same number of Days and Nights whether you lynch Jack now or lynch him later. Does the number of mafia change depending upon when you lynch them? No. It doesn't.

There are (probably) three Mafia. You know one of them. You lynch him. He's out. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3. How does that make you more informed than the alternative below?

You know one of the mafia. You keep him around. Someone else is lynched, good or bad. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:How would you have an extra Day and Night? You're going to have the same number of Days and Nights whether you lynch Jack now or lynch him later. Does the number of mafia change depending upon when you lynch them? No. It doesn't.

There are (probably) three Mafia. You know one of them. You lynch him. He's out. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3. How does that make you more informed than the alternative below?

You know one of the mafia. You keep him around. Someone else is lynched, good or bad. Someone is killed. Then you go about Day 3.

More time = more posts. More posts = more information. More information = better decision. Right? Am I missing something?

I know I'm not as experienced as a lot of other players, but in this case my logic just makes more sense to me.

Your time doesn't change because you lynch Jack. You still get Day 3, do you not? People will make fewer posts during Day 2 if Jack is automatic lynch.

If you lynch Jack now, you get Day 3 and nobody talked about anything else Day 2.

If you leave Jack alone now, you get Day 3 and you force everybody else to talk about other people instead of Jack Day 2.

See?

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Your time doesn't change because you lynch Jack. You still get Day 3, do you not? People will make fewer posts during Day 2 if Jack is automatic lynch.

If you lynch Jack now, you get Day 3 and nobody talked about anything else Day 2.

If you leave Jack alone now, you get Day 3 and you force everybody else to talk about other people instead of Jack Day 2.

See?

I see what you're saying, but we're having a discussion now. And other people will weigh in on the things we say and we can weigh in on the things that they say, etc. I guess it's just a matter of strategy, but advocating not lynching a bad guy definitely seems odd to me.

Listen:

The objective to Mafia is to find out who is bad. Lynching them is the easy part.

Granted, if this were some scenario where there were secrets involved and vote manipulations, I'd be all for lynching the bad guy and being done with it.

In this particular scenario, there is one team, probably with three powerless people, and no independent to muddy things. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is already dead. His vote is useless because nobody is going to follow him. His voice is useless because it's just white noise now.

Use Day 2 to find his team. Lynch them. If you're wrong, so what? You would have been wrong Day 3 instead.

DrWilgy wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Listen:

The objective to Mafia is to find out who is bad. Lynching them is the easy part.

Granted, if this were some scenario where there were secrets involved and vote manipulations, I'd be all for lynching the bad guy and being done with it.

In this particular scenario, there is one team, probably with three powerless people, and no independent to muddy things. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is already dead. His vote is useless because nobody is going to follow him. His voice is useless because it's just white noise now.

Use Day 2 to find his team. Lynch them. If you're wrong, so what? You would have been wrong Day 3 instead.

But you don't KNOW that you would be wrong on day 3 instead. It's a numbers game, and unless the mafia kill gets blocked or interrupted in some way tonight there will be a smaller chance of lynching a civ tomorrow because there will be one less civ.

What would the mafia prefer: Being down one player or having a full team where only one of them is known? I think mafia would prefer having that extra player even if they are outed, because the odds are on their side.

When I'm remotely scared that we are at a lynch or lose situation then we can kill jack. Easy.

@Epi, I would like for you to go through Quin next if possible. I saw you mention him earlier and I'm curious if you read his interactions with Jack as teammate indicative or not.

Epignosis wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Listen:

The objective to Mafia is to find out who is bad. Lynching them is the easy part.

Granted, if this were some scenario where there were secrets involved and vote manipulations, I'd be all for lynching the bad guy and being done with it.

In this particular scenario, there is one team, probably with three powerless people, and no independent to muddy things. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is already dead. His vote is useless because nobody is going to follow him. His voice is useless because it's just white noise now.

Use Day 2 to find his team. Lynch them. If you're wrong, so what? You would have been wrong Day 3 instead.

But you don't KNOW that you would be wrong on day 3 instead. It's a numbers game, and unless the mafia kill gets blocked or interrupted in some way tonight there will be a smaller chance of lynching a civ tomorrow because there will be one less civ.

