The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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


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


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

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

Yes.

Black Rock wrote:There will be 4 by days end. We are just waiting on something before the recruits will be officially told.

Black Rock wrote:

Public Recruitment

The roles on the front page are lacking in pictures. Please send the hosts a picture of your role. Ubzargan will choose the best picture to join his team.

You have until tomorrow at 11am EST

Is this compulsory?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

1) I've already stated my feelings on llama, especially in regards to Bubbles, quite a bit. So I won't repeat myself there.

2) Probably MP if I had to pick anyone else right now. I feel like he started going after unfurl mostly because of how she was playing the game. Seemed to me like a quick jump from "You need to post more" to "You're my highest suspect now and I might vote for you". Although maybe he read her response differently than I did, given he feels she's contributed without really contributing anything.

I don't feel like I've fully absorbed the Epig vs. Golden stuff yet. Either that or I don't get it. Although I'd like to hear more from Epig on his case against Golden before I decide on that one.

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Public Recruitment

The roles on the front page are lacking in pictures. Please send the hosts a picture of your role. Ubzargan will choose the best picture to join his team.

You have until tomorrow at 11am EST

Is this compulsory?

No, you can choose to enter a contest or you can choose to be alone.

By the way, I've caught up on all of rico's llama suspicions and the talk around it and I have to say - I see no reason to take rico's suspicions of llama as anything but genuine, and it does make me think twice about MP because - MP - why dismiss Rico's suspicion as only able to be genuine if he is biased? I thought he was making pretty decent points (albeit that I agree with you that I don't find llama suspicious for it).

unfurl wrote: 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

I voted for unfurl the moment I read this, but I'm still in the process of learning what I can about this site and it's players. I generally don't involve myself to heavily day one, but I am willing to vote for someone who posts as if they are wanting to appear while not contributing anything. From what I've experienced, players like that do nothing but make the game harder to solve. I'd take someone who doesn't speak at all over someone who speaks too much while saying nothing.

Now, to address how I would recruit... (and yes, do make a chart, I enjoy charts)

If I were to recruit as a baddie and had the free options to recruit whomever, my recruits would be solely for mindgames. An example of this would be, if I were TinyBubbles and recruiting another player I would recruit would be Llama. I would pick the players that would cause the most confusion and chaos, even if it meant recruiting some players only to sacrifice them.

If I were to recruit as a civvie and had the free options to recruit whomever, my recruits would be players that are very much active in the thread, and are known for strong civ play.

*Stands up from his chair and starts some slow music* Now Unfurl, will you take my hand and join me in this dance?

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Public Recruitment

The roles on the front page are lacking in pictures. Please send the hosts a picture of your role. Ubzargan will choose the best picture to join his team.

You have until tomorrow at 11am EST

Is this compulsory?

No, you can choose to enter a contest or you can choose to be alone.

Yeah, but it's a contest for a baddie recruitement.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:What I'm most interested in is that some people have been already willing to put their hand up and say 'I haven't been recruited yet'. I'm not sure what to make of that. Obviously it turned out to be true in this case (assuming they are not one of the four leaders) but why say it? Are they setting themselves up for a lie later? What has been the general philosophy in saying something like that in the game? I don't really understand why you would do that?

Given that it seems confirmed that nobody can know yet whether they've been recruited, I find this set of questions curious. How do you suppose this behavior would facilitate a "lie later" for those who made relevant comments?

"Still not recruited"

"Still not recruited"

Is it necessary for this initial statement of "I've not been recruited" to exist for the later hypothetical statements of "I've still not been recruited" to take place? I'm not sure I follow your mindset here.

Not necessary, but surely it makes later statements less likely to raise eyebrows.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:*gets lynched for asking questions*

Lynchlynch Jimmy.

Are you that white rapper, Vanilla Lynch?

Golden wrote:By the way, I've caught up on all of rico's llama suspicions and the talk around it and I have to say - I see no reason to take rico's suspicions of llama as anything but genuine, and it does make me think twice about MP because - MP - why dismiss Rico's suspicion as only able to be genuine if he is biased? I thought he was making pretty decent points (albeit that I agree with you that I don't find llama suspicious for it).