What would the mafia prefer: Being down one player or having a full team where only one of them is known? I think mafia would prefer having that extra player even if they are outed, because the odds are on their side.

And you would be wrong.

Stop worry about the outed mafia. Pretend he doesn't exist.

Now play.

Epignosis wrote:Stop worry. Jesus.

Epignosis wrote:Let me try that again: Stop worrying about the outed member of the mafia. Who are his teammates and why? Go after them.

MacDougall wrote:If we leave Jack alive we need to have unanimous lynch candidates or he can literally pop up and hammer people he knows to be civ. So basically if we are reaching end of day and have no unanimous candidate, we have to lynch him.

Otherwise yeah ignore him for the rest of the day and if we can find a unanimous candidate ignore everything he does as wifom.

Misplaced condescension aside, I find it hard to believe that Epi would be so daring on day 2 as to so obviously play into the mafia's hand against any semblance of logic and ACTUALLY be mafia. I'm not ruling Epi out, as it could be an extremely daring WIFOM.

The way I see Epi so far: He (or she?) made a good (or lucky?) call on day 1 that certainly had me convinced. We lynched what was essentially the serial killer player. But that doesn't make Epi good. As far as we know, Epi was looking for another other than his or her team to lynch. If Scotty's not on Epi's team, then what the fuck does Epi care if Scotty's killed?

On to Mac. Mac was suspicious of Jack before Jack was revealed to be Ted Cruz. Mac sure as hell made sure that was known after that revelation was made. He made attempts to portray himself as a "known civ" until people called him out. Mac, why'd you back off from that? Then when the day 1 vote comes around, he votes the same way as Quin, Llama, and Dfaraday (who ya'll were ABOUT to lynch last time I checked). That vote was for me. Mac voted without any explanation, and seemingly as a joke; as if it didn't matter who got lynched. Then Epi starts arguing with me about the inane idea of keeping Jack alive so we can figure out who the other bad guys are when we KNOW we can get rid of one and Mac jumps right the fuck on board with that idea.

I'm not sure what to think about Epi. Maybe Epi's guilty as shit; maybe not. But Mac hasn't hesitated to take advantage of opportunity.

Sorry for not answering a few points earlier. At 6:30 pm (just as dinner was almost finished cooking) my five-year-old threw up in stunning fashion, leaving her mark in three rooms and a hallway. I'll be calling an upholstery cleaner tomorrow about deodorizing the couch cushions.

S~V~S wrote:Are the dead allowed to vote in night polls?

Hillary Points may be earned by any player, dead or alive, throughout the course of the game. +1 Hillary Point for asking an important question related to Hillary Points.

Epignosis wrote:Self-voting is illegal though, so I don't know how that would've played out.

Self-voting is indeed illegal. Violating that rule would result in the self-vote being disregarded in the official tally. Breaking the rules will also result in the loss of all of the offender's Hillary Points.

G-Man wrote:Sorry for not answering a few points earlier. At 6:30 pm (just as dinner was almost finished cooking) my five-year-old threw up in stunning fashion, leaving her mark in three rooms and a hallway. I'll be calling an upholstery cleaner tomorrow about deodorizing the couch cushions.

S~V~S wrote:Are the dead allowed to vote in night polls?

Hillary Points may be earned by any player, dead or alive, throughout the course of the game. +1 Hillary Point for asking an important question related to Hillary Points.

Epignosis wrote:Self-voting is illegal though, so I don't know how that would've played out.

Self-voting is indeed illegal. Violating that rule would result in the self-vote being disregarded in the official tally. Breaking the rules will also result in the loss of all of the offender's Hillary Points.

What if the offender has negative Hillary Points?

Epignosis wrote:Who was the phoniest of the S~V~S voters?

This is what I want to look at as well. I thought the SVS wagon was a mistake, and invited opportunism. I have no doubt that baddies lurk on it.

Marmot wrote:Mac's like your regular Conservative, making things far bigger than they need to be.

Disclaimer: I'm just trying to get Hillary points, I don't actually think this way about Conservatives, and think they're wonderful people.