I think MP was saying the suspicion is not genuine because I may be biased.

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I like bea's post was insightful and it put BWT on my radar as a candidate for a vote.

Also, as of where I'm up to in catching up, I think MP is looking pretty good to me, although I disagree with his views on unfurl.

I disagreed with his unfurl suspicions as well. I know her very well I have been playing mafia with her since my first game. For that matter so have you. It all read very unfurl-ish to me.

Linky - Golden gtfo of my head!

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:By the way, I've caught up on all of rico's llama suspicions and the talk around it and I have to say - I see no reason to take rico's suspicions of llama as anything but genuine, and it does make me think twice about MP because - MP - why dismiss Rico's suspicion as only able to be genuine if he is biased? I thought he was making pretty decent points (albeit that I agree with you that I don't find llama suspicious for it).

I think MP was saying the suspicion is not genuine because I may be biased.

I called bullshit on his read of your post way back ^^up there somehere.

BR, new color is perfect, thanks!
About the recruitment contest: Won't Ubzargan basically be able to choose which role to recruit, then? Even if they're not labeled he'll probably be able to guess from the pictures and handpick a juicy role for his team.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'd recommend people who are overwhelmed by the content or pace set the forum to display 100 posts per page. It really helps me to view everything in a legible chain and the number of pages is obviously less daunting -- even if the number of posts is the same either way.

Honestly it's the opposite for me -- I like having lots of short pages to scroll through (I have 20 ppp) since it seems quicker if I'm moving through pages faster. Idk, maybe I'm just weird.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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"

Yes, that should have been in pedantic pink, I encourage everyone to use it appropriately

But a more accurate statement of what I mean to imply is that "I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but the concept of SVS having played previous recruitment games and potentially having her view informed by that (whether recruiter or otherwise) was not a factor in me asking her."

Turnip Head wrote: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.

They were told to name three. I'm assuming they each got one of those three.

I'm only up to end of page 16, but a thought for you all to talk about until I have caught up.

DH is bad, and was already bad on day 0? Discuss.

I like JaggedJimmyJay's idea. I don't think it'll help with the Day 1 lynch, but i've enjoyed reading the responses.
My three recruits would be aapje, Typhoony and SVS. Regardless of alignment.

Poor unfurl. It always sucks to get the 1st vote on the 1st Day I agree with Golden and Roxy - I saw nothing un-unfurly (furly..?) in her interactions with MP.

I don't mind going with a low poster if there are no other solid leads.

Also, this post has been written using default-#E6E6E6. I encourage everyone to try it out

Sure I'll look at DH. Why not.

I already talked a little about his disinterest in the Day 0 vote as being mildly suspicious (by the low standards of Day 0). I'll move on to the content that followed:

DharmaHelper wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:DH, I will not address any of that adverb nonsense unless you have something you specifically want me to address. That's how I normally talk.

I hate that adverb shit I'm just pointing out yours to see if any of the people who drink that fucked up Kool Aid will attack you for it or not.

This is a curious approach. I am brought to wonder how DH would have responded to any player who "drank the Kool Aid" after this post with regards to adverb-based suspicion. I actually think DH's behavior here inherently reduced the likelihood of anyone actually employing Adverb Theory in a serious way, making both this post and the preceding post in which he pointed out MP's adverbs essentially fruitless. I am also not sure why a neutral player employing a town mindset would be inclined to reveal the intent behind his own strategy before it could even develop into something.

DharmaHelper wrote:Adverb theory is so dumb, anyone who takes it seriously should punch themselves in the face.

I don't think it's useful either, but I should also note that a number of your early posts were adverb-centric. That represents a strange contradiction at worst or filler posts at best.

One thing I will say slightly in DH's favor is that his apathetic approach to the Day 0 vote bears out pretty consistently in his Day 0 content. There were no serious attempts in his Day 0 posts to garner significant information by my measure. He seemed to take the day off, which isn't necessarily scummy in this context.

DharmaHelper wrote:Im gonna do some readin'

Day 1 hasn't been any better for him though. He's pledged to do some reading. I suspect we'll see more substantive content from him in due time.

~~~

I see minor reasons to have suspicion, but I felt like I was reaching a bit as I typed them in this post. I'll call him more suspicious than the mean, but not a leading candidate for a vote. Whaddya got on him, Golden?

Tranq wrote:I like JaggedJimmyJay's idea. I don't think it'll help with the Day 1 lynch, but i've enjoyed reading the responses.
My three recruits would be aapje, Typhoony and SVS. Regardless of alignment.

Poor unfurl. It always sucks to get the 1st vote on the 1st Day I agree with Golden and Roxy - I saw nothing un-unfurly (furly..?) in her interactions with MP.

I don't mind going with a low poster if there are no other solid leads.

Also, this post has been written using default-#E6E6E6. I encourage everyone to try it out

Could you say why you'd pick those players specifically? The stated motive is what I'm tracking, though this post might make for nice reference material later.

So far I've only tracked the answers that followed my initial proposal; I am sure some player(s) stated motivations prior to that. I'd ask that they restate for the sake of clarity. Obviously these aren't the exact terms people used. I reduced them to single words that I thought were representative of their responses which could be quantified reliably.

I don't think this should be considered important within the context of discussing who will be lynched. I have other reasons for caring about this and you may too.



I'd appreciate it if y'all would share your hypothetical motivations for recruiting whoever you would recruit if you were a recruiter in this game if you haven't already.

NOTE: I acknowledge that it is important that some recruitments might not be entirely under the control of the recruiters.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Could you say why you'd pick those players specifically? The stated motive is what I'm tracking, though this post might make for nice reference material later.

Got em! JJJ is obviously a baddie tracker

I do hope I am color coding everything appropriately. A question for anyone, on average how long does it take before players start putting in their votes? Is the fact that I voted first when I did unsettling to anybody? If so, then why?

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

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

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

Black Rock wrote:
This?

Hail Holy Queen.


TBH, I think Llama is being Llama. His attack on Tiny Bubbles-- to me-- seems fruitless, but I don't think it's characteristic of him being bad. I also almost expected this kind of reaction from Ricochet. So...


I have no idea who i would want to vote for.

JJJ, do you think your spreadsheet there will have merit in finding links amongst people? That assumes that all recruitments are by choice and we find a recruiter.

DrWilgy wrote:I do hope I am color coding everything appropriately. A question for anyone, on average how long does it take before players start putting in their votes? Is the fact that I voted first when I did unsettling to anybody? If so, then why?

Everyone seems to have their own preferences about when it is most appropriate to place a vote. I prefer to wait as long as I can when there are no vote changes allowed (as I believe is the case in this game?), and I know many others are the same way. Some people are less concerned with waiting and just throw one down whenever they feel like it.

Are you unsettled by the possibility of someone being unsettled by the timing of your vote?

Dom wrote:JJJ, do you think your spreadsheet there will have merit in finding links amongst people? That assumes that all recruitments are by choice and we find a recruiter.

I am acting under the assumption that at least some of the recruitments are by choice. If none of them are, then the spreadsheet is probably worthless. If the former is accurate, then I do believe there might be some potential for the information to serve a real purpose as a component of later analytic compilations and perhaps the forming of specific recruiter/recruitee-hunting strategies.

I'm done most of what I wanted to do today, problem is I have no time to really dig into the thread, I'll keep catching up and reading, and hopefully have more to say later tomorrow.

I'd pick people that would enrich my game experience.

For me that would mean enjoyable BTSC as a top requirement honestly. You can be shit at the game for all I care, if you're fun in BTSC and you're trying to be good at the game, you're more than welcome.
A shortlist of three would probably be aapje/SVS/Tranq. Which is weird looking at Tranqs list. Nub Tranq.

Of your list JJJ, I don't care at all about reputation, WIFOM or UTR.

Day 0 recruits usually are the only recruits leaders get to hand-pick, and only one of them gets recruited. There'd be no point in selecting 1 player you're familiar with, 1 you haven't played with before, and 1 you have an ongoing rivalry with, for example.

So to answer JaggedJimmyJay specifically: these are three players i've played before with, i know they have the skill and experience, and i know we usually have fun together. Although i wouldn't call aapje likable