Us Republicans are all nice and definitely not serial killers.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Marmot wrote:Mac's like your regular Conservative, making things far bigger than they need to be.

Disclaimer: I'm just trying to get Hillary points, I don't actually think this way about Conservatives, and think they're wonderful people.

Us Republicans are all nice and definitely not serial killers.

Quiet, you.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I just want to be clear I had no intention of changing my vote unless I saw Mac or someone try to make it a tie. I was married to the idea of S~V~S being bad. Her posts here marked all the boxes for me, and I thought I had this one.

Without her even having a chance to respond to the votes??

That's right. You voted for her as well. Why the double question marks?

Because I didn't intend to lynch her without giving her a chance to respond, that was a careless oversight on my part. Not an oversight on yours, apparently. She deserved better.

"Politics isn't about what people deserve." -thellama73

Others could have moved their votes if they wished. They didn't. For my own part, I watched the poll like a hawk during the last couple of minutes to keep an eye out for any sudden shifts that might result in a tie. I would have changed my vote if it prevented a tie.

I'm not going to participate in a pity party about this. It was a bad lynch, and bad lynches happen all the time. I've been lynched before when I wasn't available to defend myself, and nobody pouted for me. The best I can do now to make it up to S~V~S (or any lynched civilian) is find and lynch the mafia so that she gets a win. So that's what I'm going to do.

I'm not going to bother with excuses about careless oversights either. If you never intended to lynch her, you should not have voted for her.

Sawyer, what was the point of flooding the thread with 12 huge quotes with minimal commentary? Do you really expect anyone to get anything out of that, or are you just trying to look like you are trying?

Epignosis wrote: "Politics isn't about what people deserve." -thellama73

G-Man wrote:Given the site outage, and a very busy day for me, I want to know if you folks prefer sticking with the schedule (night ending in 4 hours) or if would you prefer an extra 24 hours to make up for the lost time. Please let me know.

I prefer the former.

I would prefer to go ahead and end the night.

MacDougall wrote:While I think SVS is Mafia and ordinarily would vote for her I KNOW Jack is and voting for him today seems a better idea to me. Cool we managed to find a great day 3 lynch candidate already but how can we truly justify lynching SVS before Jack?

MacDougall wrote:How is that suspicious? Also answer my question. You aren't even a civ read of mine so I'm super interested in how you can justify your wagon creation here as well as this arrogant single smiley post response to a very fair question. The vote is too close now to not lynch Jack.

MacDougall wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Lynching the known badder today does nothing for us though. We shoulda lynched DF instead.

It does nothing? Except remove a bad guy and prevent the chance of mislynching a civ for another full night and day phase. You know like the ideal outcome of a day.

I just finished my catch-up and I thought Mac had flip-flopped here, but then I realized it was actually Wilgy who was jumping on board the "let's not lynch the bad guy" train. If you scroll up to the post where I had the wall of quotes, you'll see ones from Wilgy in there. In my alcohol-soaked fervor I mistakenly thought those were Mac even though they were Wilgy.

I still find Mac suspicious for the other reasons I mentioned, but he has earned some points in my book for actually wanting to lynch a baddie.

thellama73 wrote:Sawyer, what was the point of flooding the thread with 12 huge quotes with minimal commentary? Do you really expect anyone to get anything out of that, or are you just trying to look like you are trying?

I was pretty pissed about SVS getting lynched and pretty tipsy before I logged in. Now that I've read why SVS was lynched, I get it. I would've considered voting for her on day 3. However, it does not make any sense that it happened on day 2.

Also, your questions here are quite misleading and your accusatory tone is quite suspicious. Instead of discussing any of the actual content, you criticize me in general. Is it annoying that I quoted all of that without trimming it down? Yes. Do I need to explain everything when it's safe to assume everyone here can read? No.

End the night.

Voted for his wife because Hillary points are awesome.

thellama73 wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Marmot wrote:Mac's like your regular Conservative, making things far bigger than they need to be.

Disclaimer: I'm just trying to get Hillary points, I don't actually think this way about Conservatives, and think they're wonderful people.

Us Republicans are all nice and definitely not serial killers.

Quiet, you.