linki no u

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Are you unsettled by the possibility of someone being unsettled by the timing of your vote?

I am, it is quite unsettling, the possibility of someone being unsettled by the timing of my vote, but what is worse is the unsettling caused by this conversation about the state of unsettlement.

No, not really. Just making sure I don't go around committing taboos. I would look at older games to learn more if I had time, hopefully I can do so when my schedule clears up.

Dom wrote:

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

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

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Roxy wrote:

I will not be voting for Roxy today.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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.

My precise stance on llama is pretty much the same as it always is. He can tell you, I am sure, but I don't recall the last time I voted for him when i was a civ. I think Llama plays Mafia for his own amusement, and I am not sure that even he believes that all of the silly, nitpicky reasons he suspects people are true. TBH, I am fairly sure that much of the time he does not. I visualize him saying some of the things he posts out loud, as he drinks his picture perfect scotch on the rocks, and giggling at us silly plebians.

I think that this makes Llama a hard read, but I also think that when he is civ, a bit more of an indignant tone creeps into his defenses (because Llama is always having to defend himself). When he's bad, he sounds a touch more ironic. His suspicions are somewhat more serious when he's bad as well. I have seen a tad more indignant here than irony; I do not think that at the time he said any of that Tiny Bubbles stuff that he was bad, and after him asking to be recruited by the baddies, I don't think he was recruited by the baddies, lol.

Is that specific enough? I am not sure I like to talk as much as you do, but I can go on when I try

I have just done a skim catch up, this is the furthest back I have gone. I will do more in depth after dinner.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

unfurl wrote: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

Hey I can dig it. I kind of do my own thing too, I suppose. We all have our unique styles and we play to them as our whims direct. But I must state: the post I referenced before truly did trouble me. It bore the appearance of something literally torn from the Baddie Code of Conduct -- commentary relevant to the game that does not go anywhere or progress any thought process.

For the moment my vote is on you in spirit. But do not despair; this is your opportunity to change my mind.

A lot people always think Im bad because of how I talk/post, nothing new there for me, when people get to know me, then they usually are more open minded before judging me

DrWilgy wrote: I voted for unfurl the moment I read this, but I'm still in the process of learning what I can about this site and it's players. I generally don't involve myself to heavily day one, but I am willing to vote for someone who posts as if they are wanting to appear while not contributing anything. From what I've experienced, players like that do nothing but make the game harder to solve. I'd take someone who doesn't speak at all over someone who speaks too much while saying nothing.

wow that was an early vote

Tranq wrote:
Poor unfurl. It always sucks to get the 1st vote on the 1st Day I agree with Golden and Roxy - I saw nothing un-unfurly (furly..?) in her interactions with MP.

Hey Tranq! good to see you, I am almost blind after reading that

---
As for the discussion if I was a recruiter who I would recruit, I think Fun-likeable people win my heart, and everyone is smart/skilled player in their own way

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:*gets lynched for asking questions*

Lynchlynch Jimmy.

Are you that white rapper, Vanilla Lynch?

No, but I did sing Roll the Bones at the wedding.

Tranq wrote:My three recruits would be aapje, Typhoony and SVS. Regardless of alignment.

Typhoony wrote:I'd pick people that would enrich my game experience.

For me that would mean enjoyable BTSC as a top requirement honestly. You can be shit at the game for all I care, if you're fun in BTSC and you're trying to be good at the game, you're more than welcome.
A shortlist of three would probably be aapje/SVS/Tranq. Which is weird looking at Tranqs list. Nub Tranq.

So why have neither of you nubs recruited me yet? I remember having fun blatantly defending each other that one time we did end up on the same team

Tranq wrote:So to answer JaggedJimmyJay specifically: these are three players i've played before with, i know they have the skill and experience, and i know we usually have fun together. Although i wouldn't call aapje likable

I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:So far I've only tracked the answers that followed my initial proposal; I am sure some player(s) stated motivations prior to that. I'd ask that they restate for the sake of clarity. Obviously these aren't the exact terms people used. I reduced them to single words that I thought were representative of their responses which could be quantified reliably.

I don't think this should be considered important within the context of discussing who will be lynched. I have other reasons for caring about this and you may too.



I'd appreciate it if y'all would share your hypothetical motivations for recruiting whoever you would recruit if you were a recruiter in this game if you haven't already.

NOTE: I acknowledge that it is important that some recruitments might not be entirely under the control of the recruiters.

I'd think you could add me and SVS since it was our conversation which prompted you to ask.

I've caught up, my next job is to say what I saw with DH - but JJ you have already vaguely cottoned on I think.

Canucklehead wrote:I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

I will not be voting for Canucklehead today.

In the mean time, BWT continues to ping me more and more - take these two posts...
I didn't like this one in the first place. I'm always worried when someone says 'I didn't see the suspicion on x before, but this one minor point has me seeing it'. That is a specific form of flip-floppiness that I find common amongst mafia.

Then:
Which I feel doesn't follow through the earlier post at all, feels like there is a disconnect here indicative of not having fully formed thought processes and genuine opinions sitting behind the statements made.

I'm feeling fairly comfortable with a BWT vote right now.

Black Rock wrote:Here I was starting to get worried that you lost your touch.

Thanks for answering (some of) these
Some questions you missed and follow-up questions:
Does the Apprentice know the effect of their potions?
Can the Warden absorb (and subsequently use) more than 1 power at once?
What happens if someone tries to target the Ranger while he is untargetable? Will the power fail or is it redirected? Will they be told?

Black Rock wrote:Dragons are fiery, dangerous creatures of mythology. They usually breath fire and eat people. I wonder what could possibly irritate a dragon?

Questions?

Golden wrote:In the mean time, BWT continues to ping me more and more - take these two posts...

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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"

Or, if you're on the side of the fence of trying to catch potential recruiters for slip-ups or tiny mistakes, the wording in Golden's initial sentence would seem to fit that bill.

I hadn't really seen the early suspicion on Golden before, but after the way you've worded your statement, I can see it now.

I didn't like this one in the first place. I'm always worried when someone says 'I didn't see the suspicion on x before, but this one minor point has me seeing it'. That is a specific form of flip-floppiness that I find common amongst mafia.

Then:

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

1) I've already stated my feelings on llama, especially in regards to Bubbles, quite a bit. So I won't repeat myself there.

2) Probably MP if I had to pick anyone else right now. I feel like he started going after unfurl mostly because of how she was playing the game. Seemed to me like a quick jump from "You need to post more" to "You're my highest suspect now and I might vote for you". Although maybe he read her response differently than I did, given he feels she's contributed without really contributing anything.

I don't feel like I've fully absorbed the Epig vs. Golden stuff yet. Either that or I don't get it. Although I'd like to hear more from Epig on his case against Golden before I decide on that one.

Which I feel doesn't follow through the earlier post at all, feels like there is a disconnect here indicative of not having fully formed thought processes and genuine opinions sitting behind the statements made.

I'm feeling fairly comfortable with a BWT vote right now.

Do you think he is a recruiter?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:In the mean time, BWT continues to ping me more and more - take these two posts...

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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"

Or, if you're on the side of the fence of trying to catch potential recruiters for slip-ups or tiny mistakes, the wording in Golden's initial sentence would seem to fit that bill.

I hadn't really seen the early suspicion on Golden before, but after the way you've worded your statement, I can see it now.

I didn't like this one in the first place. I'm always worried when someone says 'I didn't see the suspicion on x before, but this one minor point has me seeing it'. That is a specific form of flip-floppiness that I find common amongst mafia.

Then:

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

1) I've already stated my feelings on llama, especially in regards to Bubbles, quite a bit. So I won't repeat myself there.

2) Probably MP if I had to pick anyone else right now. I feel like he started going after unfurl mostly because of how she was playing the game. Seemed to me like a quick jump from "You need to post more" to "You're my highest suspect now and I might vote for you". Although maybe he read her response differently than I did, given he feels she's contributed without really contributing anything.

I don't feel like I've fully absorbed the Epig vs. Golden stuff yet. Either that or I don't get it. Although I'd like to hear more from Epig on his case against Golden before I decide on that one.

Which I feel doesn't follow through the earlier post at all, feels like there is a disconnect here indicative of not having fully formed thought processes and genuine opinions sitting behind the statements made.

I'm feeling fairly comfortable with a BWT vote right now.

Do you think he is a recruiter?

I don't have any particular sense of whether or not recruiter or recruitee would be more likely.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:In the mean time, BWT continues to ping me more and more - take these two posts...

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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"

Or, if you're on the side of the fence of trying to catch potential recruiters for slip-ups or tiny mistakes, the wording in Golden's initial sentence would seem to fit that bill.

I hadn't really seen the early suspicion on Golden before, but after the way you've worded your statement, I can see it now.

I didn't like this one in the first place. I'm always worried when someone says 'I didn't see the suspicion on x before, but this one minor point has me seeing it'. That is a specific form of flip-floppiness that I find common amongst mafia.

Then:

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

1) I've already stated my feelings on llama, especially in regards to Bubbles, quite a bit. So I won't repeat myself there.

2) Probably MP if I had to pick anyone else right now. I feel like he started going after unfurl mostly because of how she was playing the game. Seemed to me like a quick jump from "You need to post more" to "You're my highest suspect now and I might vote for you". Although maybe he read her response differently than I did, given he feels she's contributed without really contributing anything.

I don't feel like I've fully absorbed the Epig vs. Golden stuff yet. Either that or I don't get it. Although I'd like to hear more from Epig on his case against Golden before I decide on that one.

Which I feel doesn't follow through the earlier post at all, feels like there is a disconnect here indicative of not having fully formed thought processes and genuine opinions sitting behind the statements made.

I'm feeling fairly comfortable with a BWT vote right now.

Do you think he is a recruiter?

I don't have any particular sense of whether or not recruiter or recruitee would be more likely.

Which would you rather lynch today?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:In the mean time, BWT continues to ping me more and more - take these two posts...

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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"

Or, if you're on the side of the fence of trying to catch potential recruiters for slip-ups or tiny mistakes, the wording in Golden's initial sentence would seem to fit that bill.

I hadn't really seen the early suspicion on Golden before, but after the way you've worded your statement, I can see it now.

I didn't like this one in the first place. I'm always worried when someone says 'I didn't see the suspicion on x before, but this one minor point has me seeing it'. That is a specific form of flip-floppiness that I find common amongst mafia.

Then:

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

1) I've already stated my feelings on llama, especially in regards to Bubbles, quite a bit. So I won't repeat myself there.

2) Probably MP if I had to pick anyone else right now. I feel like he started going after unfurl mostly because of how she was playing the game. Seemed to me like a quick jump from "You need to post more" to "You're my highest suspect now and I might vote for you". Although maybe he read her response differently than I did, given he feels she's contributed without really contributing anything.

I don't feel like I've fully absorbed the Epig vs. Golden stuff yet. Either that or I don't get it. Although I'd like to hear more from Epig on his case against Golden before I decide on that one.

Which I feel doesn't follow through the earlier post at all, feels like there is a disconnect here indicative of not having fully formed thought processes and genuine opinions sitting behind the statements made.

I'm feeling fairly comfortable with a BWT vote right now.

Do you think he is a recruiter?

I don't have any particular sense of whether or not recruiter or recruitee would be more likely.

Which would you rather lynch today?

Recruiter seems more obviously beneficial, assuming that it means that the relevant team can no longer recruit.

Successfully identifying a baddie at this stage would give a 50% shot of it being a recruiter.

How would you answer those two questions, MM?

Canucklehead wrote:I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

Golden wrote:How would you answer those two questions, MM?

I think he is not a recruiter, because a recruiter may want to appear blendy (or at least match their own meta).

I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

aapje wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

It appears everyone who starts with the letter T is invited.

MP, let's form a pact since we are the only M-players in this game. I will not be voting for MP today.

EBWOP: Not everyone. I meant only players whose name starts with T.